The Problem of Interpretation of Modern Physics

Science sets itself apart from other paths to truth by recognizing that even its greate practitioners sometimes err.

While direct-interaction particle theories are generally thought to be incompatible with relativity in classical physics, such relativistic theories in quantum mechanics have recently attracted attention. The reasons for rejecting these theories in classical physics are based on the consideration of world lines, while relativistic quantum mechanics has no covariant position operator so that the classical refuting argument cannot be adapted.

Maxwell unified the disparate concepts of electric and magnetic fields with one theory (electromagnetism) and Einstein then unified the disparate theories of electromagnetism and mechanics with one kinematics (Minkowski space of special relativity). In this talk, we will briefly explain how the disparate kinematics of quantum mechanics (finite-dimensional Hilbert space) and special relativity can be unified with one principle (relativity principle). This result follows from the axiomatic reconstruction of quantum mechanics via information-theoretic principles, which has successfully recast quantum mechanics as a principle theory a la Einstein, i.e., the formalism of the theory follows from an empirically discovered fact, just like special relativity. According to the quantum reconstruction program, the empirically discovered fact whence the Hilbert space formalism of quantum mechanics is Information Invariance & Continuity. Of course, the empirically discovered fact whence the Lorentz transformations of special relativity is the light postulate, i.e., everyone measures the same value for the speed of light c, regardless of their relative motions. Obviously, the light postulate can be justified by the relativity principle—the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames—because c is a constant of Nature per Maxwell’s electromagnetism. [We label this “NPRF + c” for short, where NPRF stands for “no preferred reference frame.”] As we will show, Information Invariance & Continuity can also be justified by the relativity principle by first spatializing the quantum reconstruction program’s operational notion of measurement. In that case, Information Invariance & Continuity entails the empirically discovered fact that everyone measures the same value for Planck’s constant h, regardless of their relative spatial orientations or locations (Planck postulate). Since Poincar’e transformations relate inertial reference frames via spatial rotations and translations as well as boosts, and h is a constant of Nature per Planck’s radiation law, the relativity principle justifies the Planck postulate (NPRF + h) just like it justifies the light postulate (NPRF + c). Thus, the kinematics of quantum mechanics and special relativity are unified in that both follow most fundamentally from the relativity principle in the adynamical global constraints NPRF + h and NPRF + c. This approach provides a principle solution to the mystery of quantum entanglement that does not violate locality, statistical independence, intersubjective agreement, or the uniqueness of experimental outcomes and it does not alter quantum mechanics as a principle theory. An ontology consistent with this unification is introduced and we deflate both the ‘big’ and ‘small’measurement problems.

The basis of modern conception of the world consists of two phenomenological theories (theory of quantum mechanics and theory of relativity), both largely inconsistent, but, in a number of cases, suitable for evaluation of experimental data. Both of these theories have one thing in common: their authors are convicted in limitations of laws and equations of classical mechanics, in absolute validity of Maxwell equations and in essential distinction of laws and mechanisms of the device of macrocosm and microcosm. Nevertheless, such assurance, being dominant in physics in the last hundred years, hasn’t resulted in creation of unifying fundamental physical theory, nor in essential understanding of principal physical conceptions, such as: electric, magnetic and gravitational fields, matter and antimatter, velocity of light, electron, photon and other elementary particles, internal energy, mass, charge, spin, quantum properties, Planck constant, fine structure constant and many others. All laws and the equations of modern physics are attempts to approximate description of the results of natural experiments, rather than strict theoretical (mathematical) findings from the general and uniform laws and mechanisms of the device of the world surrounding us. Moreover, some conclusions from modern physics equations contradict experimental data such as infinite energy or mass of point charge. In papers (Magnitskii, 2010a, 2011a) bases of the unifying fundamental physical theory which a single postulate is the postulate on existence of physical vacuum (ether) are briefly stated. It is shown, that all basic equations of classical electrodynamics, quantum mechanics and gravitation theory can be derived from two nonlinear equations, which define dynamics of physical vacuum in three-dimensional Euclidean space and, in turn, are derived from equations of Newtonian mechanics. Furthermore, clear and sane definitions are given to all principal physical conceptions from above through the parameters of physical vacuum, namely its density and propagation velocity of various density’s perturbations. Thereby, it is shown that a set of generally unrelated geometric, algebraic and stochastic linear theories of modern physics, which are fudged to agree with experimental data and operating with concepts of multidimensional spaces and space-time continuums, can be replaced with one nonlinear theory of physical vacuum in ordinary three-dimensional Euclidean space, based exclusively on laws of classical mechanics. In the present paper research of system of equations of physical vacuum is continued with the purpose of studying and the description of processes of a birth of elementary particles and their properties. A system of equations of electrodynamics of the physical vacuum,

