Most if not all explanatory models of reality rely to some extent on ones imagination because they use unobservable quantities to support them.
For example Einstein used the concept of a space-time dimension to define gravity.  However no one has ever directly observed a space-time dimension.

Similarly quantum mechanics describes the interactions of particles in terms of the mathematical probabilities associated with a wavefunction which like a space-time dimension is also unobservable.

In other words both of these theories have imagination as a core component of their explanatory structure.

However there is distinct difference in how they apply it to the environment they are attempting to explain.

For example Einstein in his the “General Theory of Relativity” uses imagination and mathematics to expand a curvature in our observable three-dimension environment to define a four-dimensional space-time universe.

In other words even though its explanatory mechanism is based the existence of a space-time dimension that can only exist in our imagination he was able by using Riemannian geometry mathematically connect to our observable environment.

Similarly Quantum mechanics also uses imagination and mathematics to very accurately describe the particle interaction based on probabilities.

But unlike Relativity it uses a mathematical construct know as the wavefunction to describe the mechanism responsible for the future position of a particle which has no counterpart in our observable environment.

As Steven Weinberg mentioned in his book “Dreams of a Final Theory” the reason this difference in methodology is important is because mathematics in itself is never the explanation of anything because it is only the means by which we use one set of facts to explain another. This is true even though it may be the only the language in which we express them.  In other words mathematics should not be used to justify the mathematics of an explanatory model.

However as was just mentioned quantum mechanics uses the mathematics associated with a wavefunction to explain the mathematical mechanism it assumes is responsible for particle interaction.

Why then when mathematics in itself is never the explanation of anything do so many tell us that the mathematical properties of a wavefunction explain the quantum environment.

They do so because to this date it is the only way available to explain and predict how, among many other things chemical process occur and why the particles that were present in the Big Bang, evolved to create the universe we live in even though its entire theoretical structure is based purely on the imagination of those who developed it.

Some may question using the term imagination to describe the mathematical properties of the wavefunction.  However its definition of “being the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses” is applicable to them.

This is true even though science can use its abstract mathematical properties to accurately predict the evolution of particle system.

However as we have shown throughout the The Road to Unification there may be more to the wavefunction than just mathematics.  In other words by using the imagination one may be able to explain or expand the abstract mathematical properties of the wavefunction to the observable properties of our environment similar to how Einstein was able to expand a curvature in our observable three-dimension environment using Riemannian geometry to define a four-dimensional space-time universe.

For example in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown one can understand how and why energy/mass is quantized in terms of the observable properties of resonant systems in our three dimensional environment.

Other articles like “Quantum entanglement: a classical explanation” July 15, 2015 clearly shows that the “spooky action at a distance, as Einstein called it can be explained in terms of the laws of classical causality. In other words it is merely an illusion resulting from a lack of understanding of a classic physicality of a quantum environment

Many of the 250 articles published in the The Road to Unification over the past nine years show that one can apply the classical laws of our observable environment to a quantum one to explain hoe the mathematical properties of the wavefunction physically describe how particles interact.

Imagination as was mentioned earlier is a critical component of all modern theoretical models of physics.  But we must not allow it to be only the only one because it can result in defining an environment that does not describe the reality we are attempting to define.

In other words similar to how Einstein was able to expand a curvature in our observable three-dimension environment to define a four-dimensional space-time universe one must, as we have tried to do make an effort to expand the physical properties of our observable environment to explain the world of quantum mechanics and the wavefunction that defines its environment.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2016

The universe’s most powerful enabling tool is not
knowledge or understanding but imagination
because it extends the reality of one’s environment.
However its scientific effectiveness is closely
related to how strongly it is
anchored in the reality it defines.

The post Should we allow imagination to define physics? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Einstein referred to this as “spooky action at a distance” because it assumed that particles can interact instantaneously, regardless of distance separating them which according to his perception of reality this was not possible.
However if one accepts the reality of the space-time universe defined by Einstein one would realize that according the core principals of his theories there is nothing spooky about action at distance relative to an observers velocity. 

