|
Foreword
A
well-established and verified feature of Quantum Mechanics is the startling
but inevitable interaction between a quantum event and its observer. Some
aspects of the observer-event interaction exemplified by the indeterminate
condition of Schrödinger's cat (both dead and alive as long the observer
doesn't try to find out which) are fairly well known, and its more obscure
(and scientifically precise) ramifications have been thoroughly demonstrated
and discussed. Nonetheless, acknowledgement of one consequence of this
interdependence more profound than the quantum nature of matter itself
is usually evaded on the pretext that the questions it raises have been
put to rest by the formulation of the so-called Copenhagen interpretation
(of Quantum Mechanics, chiefly the uncertainty principle, wave-particle
duality and wavefunction collapse of quantum nature). The reason for sweeping
any doubts of its validity under the scientific carpet whenever a serious
discussion of this interdependence looms, stems from its denial of the
possibility for complete objectivity in scientific inquiry. If taken to
its logical conclusion observer-event interaction would not just undermine
the interpretation which rationalized it but affect the very basis of
scientific inquiry (alternative interpretations thus far have not adequately
addressed this issue either).
Quantum
theory showed that the most hallowed principle of classical science, that
of the independence of the observer from 'objective reality' of which
Albert Einstein's Relativity was the ultimate culmination was in principle
disallowed in the realm of quanta. Physicists split into two camps with
on the one side the realists who maintained objectivity (at least on their
more familiar terrain of macroscopic scales) and argued that inner consistency
of Quantum Mechanics did not prove it to be complete- thus leaving room
for progress toward a resolution of the enigma of subjective interaction.
On the other side were the 'positivists' who (claiming that the cause
for the interdependence was inaccessible in principle) argued that while
objective reality is not independent of the observer it is at least identical
for all observers, thereby upholding another pillar of science: that of
the repeatability of experiments.
The
real quandary and enigma of Quantum Mechanics is that the acceptance of
(subjective) observer-event interaction is incompatible with the assertion
that reality is the same for all observers: to an observer other observers
are simply synonymous with other events. Accordingly, we are forced to
conclude that ultimately reality is universally and thus inevitably subjective-
not just for all practical purposes of the human condition but in principle.
It may now be appreciated why scientists have affected its resolution,
Quantum Mechanics did not just prove that there exist aspects to reality
to which it has no access (contrary to some assertions it has not proven
that these are necessarily hidden from science) but that the scientific
method itself is fundamentally limited and ultimately is incapable of
accounting for all of reality (the method, not science is the limitation).
Subjectivity not only puts a limit on the validity of the repeatability
of experiments, but also introduces a certain self-fulfilling element
in any experiment. In other words while it may lead us to ever more complex
descriptions of reality, the scientific method itself cannot bring us
to the goal of achieving a complete account of reality and, hence, some
advances in our understanding of nature can only be achieved through a
process that (temporarily) suspends its discipline.
This
outcome uncannily resembles that of Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems
of mathematics, yet it is more profound since it pertains to all of science
and the way we perceive ourselves. A more direct parallel of this quandary
is with Zeno's paradox (in the paradox the protagonist ponders that at
the halfway point to its goal it will still only be progressing to the
halfway point of the then remaining distance etc. and so while ever getting
closer never will reach its goal). What resolves Zeno's paradox such that
it will let the protagonist go from A to Z, is to side-step its terms
of reference and proceed in discrete steps: A, B, C etc. What this means
for the goal of unifying science's two incompatible accounts of reality
is that the scientific method itself is the barrier through which we must
break. As Zeno's 'classical' approach needed replacement by a quantum
method, so the impasse left by the Copenhagen interpretation will require
an input external to what is accessible by the scientific method- a quantum
leap to the paradigm that bridges Quantum Mechanics to classical science.
The
unification of the space-time geometry of Relativity and the quantum world
of Quantum Mechanics presented in this discourse did not arise as a consequence
of the new concepts that I have added to mathematics and physics. Rather
the fulfillment of this goal is the result of working with a complete
model from which prevailing misconceptions could be identified and deconstructed.
This approach made it possible to envision then rationalize which parts
if missing would result in the extant state of science- not unlike cutting
puzzle pieces from the picture on the box cover such that they match the
partially assembled fragments of the puzzle on the table.
|
Universal
Reality by Onno Table of Contents
Other Information
Additional
Subtexts
|