It is well recognized that two of the foundational theories of modern physics, relativity and quantum mechanics, are inconsistent. Efforts to overcome this through intensive pursuit of unifying theoretical frameworks or improvements in experimental precision as pursued by Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl and Standard-Model-Extension test theory protocols, have so far proven unsuccessful. Nonetheless, empirical evidence deriving from investigations inspired by the twentieth-century 'EPR' polemic, can now claim to have identified 'locality' and 'separability' as notions integral to special relativity theory inconsistent with quantum mechanics and experimental evidence supporting it. Following intimations of J.S. Bell, L. Smolin, Maudlin and others, the history and philosophy of science are engaged as research tools to uncover the origins of the assumptions underlying such incompatibility. In particular, known but prevalent fallacies and the deprecation of processes as described by Whitehead, together with recent insights into the functional distinctions between representative models and explanatory theories, are engaged. Analysis of the evolution of optical and electromagnetic theorizing is then suggested to demonstrate that the choice of a mechanically compatible model of electromagnetic radiation, as has conventionally underwritten development of the light-speed postulate of special relativity, is inappropriate. Pursuing options made available within a multiple models idealization of optical and electromagnetic phenomena, replacement of the sponsoring model by a nonlocal and non-separable wavefront process of radiation of the form advanced by Fresnel and Kirchhoff on the basis of Huygens' principle, suggests the possibility of reformulation of relativity theory without incurring such conflicts. However, choice of a wavefront electrodynamic model including the extinction theorem of Ewald and Oseen, equally suggests possible theory reformulation without necessitating a four-dimensional construct of space and time or postulating an absolute constancy of light-speed in vacuum. Such a constancy can in turn be considered as demonstrating an innate limitation on empirical observation resulting from the loss of relative velocity information during electromagnetic transmission due to the memorylessness of the Markov propagation process of refraction together with information flow discontinuity resulting from dielectric boundary extinction events. Such characteristics are shown to be applicable to electromagnetic radiation of all frequencies. Further, from a wavefront reformulated hypothesis of inertial relative motion, it appears possible to demonstrate that the Galilean principle of relativity can be preserved. However, Lorentz invariance would then require reinterpretation wherein the Lorentz transform group would be deemed to quantify the degree of information distortion inherently experienced by any empirical enquiry into electrodynamics involving relative motion.

In Hawking’s view physics has been broken up into many partial theories, while the ultimate goal of physicists is to unify them. The two basic theories of 20th-century physics, relativity theory and quantum theory, are based on completely different logical prerequisites and exactly separate: matter is described as particles in relativity theory and as waves in quantum mechanics. Here, based on the identical logical prerequisites, we unify Einstein’s special relativity (SR) and de Broglie’s matter-wave theory (MWT) into the theory of dualistic relativity (DR), taking a significant step toward the unification of relativity and quantum mechanics. From the definition of time, we derive the Lorentz transformation in differential form and establish the theory of DR, which generalizes the wave-particle duality of matter motion, and uniformly derives Einstein’s formula E=mc2, Planck’s equation E=hf, and de Broglie’s relation λ=h/p. From the logical prerequisite completely different from Einstein’s hypothesis of the invariance of light speed and along the logical path completely different from Einstein’s SR, we have deduced the whole theoretical system of Einstein’s SR and de Broglie’s MWT. In the theory of DR, the two great formulae originally separated, Einstein’s formula E=mc2 and Planck’s equation E=hf, become a pair of twin formulae unified in an identical theoretical system.

What Is Time in Some Modern Physics Theories: Interpretation Problems

MATHISSON1 recently deduced the equations of motion of a spinning electron from the General Theory of Relativity. According to those equations such a particle, when free, instead of following a geodesic, performs some sort of screw motion around it. In the special case when the 'gravitational background' is the space time of the Special Theory of Relativity and the velocity is small compared to the velocity of light, this movement con sists of a uniform translation in any direction and a uniform circular motion in a plane perpendicular to the angular momentum J of the particle, the frequency v being proportional to J. The radius remains indeterminate. Assuming J = h/4π we get v = 2m0c2/h. If this particle had the mass m0 and the charge —e of an electron, the radiation damping of its circular motion would be so great as to stop it almost immediately. Mathisson's attempts to establish a connexion between the Theory of Relativity and quantum mechanics would then obviously encounter unsur-mountable difficulties. In the course of a private discussion, Dr. Mathisson expressed, therefore, the view that not only the mass, charge and spin of the particle but also its magnetic moment should be taken into account. It is to be expected, then, that the electronic constants might be chosen in such a way that a free electron would not emit any radiation when moving in the above-mentioned manner. Mathisson is now completing his theory on these lines.

