Dear Preston Guynn ,

Thank you for your detailed feedback. I appreciate the time you took to provide such an in-depth response. I would like to address some of the points you raised regarding my question and my interpretation of quantum mechanics.

In summary, my paper aims to stimulate discussion and exploration of alternative interpretations of QM. I welcome constructive criticism and debate as they are essential for scientific progress. I hope this clarifies my position and intentions, and I look forward to further discussions on this topic.

The world view of causality and formal logic (formal mathematics is just the epitome), is out of its depth to understand the revolutionary quantum phenomena. If a thinker like Einstein expressed despair about the spooky quanta, then it would be wise to take him seriously: “Many physicists maintain - and there are weighty arguments in their favour – that in the face of these facts (quantum mechanical), not merely the differential law, but the law of causation itself - hitherto the ultimate basic postulate of all natural science – has collapsed”. A. Einstein, “Essays in Science”, p. 38-39 (1934).

A reasonable possibility is that only quantum-dialectics - an extension of Hegel’s philosophy of space and time (and his triad on the ontology of existence, "Being-Nothing-Becoming"); to the quantum realm, can provide some understanding of the quantum phenomena. It can be demonstrated that the uncertainty principle is not just a simple measurement or statistical problem as is commonly assumed. Uncertainty and the breakdown of the conservation laws at the substructure of quantum level is a fundamental aspect of objective reality. At macroscopic (human) scale the objective reality is just a gross, averaged-out, summed-up and apparently stable superstructure of micro-level quantum uncertainty. Physics needs a revolutionary change of its epistemology - from traditional causality to dialectical materialism; to deal with this new revolutionary aspect of objective reality!

New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS (2024), 22, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.24297/jap.v22i.9594

New Physics II – Quantum-Dialectical Derivation of New Mass-Energy Relation Invalidates Einstein’s Famous Equation E = mc2, https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9642

Further consideration and published works on this issue is available in the introduction of the following RG forum” :"Ex nihilo nihil fit“? Are You Certain Mr. Einstein and Mr. Heisenberg? https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ex_nihilo_nihil_fit_Are_You_Certain_Mr_Einstein_and_Mr_Heisenberg2

Thank you, Abdul Malek , for your insightful response and for sharing references to your work. I appreciate your perspective on the epistemological shift needed to understand quantum phenomena. Your mention of dialectical materialism as a framework for interpreting quantum mechanics is particularly thought-provoking.

I agree that traditional causality and formal logic face significant challenges when applied to the quantum realm. As you pointed out, even Einstein grappled with the implications of quantum mechanics, which underscores the complexity and revolutionary nature of this field.

In my paper, "Thesis Emergent Universe from Many Unreal World Interpretation

I would be interested in your thoughts on how my interpretation aligns with or diverges from the quantum-dialectical framework you advocate. Specifically, I am keen to explore whether the concepts of dedicated addresses in the event horizon and interactions between true particles and shadow particles might have any resonance with the dialectical materialism perspective.

Thank you again for your valuable input. I look forward to further discussion and exploring how different philosophical and epistemological approaches can enhance our understanding of quantum mechanics.

Please also read my paper Article Origin of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle

Bhushan Bhoja Poojary : Thanks for your kind words about my quantum-dialectical approach to modern theoretical physics and your rather uncommon and recognition the profound fact that “traditional causality and formal logic face significant challenges when applied to the quantum realm …which underscores the complexity and revolutionary nature of this field”; which in essence is the fundamental basis of my stance. I must say that your kind words are highly exceptional for me as a person and of course about my physics; because the exact opposite was/is my fate in RG; since I joined in late 2017 and in the scientific field in general, since I started publishing my works on astrophysics and cosmology, from early 2000, in support (also appreciation) of Halton (Chip) Arp; when he was at the Max-Planck Institute at Garching, near Munich, in Germany.

