Quantum Rumble

Disciples of scientific materialism don’t make a distinction between mathematical and physical reality which is one of the reasons we find ourselves today with so much nonsense that is presented by the high-priest of secular science (SS) as facts.
A good and simple example for visualization purpose is Feynman’s path integral that was developed to reproduce the bizarre observational facts of the double-slit experiment. Feynman’s solution to the problem was postulating that particles, when aimed thru slits to a screen, take all possible paths between their source and target, and developed in this view his mathematical formalism to make up an equation that reproduces the observational facts.

Today, most quantum physicists accept Feynman’s mathematical formalism that relies heavily on nonsensical postulates as true representations of physical reality, and are faithful that particles during the double-slit experiment actually behave as such. Nevertheless, may it be clear that Feynman’s path integral only demonstrates that once you allow the wandering particles to arrive from all directions while entering the slits and calculate their probability distribution amplitude than their crashing trail on the screen will definitely resemble a wave pattern – nothing more, nothing less; it doesn’t demonstrate that particles actually behave as such.

Mathematics, although a powerful tool to model the behavior of our physical world, cannot verify the nature of the laws itself nor assure us of the soundness of the hypothesis contained in it.
Mathematics can only analyze relationships and verify, based on its premises, if the conclusions of the mathematical fabricate are self-coherent and non-contradicting within its framework; but may it be clear that a valid conclusion is not the same as a truth conclusion.

A valid conclusion means only that the conclusion follows indisputably from the premises and doesn’t, in contrast to a truth conclusion, require that its premises are related to the true nature of things. Illusive premises within a coherent mathematical structure can still produce the same observational results for reasons that a certain work-principle can be achieved with a variety of different work-mechanisms (be they imaginary or not), and so, we should always try to find out what mechanisms are feasible within the framework of knowable and observable reality to reduce illusive premises as much as possible.

Karl R. Popper in ‘conjectures and refutations, R.P.K – 1969, p100 writes, I quote:

“What they now care about, as physicist, is (as) mastery of the mathematical formalism, i.e., of the instrument, and (b) its applications; and they care for nothing else”.

This bold attitude is nicely reflected by Max Tegmark, Professor at MIT, who states, I quote:

“I advocate an extreme shut-up-and-calculate approach to physics, where our external physical reality is assumed to be purely mathematical”

Unfortunately this school of thought produced a breed of Kantian scientists that are unable to integrate commonsense premises into their mathematical formalism to let it coincide with physical reality as a whole without having to rely heavily on fairy-tales. Yet, again, mathematics is a relational language and should therefore always be used as such, i.e. if mathematics is used to describe Nature than the premises contained in the mathematical formalism have to be truth related reflections.

Concepts such as Heisenberg principle, Wave collapse, Schrodinger’s cat, quantum tunneling, and matter creation, although useful mathematical constructs, are certainly non-truth related postulates. Of course, diehards will often say that quantum physics is the best tested theory ever developed by man and led to the development of most of our high-tech tools such as: transistors, lasers, nuclear energy, nanotechnology, PET scanners, quantum computing, quantum cryptography, etc.

But again, Godinci doesn’t claim that without quantum physics this would have been possible. What we say is that quantum physics has lots of pure mathematical nonsensical fitting constants in its equation to simply reproduce results in conformity with observational facts, no matter how insane these postulates may be.

Leaving this aside you have to understand that there’re more than 20 different interpretations possible of quantum physics all producing another world view. Yet, there is one universe, and so, all if not most of these interpretations are certainly wrong. Unfortunately, the secular high-priests of mindless science, in their attempt to get rid of the principle of causality, have chosen the most nonsensical interpretations and hypothesis as being true representations of the quantum world and are just as the early church fathers willing to go to great lengths to impose their views. Burning their first Bruno for charges of scientific heresy is just a matter of time.

If science would be willing to understand quantum physics from the real angle of view than mind-boggling technologies will indisputably follow from it that could not follow otherwise. Of course, all has a price; in this case we’re obliged to use our commonsense for what it was intended to, i.e. through use of observational facts, known things and correlated reasoning to come to truth related conclusions.

This post is also available in: Romanian, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Russian, Spanish