Even so he was so convince that he co-authored a paper with Podolsky–Rosen whose intent was to show that if Quantum Mechanics was a valid theory it could not be complete because it does not agree with most people’s perception of reality. The first thing to notice is that Einstein was not trying to disprove Quantum Mechanics in any way. In fact, he was well aware of its power to predict the outcomes of various experiments. What he was trying to show was that there must be a “hidden variable” that would allow Quantum Mechanics to become a complete theory of nature

The argument begins by assuming that there are two systems, A and B (which might be two free particles), whose wave functions are known. Then, if A and B interact for a short period of time, one can determine the wave function which results after this interaction via the Schrödinger equation or some other Quantum Mechanical equation of state. Now, let us assume that A and B move far apart, so far apart that they can no longer interact in any fashion. In other words, A and B have moved outside of each other’s light cones and therefore are spacelike separated.

With this situation in mind, Einstein asked the question: what happens if one makes a measurement on system A? Say, for example, one measures the momentum value for it. Then, using the conservation of momentum and our knowledge of the system before the interaction, one can infer the momentum of system B. Thus, by making a momentum measurement of A, one can also measure the momentum of B. Recall now that A and B are spacelike separated, and thus they cannot communicate in any way. This separation means that B must have had the inferred value of momentum not only in the instant after one makes a measurement at A, but also in the few moments before the measurement was made. If, on the other hand, it were the case that the measurement at A had somehow caused B to enter into a particular momentum state, then there would need to be a way for A to signal B and tell it that a measurement took place. However, the two systems cannot communicate in any way!

If one examines the wave function at the moment just before the measurement at A is made, one finds that there is no certainty as to the momentum of B because the combined system is in a superposition of multiple momentum eigenstates of A and B. So, even though system B must be in a definite state before the measurement at A takes place, the wave function description of this system cannot tell us what that momentum is! Therefore, since system B has a definite momentum and since Quantum Mechanics cannot predict this momentum, Quantum Mechanics must be incomplete.

In response to Einstein’s argument about incompleteness of Quantum Mechanics, John Bell derived a mathematical formula that quantified what you would get if you made measurements of the superposition of the multiple momentum eigenstates of two particles. If local realism was correct, the correlation between measurements made on one of the pair and those made on its partner could not exceed a certain amount, because of each particle’s limited influence on the other.

In other words he showed there must exist inequities in the measurements made on pairs of particles that cannot be violated in any world that included both their physical reality and their separability because of the limited influence they can have on each other when they are “spacelike” separated.

When Bell published his theorem in1964 the technology to verify or reject it did not exist. However in the early 1980s, Allen Aspect performed an experiment with polarized photons that showed that the inequities it contained were violated.

This meant that science has to accept that either the reality of our physical world or the concept of entanglement does not exist because they are mutually excessive.

However Einstein himself predicted the entanglement of particles that are moving at the velocity of light no matter how far apart they are in his Special Theory of Relativity because he showed us that  the separability or the distance between two points is dependent on the velocity of the observer with respect to what is being observed.

For example his theory tells the distance between the two objects A and B would be defined by their relative speed with respect to an observer.

Specifically he told us that it would be defined by

 

However this tell us the distance or length between observations measured between two photons or any particle moving at the speed of light from the perspective a photon would be zero no matter how far those observation might from the perspective of the observers making them because according to the concepts of relativity one could view the photons as being stationary and the observers as moving at the velocity of light.  This is true even if they are moving in opposite directions.

Therefore according to Einstein’s theory all photons which are traveling at the speed of light are physical entangled with all other photons that originated within a common system no matter how far apart or “spacelike” separated they may appear to be to all observers who are not traveling at the speed of light.

In other words inequities in the measurements made on pairs of photons should be violated in a world containing the physical reality of Einstein’s theory and separability because they are not “spacelike” separated when viewed from all reference frames which is not traveling at the speed of light.

This tells us that the hidden variable that would allow Quantum Mechanics to become a complete theory of nature is Einstein Theory of Relativity or the Relativistic properties of motion.