I faced (though much less now) unspeakable verbal abuse in RG to the extent that RG management was forced to shut-down one of the forums on Einstein’s theories of relativity initiated by me; which ran for about 2 years and was participated by many prominent physicists from around the world. Even a collage of only my views expressed in that forum, by a young man, named Jerry Muzsik (unknown to me), who posted it in an Internet website was promptly removed/deleted - the usual fate of any online good review of my works. Luckily, I had enough time to make a copy of Jerry’s collage and save it as a word file, as shown in the enclosed attachment, below. Before my abused fate in RG, I faced similar abuse in the science blogs of The Guardian, where I used to comment in support to a dialectical approach to modern theoretical physics and cosmology; particularly in the blog “Life and Physics” by Prof. Jon Butterworth.

What is more disturbing is that I am facing online threat, cyber attacks, vandalization of my published works and reviews posted online (Google List); from some technologically powerful and apparently internationally coordinated groups; who are trying to deter any publicity of my works and my views on modern physics. I have to pay a lot of money to protect my computer from constant cyber attacks! Only two favourable reviews of my works (linked below) posted online still survive, one by Prof. Jim Schofield – a British mathematician and theoretical physicist, who included one of my articles in a Special Issue of his journal “SHAPE” and the other by a leftist group in USA.

http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/Special%2064.pdf

http://maydaybookstore.blogspot.com/2017/12/thephilosophy-of-space-time-whence-come.html

I am sorry, that I brought all these personal issues in response to your post on the nature of theoretical physics. Your kind words about my works were very touching and stirred my emotion. I bring these up in a scientific forum like RG (I can comment here only because of their generosity), to bring attention to my plight to fellow RG scientists. Also, these reviews of my works, may be useful for you to better evaluate my works.

I appreciate and welcome your “aims to bridge the gap between abstract mathematical formalism and physical intuition”. This, aside from fundamental ontological and epistemological issues; is one of my major contentions against causality and formal logic-based physics. To save causality in philosophy, Emmanuel Kant declared, “I found it necessary to deny knowledge to make room for faith”. Kant warned philosophy to abate any claim of knowledge of the noumena (ontology of the objective reality); as it was an “unknowable thing-in-itself”. The only thing man can do, posited Kant is to develop subjective idealism – i.e., the use his sense perception of the phenomena (epistemology) to develop subjective logical/mathematical categories (perceptual knowledge, in opposition to “physical intuition” or conceptual knowledge) to deal with the phenomenology of the world.

Faced with the breakdown of causality in physics, after the recognition of the quantum phenomena, Einstein followed Kantian subjective idealism to develop mathematical/geometrical categories to deal with the problems of physics, and in the process turned theoretical physics into, as you say, “abstract mathematical formalism” or Platonism! As I have shown in my following publication, Einstein and others at the turn of the 20th century, used the apparently constant velocity of light c (as an absolute and axiomatic truth) and a geometrical parameter to form one invariable side of a Pythagorean triangle, with space (distance) and time as the other two side to form a closed system. It can be shown easily that Lorentz Transform, the gamma factor, “spacetime” etc. used in physics can be formed as deductions from the subjectively conceived Pythagorean triangle! Please see: “The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

Causality, requiring an ontological “First Cause” (the “effect” of a “cause”, which is unknown or unknowable and hence a mystery, God for theology, “Big Bang” for physics) of creation and the principle “ex nihilo nihil fit” means that the universe must be finite in extension and in time and everything else follows in a casual and deterministic way, including life, as Nobel Awarded biologist Jacques Monod and others claim. This view is totally incompatible with quantum dialectics! For causality, the universe is finite in space and time, mediated by deterministic cause and effect. For materialist dialectics, the universe is infinite, eternal and ever-changing, mediated by quantum and dialectical chance and necessity.

The fact that you, “use complex numbers to explain the uncertainty principle, showing how the imaginary components of quantum states contribute to the inherent uncertainty in measurements.”, is very interesting. If you see (at least) my following three publications, you would see that I have used Paul Dirac’s QED to relate Hegel’s ontological contradiction “Being-Nothing” to the virtual matter/antimatter particle of the quantum vacuum, eternally popping in and out of existence.

