How should we define reality? | Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories

Please follow and like us:

Einstein’s Explanation of the Unexplainable

This question is especially relevant for physicists who struggle on daily basis to DEFINE the “reality” of our universe.

Some attempt to predict 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 DEFINE it in terms of observable proprieties of our universe.

For example, Isaac Newton derived the laws of gravity by developing a mathematical relationship between the OBSERVABLE 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 is NOT ONLY to define and predict what we observe but WHY repeat WHY we observe it.

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 did not define why those laws exist.

However, Einstein, in his General Theory of Relativity, showed there was room for an “alternative reality” that could quantitatively make the same predictions as Newtons laws did.

Additionally, even though it proposed a different “reality” than the one that Newton used to define his gravitational laws it did not affect their validity while explaining why they are in terms of how objects move along a curved surface of three-dimensional space.

This shows, just as there was room for an alternative “reality” which could define Newton’s laws there could be one that defines the predictive powers of quantum mechanics that would not affect their validity. 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” in ONLY terms of the abstract mathematics of quantum mechanics means each outcome CAN become one in the future. But as was mentioned earlier this means one can assume separate ones are created for every event for which we have NO repeat NO observational evidence for.

Yet this would NOT be true if that outcome was the result of an interaction between it and a physical property 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 repeat NOT on the probability of a specific outcome occurring. In other words, what defines the “reality” of getting a six is not the probability of getting one but physical properties of how the dice interacts with casino it occupies. Putting it another way the probabilities associated with a roll of the dice does not define the casino, the casino defines those probabilities.

It has been shown Quantum mechanics and Newton were able to define the observable properties of our universe but were unable to explain why we observe what we do in terms of observations.

But that does NOT repeat NOT mean we should not look for a way to do so.

For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tell us an electromagnetic wave would move continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from doing so by someone or something interacting with it. 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 the energy of an electromagnetic wave 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 the accuracy of the predictions of quantum mechanics MAY repeat MAY not be related to abstract math but the interactions of a quantum environment with the properties of its environment.

Putting it another way there MAY repeat MAY be an alternative “reality” that NOT only can define the accuracy of the prediction of quantum mechanics but can also to explain why based on the observable properties of our environment why they are.

What we as theoreticians need to ask ourselves should we not only attempt to predict “reality” but why it is what is it.

Please follow and like us: