SCIENCE IN THE MIRROR

Edited by Teodor Frunzeti Marinel-Adi Musta

SCIENCE

IN THE

MIRROR
ditions du Tricorne 2012

Towards a New Method of Paradigm Comparison

ISBN 978-2940450-11-4

9 782940 450114 >

MATTER STRUCTURE - PROCESUALITATY

Mihai HODOROGEA
In this chapter I propose to integrate the theory of dynamic electromagnetic structure of matter (DESM) into the processual - organic conception of existence as it is presented by Lucian Culda (Culda 1992) and to express that social processuality conceptions have to be extended to the microcosms of matter structure. Next I present the fundamental ideas of the book The End of Quantum Theory (Hodorogea 2008) which are the basis of a new scientific concept regarding the structure of the material world as a result of a long and deep critical view on quantum mechanics for a new interpretation of this material world at the lower dimensional limit. Now we present a critical approach to the quantum theory in antitheses with the electro-dynamic theory of the structure of the material world. A Latin proverb says Natura in minima maxima1. The profound knowledge of the microcosms is not just a natural tendency to extend knowledge in a field which is yet insufficiently explored by inadequate theoretical instruments, but also a field which has a potential of theoretical and technological development with major implications towards theoretical knowledge as a whole, and has as purpose to rebuild the knowledge of the structure of matter on new principles of determinism, causality and the dynamic of the electromagnetic structure of elemental particles. As a whole, the proposed theory is not an innovation in the process of knowledge but a return to the tradition of classical physics, of the understanding of electromagnetism as a fundament of the profound understanding of the structure of thee microcosms. I kept in mind the processual approach to the microcosms in a more rigorous and profound way, fundamental to the complex description of the action of the forces which define the atomic structure and their effects in a dynamic spatialtemporal description of the action of the structure of the microcosms in its entire complexity which is completely opposed to the quantum theory. The popularity of the quantum theory is the fruit of curiosity, of nonconformist and the frenzy of the era of its debut, of modernism, of the temptation and growth of sensationalism in knowledge, of a tendency to replace the natural with the spectacular, of the rational with the emotional. Many representatives of quantum physics have strongly believed that by denying spatial-temporal representations, by renouncing determinism and causality, and by making formal knowledge absolute they have made a new physics, capable of solving the complex problems of the microcosms through methods and approaches which are radically different, that refer to the understanding of the physical reality but without the profound implications of what the lack of determinism implies. Many theoreticians have had the faith, and also the delusional arrogance that they have created a perfect theory. Is the scientific knowledge on the topic of the microcosms in an actual crisis? The answer to this question is yes, since the quantum theory has been since its beginning in conflict with classical physics which it denies and it considers 357

unusable at the level of the microcosms. Quantum physics has chosen the wrong path, based on inadequate principles of physical knowledge by denying determinism and causality from the description of the microcosms. The failure of theoretical knowledge to profoundly understand the causes and processes which take place in the structure of the material world represent the essence of the crisis which exists in the physics of the microcosms. The choice of the principal of uncertainty, of the wave-particle duality, of indeterminism, of denying causality from the principles of quantum physics are the shapes which this crisis takes. The profound crisis generated by the quantum theory has jeopardized the normal theoretical development of the physics of the microcosms gravely affecting physical knowledge in the 20th century by imposing symbols and clichs as uncertainty, dualism and atemporal behavior in the description of physical phenomena. Now, when we can make a critical analysis from a historical perspective on the implications of the quantum theory on knowledge and of the values that have been promoted, there have been numerous criticisms on the implications that the quantum physics has on knowledge and of the way in which it relates to physical reality. As Franco Selleri was saying in his article: In the 20th century, it has become fashionable to adopt a negative attitude about the comprehensibility of physical reality, following the opinions expressed in the late 20s by Bohr, Heisenberg and others.(Selleri 1995, 112). This attitude was promoted by the supporters of the Copenhagen interpretation, those whose superficial arguments had created last and most important scientific discovery - quantum theory. Paul Marmet, one of the most radical critics if the quantum theory has said at the end of his article: It must also be realized that many philosophers, admiring the apparent success of scientific achievement, have decided to study physics and its interpretation of nature. When some philosophers read about the Copenhagen interpretation, they make the sad discovery about all the absurdities taught in science. Philosophers discover that the teaching of absurdities is just as common in physics as in philosophy. Those philosophers rightfully feel that they are back in the dark ages of humanity. Finally the author has an overly pessimistic attitude: There is not much hope for new scientists to try writing new papers to rationalize physics unless they accept to end their career. Some centuries ago, they burned Bruno and imprisoned Galileo. Even in our century, a dissident of the Copenhagen interpretation is rejected and called a crank. Even so, lately philosophers and physicists, some of them extremely well known, have criticized different aspects of quantum physics, and even the theory as a whole either implicitly or explicitly. Despite this, many are trying to solve the thorny problems of quantum theory from within, without understanding the fact that quantum theory is, from a conceptual point of view, erroneous. Basing it on the wave-particle dualism, indeterminism, the discrete character of energy and the denial of causality has made the quantum theory inoperable at level of the atomic structure. The general perception at the level of common knowledge is still that the quantum physics is the last and greatest achievement of science, a concept which can only be changed by a new theory that can replace the old one by a profound
358

description and interpretation of the structure of the microcosms. We are willing to take on the risk of criticizing quantum physics, and developing a new theory to replace it.

Critical analysis quantum theory

There are numerous epistemologists which criticize quantum mechanics, among which we find Arkady Plotnitsky, who denies its descriptive nature: In short quantum mechanics only predicts but does not describe. Classical physics, by contrast, does both within its proper scope. (Plotnitsky 2003, 1653). Paul Marmet believes that the predictive nature is a consequence of the descriptive nature, and that these two are independent or disjoint traits. The best description of Nature is the one that is closest to reality. It is the consequence of that understanding of Nature that should allow scientists to predict new results. Criticism to the quantum theory must be analyzed on the theoretical basis as well as on the basis of the analysis criteria. If it is analyzed from the perspective of classic mechanics the theory does not describe or predict the physical phenomena of the microcosm in that it does not have a spatial-temporal component. From the point of view of describing the singularity of quantum processes and phenomena these are probabilistic descriptions which do not refer to, and cannot be applied to singular processes. The limited character of quantum knowledge can be described as an "evaluating knowledge" limited to an estimate from the point of view of energy of the atomic structure. The indeterminist character of the quantum estimate makes the theory unusable for the purpose of causal prediction and as a procedural description of singular physical phenomena at the microcosm level. Franco Selleri proposed in his article "Fundamental Problems of Quantum Physics" a return to a rational, spatial-temporal and causal description of physical phenomena: The most fundamental question of modern physics in my opinion concerns the possibility of giving a rational description of physical reality, where rational means: developed also according to the ideas of causality, of three dimensional space, and of time. All the great men of classical physics sought such a description: Galilei, Newton, Maxwell, Boltzmann are some examples. (Selleri 1995, 112) Another author, Emilio Santos, positions himself firmly from a theoretical point of view in his article "Foundations of Quantum Physics" as against the Copenhagen interpretation, and in favor of a systematic interpretation of physics The purpose of physics is to understand the world, not just to be able to predict (calculate) the results of the experiments. For many people the ability to predict provides a sufficient understanding, but not for me. (Santos 1995, 110) The complexity of the atomic structure has shown that quantum mechanics, as an analytic solution for the wave function, does not satisfy from theoretical, methodological and epistemological point of view the necessity of a profound knowledge in accord with our natural way of perceiving and understanding of the world by its inadequate, indeterministic and probabilistic formal character of the description.
359

The fundamental restructuring of the knowledge of the microcosm is a difficult problem due to the conservative nature of the scientific community referring to the fundaments of quantum theory. As Franco Selleri has noticed: It is difficult to be globally optimistic about the near future, because the scientific community has become very conservative as far as the foundations of modern physics are concerned. (Selleri 1995, 112). 1. The conservative nature has its origin in the concept that nothing can be placed above modern physics, which was caused by the exaggerated optimism and far too big expectations when it comes to quantum physics. 2. Mistrust in the capacity of classical physics to develop, in the spirit of determinism and causality new valid and consolidated concepts and theories regarding the microcosm. 3. Adopting a fatalist-indeterminist attitude regarding the knowledge of the atomic structure. Bernard dEspagnat, in his article "Fundamental Problems of Quantum Physics" contests the descriptive character of quantum theory by showing that: conventional quantum mechanics the only firmly grounded theory we have cannot be interpreted as describing Reality. (dEspagnat 1995, 101) We are reaffirming here the opinion that quantum theory is an excellent theoretical exercise applied to an imaginary reality which has nothing to do with the reality of the atomic structure. This has imposed the development and identification of the forces which act in an analytical way in the spirit of classical physics, defining them in an analytical way, pointing out the shape and effects of all actions and reactions of the system, summing and underlining them in a numerical way, in an analysis and evaluating system which is different from quantum theory, by underlining the trajectories of elementary particles which would clarify the description of the atomic model. We should mention that the analytic description of the acting forces, within the new dynamic approach of the dynamic structure has viewed defining the forces and their action in a very short interval which implies a straight and uniform movement, after which the results become the initial data points, and after multiple iterations we get to describe the whole of the trajectories of the elementary particles, in their complexity, as a result of the actions of all the forces which define the atomic and molecular structure. If we interpret quantum theory as the last report to the real world which it is supposed to describe, we can say that as a general trait the probabilistic interpretation, the quantum indeterminism is not found in the precisely defined of all known substances. Jon Bell said in his book Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics about the fundamentally obscure character of quantum mechanics: As for technical mistakes, our theorists do not make them. And they see at once what is important and what is detail. So it is another feature of contemporary progress . This progress is made in spite of the fundamental obscurity in quantum mechanics. Our theorists stride through that obscurity unimpeded... sleepwalking? The progress so made is immensely impressive. If it is made by sleepwalkers, is it wise to shout 'wake up'? I am not sure that it is. So I speak now in a very low voice. (Bell 1987, 170)
360

We should show that Einstein, even since 1906, has criticized the way in which Plank has developed, from a formal point of view, his constant, considering it inconsistent from a physical point of view. Still, he took the position that this inconsistency is not a reason to reject quantum physics as a whole. I believe that from a subjective point of viewwe have to be understanding of Einstein's position which, being involved in finding a theoretical solution to solving the atomic structuremighthavebeenguidedby:Senonvero,benetrovato2and,lacking anotheroption,hasacceptedtheonlytheoreticalsolutionofthetime. In the same theme Max Jammer in his book "The Conceptual development of Quantum Theory" retakes Einstein position and tells us: For although either part of Plancks derivation of (1.16) was in itself consistent, their combination was logically incompatible. The reason was this: in the electrodynamical part (1) formula (1.16) is based Maxwells theory and the assumption that the oscillator energy is a continuously variable quantity, whereas in the statistical part (2) this same energy is treated as a discrete quantity, capable of assuming only values which are multiples of hv (Jammer, 26) Considering these points from a severe criticism we can arrive at eh conclusion that Plank's constant is theoretically incompatible from the point of view of a formal development through the use in its two theories which are mutually exclusive (one on the basis of a continuous character of energy and the other on its discrete character) which shows the existence of an unacceptable internal and underlined the lack of theoretical coherence in the development of a fundamental constant of quantum mechanics. If we look at the central role played by Plank's constant in the frame of quantum mechanics which gives basis and sense to the entire theoretical construct from both a formal and a conceptual point of view, then we can say that in basis of the epistemic analysis shown above, the quantum theory at a whole is erroneous. This is why we consider valid the criticism brought by Paul Marmet regarding modern physics as a whole The contradictions found in modern science are so absurd that most physicists assume that somebody must certainly have solved them long ago. The degree of indifference of most physicists about these contradictions is phenomenal. Great efforts have been made to sustain and present quantum physics as the only irreplaceable theory of the atomic structure and it is very difficult, and maybe impossible for those in the education system to not only admit that their scientific convictions regarding quantum theory are absurd and need to be replaced. I don't agree with the experimentalist view of Franco Selleri who said that: a rational description of physical reality will become fully possible only once the existing quantum theory is shown to be incorrect in some of its empirical predictions. (Selleri 1995, 113) Quantum theory is in principle an ample theoretical construction which is supposed to explain the structure of the microcosm, and doesn't refer to the punctual and marginal aspects of the reality of the microcosm. It can't be exclusively validated or invalidated in basis of one or more experiments. An ample theoretical construction such as that of the quantum theory can be compared with a puzzle with many pieces. Just because we managed to fit more pieces it doesn't mean that we have solved the whole puzzle. From this 361