Additionally if quantum entanglement did not occur for photons that were space like separated then the physical reality of Einstein space-time universe as defined by his theory of Relativity must be discarded

One method for determining if this is the reason why Allen Aspect observed polarized photons violated Bells inequities would be to see if they are also violated by particles that were traveling slower that the speed of light because they would according to the Theory of Relativity could be “spacelike” separated.

In others words if it was observed that particles which were not traveling at the speed of light did not violate Bell’s inequity then it would support Einstein perception of reality and provide a physical verification for the causality in terms of the existence of space-time for one of the most puzzling aspects of quantum mechanics; that of quantum entanglement.

However if it is found that bell’s inequity is violated by particles moving slower than the speed of light then Einstein’s perception of reality would be invalidated because it demands that things which are “spacelike” separated can only have a limited influence one each other.

Yet one must be careful when performing the calculations because the distance separating the particles would not be determined by the distance between the end points as viewed by the experimenter but by relativistic distance as viewed from the particles,

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2016

The post Did Einstein predict Quantum Entanglement in 1905? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

When the Copenhagen interpretation was first introduced Neils Bohr found it was necessary to assume the collapse of wave function to distinguish the quantum from the classical world.  This allowed it to develop without distractions from interpretational worries.  Nevertheless since then that it meaning has be hotly debated because if it is a fundamental properties of nature as many have assumed it would contradict the classical or Newton assumption that the world is deterministic.
However the science of physics is devoted to understanding the physical process responsible for creating the “reality” of our observable environment based on observing the physical interaction of its real not imagined components.

One of the reason it has been so difficult to understand what happens to the position component of a quantum system when it is observed may be because too much attention has been focused on the mathematical aspects of the wave function and not enough on its physical meaning in a space-time environment.  This is made even more difficult because the concept of superposition is defined in terms of the spatial properties of a quantum system instead of its space-time properties.

This suggest one be able to obtain a better understanding of what happens to it if one could view it in terms its spatial instead of it time or space-time properties.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he use the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because it provided a method of converting a unit of time he associated with energy to unit of space associate with position. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

The fact that one can use Einsteinâ€s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the curvature in space-time he associated with energy in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However defining the dimensional properties of quantum system in terms of its spatial instead of its time components would allow one to derive the physicality of the wave functioned associated with Schrödingerâ€s equation by extrapolating the observable properties of our reality to the quantum world it describes.

For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 showed one can derive its physicality by extrapolating the laws of classical wave mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to  a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established space.

Therefore, these oscillations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment. 

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with it fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

Hence, these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy associated with the quantum mechanical systems.

(In the article “The geometry of quarks” Mar. 15, 2009 the internal structure of quarks, a fundament component of particles was derived in terms of a similar resonant interaction between three and four dimensional space.)

However assuming its energy is result of a displacement in four *spatial* dimension instead of four dimensional space-time as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 allows one to not only derive the physicality of Schrödingerâ€s equation as was just done but also the physical reason why its particle components would be in superpositioned state before an observation is made.

Classical mechanics tell us that because of the continuous properties of waves, the energy the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” associated with a quantum system would be distributed throughout the entire “surface” a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension similar to how the wave generated by a vibrating ball on a surface of a rubber diaphragm are disturbed over its entire surface while the magnitude of the displacement it causes will decrease as one moves away from the point of contact.

However, this means if one extrapolates the mechanics of the rubber diaphragm to a “surface” of three-dimensional space one must assume the oscillations associated with each individual quantum system must be disturbed thought the entire universe while the spatial displacement associated with its energy defined in the in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 would decrease as one moves away from its position.  This means there would be a non-zero probability they could be found anywhere in our three-dimensional environment because, as mentioned earlier the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” shows that a quantum mechanical system is a result of a resonant structure formed by the oscillations on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Classical Wave Mechanics tells us a resonance would most probably occur on the surface of the rubber sheet were the magnitude of the vibrations is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point,

Similarly an observer would most probably find a quantum system were the magnitude of the vibrations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point. 