"Majorana Particle: A Dialectical Necessity and not a Quantum Oddity": Article Majorana Particle: A Dialectical Necessity and not a Quantum Oddity

"The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?" Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

"Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for the Resolution of Wave-Particle Duality and Other Anomalies of the Quantum Phenomena."

Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Bhushan Bhoja Poojary : Some additional note: My radical and definitely unusual view on modern theoretical physics and cosmology is a work in progress; and some of my most significant publications are very recent, even though I am working on these issues for decades! I don’t think that the world view of Bohr, Heisenberg et al, and the generally accepted Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum phenomena; is much different from the views of the opposite camp, identified with Einstein. Both are based on causality and formal logic – pure (formal) mathematics is but the epitome and the most deterministic and quantitative aspect of this world view; it is a difference in form only, but not in essence; so, I reject both!

My works take lead from the works of Kepler, Leibniz and particularly, the dialectics of Hegel. I am trying to extend Hegel’s dialectics to the quantum phenomena and trying to show that, the microcosm and the macrocosm are actually related, connected and operated by many of the same physical and organizational laws. Please see the introduction to the question and related references I cited above: "Ex nihilo nihil fit“? Are You Certain Mr. Einstein and Mr. Heisenberg?

Unlike many other critics of Einstein’s theories of relativity, I agree in general that his theories have internal mathematical and logical self-consistency; and like geometry, consistent in the realm of thought alone; but not relevant to objective reality! These theories were tempered with contribution of many brilliant mathematicians of that era, published in scientific journals, discussed in international conferences of the time. So, if there is a failure as scientific theories, then it must be a collective failure, not of Einstein’s alone. My point is that, because of his idealist bent, Einstein excelled in rendering in his theories, an ideal, simplistic and aesthetically pleasant and a perfect geometrical form of empirical/experimental facts (like the M-M experiment, for example), extending beyond their limit and definitely robing them of scientific and (real) objective content.

This would be apparent in Einstein’ own characterization of Geometry in the following passage, “Geometry sets out from certain conceptions such as "plane," "point," and "straight line," with which we are able to associate more or less definite ideas, and from certain simple propositions (axioms) which, in virtue of these ideas, we are inclined to accept as "true." Then, on the basis of a logical process, the justification of which we feel ourselves compelled to admit, all remaining propositions are shown to follow from those axioms, i.e. they are proven. A proposition is then correct ("true") when it has been derived in the recognized manner from the axioms. The question of "truth" of the individual geometrical propositions is thus reduced to one of the "truth" of the axioms. Now it has long been known that the last question is not only unanswerable by the methods of geometry, but that it is in itself entirely without meaning … The concept "true" does not tally with the assertions of pure geometry, because by the word "true" we are eventually in the habit of designating always the correspondence with a "real" object; geometry, however, is not concerned with the relation of the ideas involved in it to objects of experience, but only with the logical connection of these ideas among themselves” Albert Einstein; Relativity: The Special and General Theory.. Methuen & Co. Ltd. 1952.

My contention is that aside from the question of the scientific merit of theories of physics and of cosmology in particular; there are ideological, partisan, geopolitical etc., dimensions in a class society, as these theories historically has been used as ruling ideas in any epoch, in the form of conventions, social laws and mythologies. The present epoch after the recognition of the “Evil Quanta” is no exception. I have tried to show that Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of physics and cosmology have been unfairly promoted to serve as ruling ideas at the behest of theological and capitalist class interest. Please see: “Quō Vādis theoretical physics and cosmology? from Newton’s Metaphysics to Einstein’s Theology”: https://www.mathematicsgroup.us/abstracts/AMP-6-181

On many questions of modern physics, like “black Holes”, gravitational waves, for example, Einstein’s name is associated, even though Einstein in published works, denied their possibility even from a theoretical perspective alone. We see Nobel Awards and picture of the “smiling face” of black holes and gravitational waves splashed in press reports from around the world!

No body pays and heed to what Einstein had to say (about a year before his death) to his life-long friend Michelle Besso, “All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken... I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.” Albert Einstein, quoted in A Pais, Subtle is the Lord …” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”, Oxford University Press, (1982) 467