point of view I consider that a critical analysis of the quantum theory as a whole, starting from the hypothesis, passing through its conceptual development and analyzing the theoretical consequences is the way to show its lack of basis. In my opinion a theory based on obscure principles as indeterminism and atamporalism cannot represent a parting point for a valid and credible theoretical system. It maintains in its entire development this indeterminist character and despite the apparent progress quantum mechanics must be replaced with a deterministic theory, in the spirit of classic mechanics, compatible with the waveform description of light. The progress of quantum theory must be seen as one of circumstance and of short lifespan compared to the older existing theories on the representation of microcosm. In the ensemble of scientific knowledge it is an obscure theory based on in deterministic principles and at the same time a theory which has run its course as it came back to the particle representation of light as opposed to a waveform one. The electromagnetic theory based on the work of Faraday and Maxwell shows us that charged particles emit energy if they are deviated from their linear trajectory. In the atomic structure, if we assume that the nucleus is in a fixed position, the electron is moving on a circular trajectory around it would inevitably enter a spiral trajectory and it would crush into the nucleus. As a figuratively intuitive representation, the quantum theory represents the complex atomic structure with more electrons an being composed from a fixed nucleus with the electrons moving around it on undefined trajectories. Scientific knowledge has the thankless fate to be overwhelmed with questions that it cannot avoid and cannot give an answer to, being unable to integrate and solve the theory of all the problems that arise. It starts from the principles, theories they consider valid or that they intend to invalidate, existing experimental results or experiments that it proposes to attempt and tries, through theoretical development to incorporate new knowledge into existing theoretical systems and propose new theories which often conflict with the old theories that it replaces or generates new theories to incorporate new knowledge into more elaborate and complex theories with greater generalization and coverage. The dynamic electromagnetic theory of the structure of matter that we propose has in its view a description of particles in which the movement on a circular trajectory gives some of its energy to the nucleus which in turn from its movement, gives some of its energy back to the electron. The proton-electron dipole presented in the book The end of Quantum Theory shows that this structure, from an electromagnetic point of view tends towards a stable structure. There are moments in the dynamic of knowledge in which the scientific world needs to assume the role and responsibility of reevaluating existing theories, correcting them or elaborating new and more complex theories which would lack internal contradictions. I consider that the hypothesis, principles, methods, models used in the development of a theory are the elements of theory construction, and they themselves don't have the value of truth. They get validated or invalidated post factum completely finalizing a theory structure, after empirical testing.
362

The ensemble of principles which define a theory represent the fundamental theoretical set of a theory and it needs to be constructed in concordance with the object of study in bases of theories and discoveries of the time. I consider that there is a singular theoretical solution which defines the fundamental theoretical set, and is the precursor to the theoretical construction. These principles cannot be randomly selected or as the result of an ideal game. They are a puzzle with all the pieces, complete and with a preview of the theoretical solution. They must be in agreement with the reality they describe and must have a coherent internal structure. Based on these principles and in support of the fundamental theoretical set that it will add to as well as the adjacent scientific theories, the theoretical development is performed. Further theoretical development of the fundamental theoretical set in mathematical formulas, modeling, experiments, explanation and interpretation must always be performed in close connection to the fundamental theoretical set. Quantum theory, through its creators, has assumed from the point of view of its development a much to high degree of freedom in operating with the fundamental principles which define the structure of matter. It put pressure on the initial theoretical frame and tried to put in agreement theoretical development by remodeling theoretical principles to fit the formal development, creating a theory applicable to a virtual reality that has nothing to do with the reality of the physical atomic structure. For many people the ability to predict provides a sufficient understanding, but not for me This is the reason why I cannot accept the purely pragmatic (Copenhagen) interpretation of quantum mechanics. In my view, understanding the world means to be able to know causal relations between events, with influences propagating within light cones in agreement with relativity theory. (Santos 1995, 110). Theoretical knowledge has always tried to describe and explain reality by aligning the principles that are the foundation of the explanatory process after which science, with its specific methods to decipher and elaborate theories in agreement with the fundamental theoretical principles, describe the phenomena and discover the laws that rule over a specific part of science. Without denying the theoretical value o the work "The Ultimate of Reality: Reversible Causality" I have to say that I don't agree with the existence of an ultimate principle to the description of reality as Azamat Sh. Abdoullaev makes us believe in his book Metaphysics is the search for an ultimate principle by which all real things and relations are ordered. It formulates fundamental statements about existence and change. Aside from causality and determinism, processuality can be considered to be one of the ultimate principles for the description of reality. The principles which form the fundamental set of a theoretical description are important as a whole as well as by the connections between them. The critical approach to quantum theory can have as a start quantum type causality. In order to understand the contradiction between classic causality and that promoted by quantum theory we need to look at where it started. As I've shown in my book "The End of Quantum Theory": The dualism annihilates any form of determinism through the fact that two contradictory theories describing a single reality theoretically induce two disjoint and irreconcilable conclusions. From the
363