However as mentioned earlier this is exactly what is predicted by Quantum mechanics in that one can define a particle’s exact position or momentum only in terms of the probabilistic values associated with vibrations of its wave function

Additionally this tells us that the wave function does not collapse but its energy is redirected towards the observer and as was shown in the article Why is energy/mass quantized? he would record its redirected energy in term of discrete quantized properties associated with a particle.

As mentioned earlier the science of physics is devoted to understanding the physical process responsible for creating the “reality” of our observable environment based on observing the physical interaction of its real not imagined components.

Yet even though we may never be able to directly observe the fourth *spatial* dimension we can verify its existence by observing the effects it has on our observable three-dimensional environment similar to how Einstein was able to conclude that gravity was a result of a curvature in a space time environment.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015

The post A classical interpretation of the wave function collapse appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

However their are some who wrongly believe that they can build successful theoretical models of our world based imagination or concepts that only exist in their minds.

For example Quantum theory defines existence by extrapolating the probabilities associated with Schrödingerâ€s wave equation and its collapse to define a reality in which particles do not exist until an observation is made.  In other words it assumes the act of observation or measurement causes the wave function to collapse and particles to mysteriously appear as if by magic at a specific point is space.
They justify this assumption because, using that concept of one can predict with amazing precision the results of every experiment involving the quantum world that has ever been devised to test it.

However it does create a problem for most of us who believe that “reality” is something that can be seen and touched because if Schrödingerâ€s wave equation does does not collapse and continues on even after it is observed one must assume that all of the other possible “realities” it defines must also  continue to exist after that observation.  In other word if taken literally all other possible outcome of an observation must have a reality of their own. 

However because physicists have been unable to define mechanism that would cause the Schrödingerâ€s wave equation to collapse some like Hugh Everett imagined a world in which its does not collapse and all of the other possible “realities” are realized in separate universe.  He argues that observing it creates a split in the universe.  In other words, in his world the universe makes copies of itself to account for all possibilities and these duplicates proceed independently in separate universes.  

The most troubling implication of this concept is that your perception of the world as a whole is never real.  In other words he believes we cannot extrapolate the perception of “reality” most of us believe to his world because in his “reality” there are many copies of you in other worlds reading this article at the same time.

However the science of physics is devoted to understanding the physical process responsible for creating the “reality” of our environment based on observing the physical interaction of its real not imagined components.  Real in the sense that they can be physically observed and measured.

As mentioned earlier most of us believe that reality is made up of something we can see and touch. However the existence of the multi universe is not based on that but how the mind interprets the abstract probabilities associated with Schrödingerâ€s wave equation.  Because of this the fundamental component of the Everett’s multi world theory does not have a presents in the physical reality most of us believe in.

But because as mentioned earlier physics is based on observations one would assume the proper way to proceed would be to define the probabilities associated with Schrödingerâ€s equation in terms of the observable properties of our space-time environment instead of using their abstract non-physical mathematical properties to define their reality.

However one of the difficulties faced by scientist in defining the “reality” of a quantum environment is that most look for in terms of it in terms of the properties of space-time.  Unfortunately of time is not something can be seen or touched while that of space is.  Therefore it should be easier to develop a theoretical model if we redefine Einstein space-time model of the universe into its equivalent in four *spatial* dimensions.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when he use the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light to define the geometric properties of space-time because it provided a method of converting a unit of time he associated with energy to unit of space most can physical sense.  Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

The fact that one can use Einsteinâ€s equations to qualitatively and quantitatively redefine the curvature in space-time he associated with energy in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is one bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy can be derived in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

However defining the dimensional properties of energy in terms of its spatial instead of it time components would allow one to derive the physicality of Schrödingerâ€s equation by extrapolating the observable properties of our reality to the quantum world it describes.

For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 showed one can physical derive the quantized wave properties of energy/mass by extrapolating the laws of classical wave mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to  a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions.

The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established space.

Therefore, these oscillations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment. 

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with it fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

Hence, these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy associated with the quantum mechanical systems.

