Aspiring author
Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2024 12:17 pm
Aspiring author
I have spent large portion of my retirement contemplating the reality of our universe and have come to the conclusion that it can be define scientifically based on its observable properties. I joined this group not for comments regarding the mechanism I believe defines it’s but to discuss its philosophical implications to our understanding of our common reality. I have included brief excerpt from one of my books which I hope will engage.
Thank you for your time
Jeffrey O’Callaghan
Defining the Probabilistic World of Quantum Mechanics in Terms of the Determinism Space-time
This question is especially relevant for physicists who struggle on daily basis to define the “reality” of our universe.
Some attempt to define it only on the abstract mathematical analysis of an environment.
For example, Quantum Mechanics describes the "reality" or state of a quantum system in terms of the mathematical probability of finding it in a particular configuration when a measurement is made.
However, describing it in those terms means that each probabilistic outcome of an event can become one in the future. This is why some proponents of Quantum Mechanics assume the universe splits into multiple realities with every measurement.
This also may be one reason why Niels Bohr, the father of Quantum Mechanics said that "If Quantum Mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."
However, others derive it in terms of observable proprieties of our universe.
For example, Isaac Newton derived the laws of gravity by developing a mathematical relationship based on observing the movement of planets and the distance between them. He then derived a mathematical equation, defining a “reality” which could predict their future movements based on observations of their previous movements.
Both the probabilities of Quantum Mechanics and Newton's gravitational laws give valid descriptions of “a reality” because they allow scientists to predict future events with considerable accuracy.
However, the purpose of theoretical physics not only to define and predict what we observe but to explain why we observe what we do.
For example, at the time of their discovery Newton's gravitational laws allowed scientists to make extremely accurate predictions of planetary movements based on their previous movements, but they could not explain why those laws exist.
However, Einstein defined a different “reality” that not only could explain why they those laws existed while providing explanation for why they are what they are.
This shows, just as there was room for an alternative "reality" which could explain them, there could be one that explains the predictive powers of Quantum Mechanics.
This is true even though many physicists feel there is no room for alternatives because modern experiments, combined with quantum theory's mathematics give us the most accurate predictions of events that have ever been achieved.
As was mentioned earlier describing “reality” only in terms of the probabilities as Quantum Mechanics means every possible outcome can become one in the future.
Yet this would not be true if those outcomes were the result of an interaction between the quantum properties of an environment and a physical one of our observable universe.
For example, when we role dice in a casino most do not think there are six of them out there waiting for the dice to tell us which one we will occupy after it is rolled. This is because the probability of getting a six is determined or caused by its physical interaction with the observable properties of the table in the casino where it is rolled and not on the probability of a specific outcome occurring. This tells us the probabilities associated with a roll of the dice does not define the casino, the casino defines those probabilities.
However, as was mentioned earlier Quantum Mechanics is able to quantify the observable properties of our environment but is unable to explain why those properties exists.
But that does mean we should not look for another way to do so.
For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tell us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by interacting with someone or something. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its energy to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found.
Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.
As was mentioned earlier what defines the “reality” of getting a six when rolling a dice in casino is not the probability of getting one but the physical properties of how the dice interacts with casino it occupies.
Similarly, what defines a quantum environment may not be due to the probabilities associated with the wave function but the interactions of an energy wave with the space-time properties of its environment.
This means there may be an alternative “reality” that can not only can explain the quantization of our observable environment but can also provide an explanation why that happens.
What we as theoreticians need to ask ourselves is our job only to quantify our environment as Quantum Mechanics does or should we also attempt to explain why it is what it is in terms of our observable environment.
I have spent large portion of my retirement contemplating the reality of our universe and have come to the conclusion that it can be define scientifically based on its observable properties. I joined this group not for comments regarding the mechanism I believe defines it’s but to discuss its philosophical implications to our understanding of our common reality. I have included brief excerpt from one of my books which I hope will engage.
Thank you for your time
Jeffrey O’Callaghan
Defining the Probabilistic World of Quantum Mechanics in Terms of the Determinism Space-time
This question is especially relevant for physicists who struggle on daily basis to define the “reality” of our universe.
Some attempt to define it only on the abstract mathematical analysis of an environment.
For example, Quantum Mechanics describes the "reality" or state of a quantum system in terms of the mathematical probability of finding it in a particular configuration when a measurement is made.
However, describing it in those terms means that each probabilistic outcome of an event can become one in the future. This is why some proponents of Quantum Mechanics assume the universe splits into multiple realities with every measurement.
This also may be one reason why Niels Bohr, the father of Quantum Mechanics said that "If Quantum Mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."
However, others derive it in terms of observable proprieties of our universe.
For example, Isaac Newton derived the laws of gravity by developing a mathematical relationship based on observing the movement of planets and the distance between them. He then derived a mathematical equation, defining a “reality” which could predict their future movements based on observations of their previous movements.
Both the probabilities of Quantum Mechanics and Newton's gravitational laws give valid descriptions of “a reality” because they allow scientists to predict future events with considerable accuracy.
However, the purpose of theoretical physics not only to define and predict what we observe but to explain why we observe what we do.
For example, at the time of their discovery Newton's gravitational laws allowed scientists to make extremely accurate predictions of planetary movements based on their previous movements, but they could not explain why those laws exist.
However, Einstein defined a different “reality” that not only could explain why they those laws existed while providing explanation for why they are what they are.
This shows, just as there was room for an alternative "reality" which could explain them, there could be one that explains the predictive powers of Quantum Mechanics.
This is true even though many physicists feel there is no room for alternatives because modern experiments, combined with quantum theory's mathematics give us the most accurate predictions of events that have ever been achieved.
As was mentioned earlier describing “reality” only in terms of the probabilities as Quantum Mechanics means every possible outcome can become one in the future.
Yet this would not be true if those outcomes were the result of an interaction between the quantum properties of an environment and a physical one of our observable universe.
For example, when we role dice in a casino most do not think there are six of them out there waiting for the dice to tell us which one we will occupy after it is rolled. This is because the probability of getting a six is determined or caused by its physical interaction with the observable properties of the table in the casino where it is rolled and not on the probability of a specific outcome occurring. This tells us the probabilities associated with a roll of the dice does not define the casino, the casino defines those probabilities.
However, as was mentioned earlier Quantum Mechanics is able to quantify the observable properties of our environment but is unable to explain why those properties exists.
But that does mean we should not look for another way to do so.
For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tell us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by interacting with someone or something. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional "walls" of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause its energy to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found.
Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.
As was mentioned earlier what defines the “reality” of getting a six when rolling a dice in casino is not the probability of getting one but the physical properties of how the dice interacts with casino it occupies.
Similarly, what defines a quantum environment may not be due to the probabilities associated with the wave function but the interactions of an energy wave with the space-time properties of its environment.
This means there may be an alternative “reality” that can not only can explain the quantization of our observable environment but can also provide an explanation why that happens.
What we as theoreticians need to ask ourselves is our job only to quantify our environment as Quantum Mechanics does or should we also attempt to explain why it is what it is in terms of our observable environment.