Niels Bohr created a very important remark: The task of physics is not to retrieve out how nature is. Physics is only concerned what we can speak about it. David Lindley likened that to Wittgensteins Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we should be silent. I fully agree that science is molecule diagram nature but rather creating means to communicate about it. It is about understandable concepts that humans can relate to.
In relationship to causality in physics there is one term that was used for over a hundred years while its meaning is incredibly ambiguous the adjective SPONTANEOUS. Spontaneity describes something that happens natural, unconstrained and unplanned, or from internal forces or causes without external influence. That is not necessarily how it is used in physics. Its synonyms are even more troubling: automatic, impulsive; instinctive, involuntary, reflex, unpremeditated, free, uncompelled, unforced, willful and even casual. I should speak that we describe something as spontaneous when we basically not ever have knowledge of what the cause is.
Our lack of knowledge can basically mean that we assume spontaneity wrongly. The very first use of spontaneity was in thermodynamcis, where is was assumed that heat flows spontaneously from a warm to a colder area. Nothing should be more wrong. The cause is the existing potential between higher and decreased life states. While it is apparently such that no one tells or forces a lone molecule to pass on its Brownian motion of heat to the next one, that molecule is enticed to act by outside conditions.
A claim of spontaneity assumes some decomposable inner function that is the cause regarding the willful act. It seems barely obvious that these spontaneous actions emerge from energetic relationships that promote the interaction of entities. Energence means that there is no decomposable inner functionality, but the function appears ONLY within the relationships between 3 entities. It has no other independent substance or existence. In quantum mechanics the proposal is that the probability potential of an entity is the driver regarding the spontaneous actions of that entity, for example to shed a photon or an alpha particle.
As strange as it shall seem and I hope you can follow my reasoning here the assumption of truly spontaneous acts is the reason for the problems with causality in physics. I even propose it is the reason for possibly all paradoxes for example the wave or particle duality, entranglement and photon tunneling. The spontaneous shedding creates the existence of that particle that now has be regarded and communicated about as such! We say: we dont have knowledge of how it got here but here it is! And then we are utterly surprised that the particle we created out of thin space resists detection and measurement. We beginning with an unexplained spontaneous act and then we expect causality. We cement the existence of that particle or wave packet by probabilizing abouts it Hamiltonians and Lagrangians momentum and location.
Let me try to speak it with Bohr: When we can talk regarding the probability potential of a particle, it is a statistical description that is helpful, but that is NOT the driver that causes a natural, spontaneous act. Probabilities are a post-mortem analysis that let us to understand the likelyhood of something. While I like an lone hold a sure probabiity to hold a sure accident, it does not tell me what the causes of such an accident should be and also not when it shall actually happen. Probability is a correlation of data, it is not causation! BecauseQuantum Electrodynamics QED for whichRichard Feynman,Julian Schwinger, andSin-Itiro Tomonaga received the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics deals with interactions only, it is the greatest accurate to 12 decimals physical theory thus far. But also QED can only predict the probability of what shall happen in an experiment.
QED describes charged particle interactions creating use of perturbation theory which are representated as Feynman diagrams. A Feynman diagram assigns each photon exchange path a complex-valued probability amplitude, and the paths with stationary phase no destructive interference represent the stationary classical path between the 3 points. The photon does not cause the life transfer, but it is just a representation of it. It is not shed spontaneously, but emerges due to the fact that regarding the potential between sender and receiver. The wave resonances between the sender and receiver are calculated by QED.
The probability amplitude is a statistical communication means regarding the abstract potential of one entity for example a photon, but the cause regarding the spontaneous interaction is the relationship between the 3 probability amplitudes. The difficulty is that current theories QM andGR not ever let that such 3 entities interact in a background invariant relativistic manner. David Bohm suggested that there arenon-local hidden variables that enable that communication. Bells Theorem gives experimental proof that regional hidden variable theories cannot predict the measurements of distant entangled photons. But what if there exists no hidden variables regional or not, but already too many? What if space and time are not a continuum but just 3 properties or consequences of energetic interactions and not the background against which we measure momentum and location? Should that not be true general relativity? I ponder we should shed spontaneity in physics rather than photons and we should stop seeing at the causality of particles hitting other particles.
We need continue the direction of QED and drop little of Einsteins assumptions that are still too many linked to classical physics. Entanglement, photon tunneling, and EPR quantum eraser experiments speak that we are wrong about time or wrong regarding the velocity of light. You can be surprised that also QED proposes that the photons venture at speeds faster or slower than light, but just average out. Gravity as the only measurement of mass inertia is not an effect of mass I know does interact timelessly at a distance and not together with the velocity of light. I spontaneously shed herewith Einsteins speed-of-light shackles.
No comments:
Post a Comment