(In the article “The geometry of quarks” Mar. 15, 2009  the internal structure of quarks, a fundament component of particles was derived in terms of a resonant interaction between a continuous energy/mass component of space and the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions)

However assuming its energy is result of a displacement in four *spatial* dimension instead of four dimensional space-time as was done in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 allows one to not only derive the physicality of the wave properties Schrödingerâ€s equation and what happens when it is observed but also the physical reason why one can only determine the probability of where it will be found before an observation is made

Classical mechanics tell us that because of the continuous properties of waves the energy the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” associated with a quantum system would be distributed throughout the entire “surface” a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

For example putting a vibrating or oscillating ball on rubber diaphragm will create a displacement which will be  disturbed over its entire surface while the magnitude of that displacement will decrease as one moves away from the point of contact.

However, this means if one extrapolates the “reality’ of a rubber diaphragm to a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold one must assume the oscillations associated with each individual quantum system must be disturbed thought the entire universe while spatial displacement associated with its energy defined in the in the article “Defining energy?” Nov 27, 2007 would decrease as one move away from its position.  This means there would be a non-zero probability they could be found anywhere in our three-dimensional environment because, as mentioned earlier the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” shown a quantum mechanical system is a result of a resonant structure formed on the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Yet Classical Wave Mechanics tells us a resonance would most probably occur on the surface of the rubber sheet were the magnitude of the vibrations is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point,

Similarly an observer would most probably find a quantum system were the magnitude of the vibrations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold is greatest and would diminish as one move away from that point. 

However as mentioned earlier this is exactly what is predicted by Quantum mechanics in that one can define a particle’s exact position or momentum only in terms of the probabilistic values associated with vibrations of its wave function.

As mentioned earlier the foundation of Hugh Everett multi universe theoretical model is the assumption that observations do not cause the wave function collapse and therefore all the all of possible realties it define exist in other universe.

Yet as was shown above the energy associated with the wave function will be redirected towards the observer at the point of observation and would continue on that path until another observation is made.

In other words one can as was done above extrapolate observations of classical environment to the wave function to show that the act of observation makes the unique reality it defines visible to an observer.

However this means even if one assumes the wave function defines multiple realities as Hugh Everett believes the act of an observing it would result in all of them being combined into one directed towards the observer and NOT towards other worlds.

In others words it is not necessary to assume that universe splits when an observation is made to explain why the wave function behaves the way it does because as was shown above one can understand it based on the existence of a single universe.

As mentioned earlier the science of physics is devoted to understanding  the physical process responsible for creating the “reality” of our observable environment based on observing the physical interaction of its real not imagined components.

It is true the existence of a fourth “spatial” dimension along with the many worlds of Hugh Everett can only exist in our minds or imaginations because we cannot see or touch them.  However as was shown above the explanation provided by existence of four *spatial* dimension is based on the observable properties of our environment while that of the many world in only supported by the unobservable or imagined properties of Schrödingerâ€s wave equation.

As was mentioned earlier imagination is powerful tool for scientists because it allows them to visuals worlds that are beyond their ability to observe.  However to conform to the definition of physics given earler the existence of those worlds cannot be not based entirely on  their imagined properties but must have a foundation in the observable properties of our environment because that is the only way they can be connected to it.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2015

The post The abuse of imagination in Physics appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

Instrumentalists claim that scientific theories are merely useful tools for predicting phenomena instead of true or approximately true descriptions of the physical world while realists hold the view that they should be.

As Richard DeWitt points out in his book “Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science“

“The disagreement between instrumentalists and realists as to what constitutes a valid theory goes back to the beginnings of science. Both agree that an adequate theory must accurately predict and explain the relevant data. However realists require, in addition, that an adequate theory pictures, or models, the way things really are.”

For example to an instrumentalist in Europe between AD 150 and 1500, the question “Are epicycles real?” would not have been an important question to ask because Ptolemyâ€s theory which involve epicycles accurately predicted and explained the observational data relevant to that time, and that is all that is important.