Two radically different views about time are possible. According to the first, the universe is three dimensional. It has a past and a future, but that does not mean it is spread out in time as it is spread out in the three dimensions of space. This view requires that there is an unambiguous, absolute, cosmic-wide “now” at each instant. According to the second view about time, the universe is four dimensional. It is spread out in both space and time—in space-time in short. Special and general relativity rule out the first view. There is, according to relativity theory, no such thing as an unambiguous, absolute cosmic-wide “now” at each instant. However, we have every reason to hold that both special and general relativity are false. Not only does the historical record tell us that physics advances from one false theory to another. Furthermore, elsewhere I have shown that we must interpret physics as having established physicalism—in so far as physics can ever establish anything theoretical. Physicalism, here, is to be interpreted as the thesis that the universe is such that some unified “theory of everything” is true. Granted physicalism, it follows immediately that any physical theory that is about a restricted range of phenomena only, cannot be true, whatever its empirical success may be. It follows that both special and general relativity are false. This does not mean of course that the implication of these two theories that there is no unambiguous cosmic-wide “now” at each instant is false. It still may be the case that the first view of time, indicated at the outset, is false. Are there grounds for holding that an unambiguous cosmic-wide “now” does exist, despite special and general relativity, both of which imply that it does not exist? There are such grounds. Elsewhere I have argued that, in order to solve the quantum wave/particle problem and make sense of the quantum domain we need to interpret quantum theory as a fundamentally probabilistic theory, a theory which specifies how quantum entities—electrons, photons, atoms—interact with one another probabilistically. It is conceivable that this is correct, and the ultimate laws of the universe are probabilistic in character. If so, probabilistic transitions could define unambiguous, absolute cosmic-wide “nows” at each instant. It is entirely unsurprising that special and general relativity have nothing to say about the matter. Both theories are pre-quantum mechanical, classical theories, and general relativity in particular is deterministic. The universe may indeed be three dimensional, with a past and a future, but not spread out in four dimensional space-time, despite the fact that relativity theories appear to rule this out. These considerations, finally, have implications for views about the arrow of time and free will.

This chapter argues against formal accounts of theoretical equivalence in physics. It defends the importance of a theory’s picture of the world and its explanations of the phenomena, drawing on examples from classical physics, Newtonian gravitation, classical electromagnetism, special relativity, and quantum mechanics. The discussion draws a distinction between metaphysical equivalence and informational equivalence and argues that these are equally important to the equivalence of physical theories. The chapter concludes that there are fewer cases of wholly equivalent theories in physics than usually thought. However, this is not a problem, for it is still possible to talk about the various respects in which physical theories are, or are not, equivalent to one another.

This paper is about some of the ways in which the study of Cosmology has been key, both in initially developing, and in probing retroactively into, the foundations of modern physics. The past role of cosmological observations in triggering the development of mathematical physics, and modern science in general, is well known. But the present role of cosmological observations in possibly triggering a review of some never-challenged assumptions is playing out only presently, and so is not completely known yet. The cosmological observations cited in this paper concern the apparently universal pattern displayed by barred spiral galaxies. The typical barred spiral galaxy follows a common ‘body plan’ consisting of two spiral arms, acutely curved, and a central bar, not exactly straight. The arm curvature seems about the same for all such galaxies, and the bar wandering, if it is visible, is similar in initial slope to the arms. The several issues in physical theory that this so-common pattern invites us to acknowledge and investigate first arose in Electrodynamics. They then propagated into Quantum Mechanics and into Special Relativity Theory, and then into General Relativity Theory. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory are the main pillars of twentieth century physics. So better clarifying the issues in Electrodynamics is important. If that elucidation comes to pass, Cosmology will have driven modern science, yet again, to a new level of understanding.

Book reviews

Until quite recently, all phenomena in the world were separated into deterministic and random. The theory of differential equations, mathematical physics, classical mechanics, and electro-dynamics studied the former; probability theory, the theory of random processes, statistical physics, and quantum mechanics, the latter. This sharp borderline seemed unquestionable, and raised no doubts, though certain discrepancies did arise: The probabilistic nature of classical statistical physics laws was not justified accurately, and was accounted for by the very large number of particles and degrees of freedom.

The theory of special and general relativity causes a “schizophrenic” dilemma in physics. It undeniably provides mathematically correct values, but it is undeniably epistemologically wrong in many respects. Including the relativistic explanation of the gravitational “time dilation” and the curvature of light beams at the surfaces of large masses, the author demonstrates the illogical character of relativistic physics. When one thinks the relativistic explanations of gravitational time dilatation and of the curvature of light rays by masses through to the end, they lead to absurd and contradictory logical conclusions.

The Symmetries of Quantum and Classical Information. The Ressurected “Ether" of Quantum Information