On the other hand, for a realist this question would be important because they are not only are concerned with how accurate a theories predictions are but on establishing the “reality” of the conceptual basis for those predictions.  In other words do epicycles really exist or are they illusion created by the human intellect to explain why Ptolemy’s predictions are accurate.
This issue whether we should require theories to reflect the way things really are, which distinguishes instrumentalists and realists is just as controversial today as it was Ptolemy’s time.

For example even though the quantum mechanics with its “peculiar-looking” wave functions makes excellent predictions of quantum facts should we ask ourselves if it reflects the way things really are or accept it only on the bases that it allows us to make very accurate predictions of quantum phenomena.

This is particularly important because the wave function may be one of the weirdest inventions of the human mind to explain the “reality” of the facts or observations of quantum environment.

Weird because no one has been able to interpret what it tells us in terms of the “reality” we observe around us.

For example the Copenhagen interpretation defines the existence or “reality” of a particle in terms of the mathematical properties of a wave function that is spread out over the entire universe and tells us a particle only appears in a specific place when a conscience observer looks at it. Therefore it assumes the act of measurement or observation creates its physical reality. However because only conscience human beings can be observers it implies that nothing can exist without them being there to observe them.

However because human are made up of particles if one assumes that they exist only after being observed by a human one must also assume that humans evolved out of something that did not exist.

Clearly the Copenhagen explanation deviates from the “reality” of the observable world and the presently accepted laws of physics because up until it came along they told us that something cannot be created out of nothing.

However instrumentalists claim this is not a problem because quantum theory makes extremely accurate predictions of all observed facts regarding a quantum environment however the realist say wait a minute are you telling us that we should accept your explanation of the facts that have no resemblance to the “reality” we see around us.

Who is right?

Both the instrumentalists and realists have created valid arguments to support their positions as to what constitutes a valid theory so how should we decide.

One way to determine which is best suited to the advance our ability to accurately define what we observe in our environment would be to look at the evolutionary history of theoretical science and determine which of these philosophies provide the greatest motivation for scientific progress.

Historically most paradigm shifts in our understanding of our universe has been a result of attempting to understand what we observe in terms of the “reality” of what we see around us.

For example, new discoveries, such as those involving Galileo and the telescope, eventually led to the rejection of the Ptolemyâ€s geocentric model and the adoption of the more observationally corrected heliocentric one based on a new understanding of the “reality” they provided.

However even before Galileo’s observation there were suggestions that something was not right with Ptolemy’s model because no one had ever observed objects spontaneous moving backwards in what is called retrograde motion other than the planets.

This should have and did cause some to question the validity of Ptolemy explanation of planetary motion long before Galileo made his observations. 

Why then did it take almost 1500 years before its validity was rejected by the majority of the scientific community in Europe ?

It may have been because the instrumentalist’s attitude of that period allowed the majority of thinkers at that time to focus primarily on its ability to make accurate predictions of where the planets would be located in the future and not on the mechanism defining how they got there.

In other words because instrumentalism was the predominate philosophy at the time, scientists were able to ignore or marginalize those who questioned the validity of the Ptolemy’s model.

Therefore one could justifiably say that instrumentalists of that period created an atmosphere that caused or gave science the ability not to explore or ignore possible explanations that were more closely agreed with the reality behind those physical observations.

This demonstrates one of the fundamental flaws in the instrumentalist’s philosophy. 

By saying that a theory does not have to represent a true or approximately true descriptions of the physical world gives scientists an excuse not to look for a way explaining the “reality” or attempting to understand what we observe in terms of the mechanistic properties of the world we see around us.

Today the instrumentalist’s attitude towards understanding of reality is alive and well as is demonstrated by the wildly accepted assumptions of quantum mechanics which is based solely on its mathematically predictive ability demonstrates. 

However should we trust abstract mathematics to define our understanding of reality or should we let the “reality” of observations guide our understanding of the mathematics that define it.

History has shown the pitfalls of the instrumentalist’s philosophy or basing a theories validity only on their mathematical ability to make accurate predictions of what we observe.

Later Jeff

copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2012

The post Instrumentalism or realism how should we decide? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.