point of view of scientific rigor it is certain that the introduction of two different, mutually excluding concepts within the same theoretical system represented a dissolution of the scientific knowledge, which brings the quantum theory near the science fictions literature. (Hodorogea 2008, 8) The somewhat desperate attempt to overcome the insurmountable theoretical difficulties to construct a fundamental physical theory on principles which elude referential reality has led to the development of a hypothetical theory, excessively formalized, that can only be applied to a virtual reality broken from reality. By trying to prove its superiority over the classic way of thinking in which causality has a primordial place, those who support it have adopted the unfortunate strategy of defaming the classical way of thinking and flaunting its superiority over everything that science had created up to that point using are an argument its "modernity" and overtaking the stated rigor of scientific knowledge up to that point, which is now considered pass. Just as the ancient thinkers were saying Rerum cognoscere causas3. Paul Marmet gives causality a central spot in knowledge showing that: Scientists are so used to looking for the cause of an observed specific result that most are not even conscious of looking for it. It is a natural intelligent reaction to look for causes. Although that discussion seems evident to most of us, since there cannot be any effect without cause, this is not obvious to all physicists as we will show. In a chapter of the book Open Questions in Quantum Physics Eftichios Bitsakis is rhetorically asking if causality can be saved in quantum mechanics. I should say that any attempt to solve causality, in the spirit of classical thinking of any kind, in any kind of indeterminist system it will fail and can they be called impossibility proofs. Many physicists and philosophers have tried to come back to the deterministic description of the microcosm, or have tried to find a substitute of it that would fit with quantum theory, in the theoretical system developed by the quantum theory has created great explanative difficulties just as Franco Selleri has shown: Formidable obstacles (the so-called impossibility proofs) had been erected against the desire of many to bring physics back to causality in space and time: (Selleri 1995, 112) The obstacles are truly impossible to overcome in the frame of the theoretical system based on quantum theory. If we fundamentally change the working hypothesis, just as I've done in the frame of the dynamic electromagnetic structure of matter theory (DESM) the return to classic values of physics of causality and spatial-temporal representation. The Copenhagen interpretation leads to the most astonishing set of contradictions that ever existed in science. Those contradictions are usually presented under the name of paradoxes because that expression seems less absurd. In simple terms, the Copenhagen interpretation leads to observations that clearly imply three insurmountable difficulties, a) negation of causality b) negation of realism and c) involvement of infinite and imaginary velocities or masses. Paul Marmet underlines these contradictions, on top of the ones that I've previously presented, and by this he demonstrates the frailty of the theoretical construction of quantum mechanics. It should be said that a theoretic construction which views itself as scientific.

364

Cyclic reversible processuality

Azamat Sh. Abdoullaev has said in his work "The Ultimate of Reality: Reversible Causality", that: A reversible process is a cyclical process, and all cyclical processes are reversible. The world is becoming active because it produces reversible processes; reversible processes organize the world. The world is the totality of interrelated cyclic processes occurring with all kinds of agents (objects, substances, and things). He advances the idea of a cyclic reversible processuality which, from my point of view, characterizes and can be applied to the structure of matter just as it is described in the theory of electrodynamics presented in this work. The cyclic component of the fundamental processes that take place in the intimate structure of matter is given by the waveform character of the electromagnetic energy resulting from the continuous exchange between the electric and magnetic field, between particles and the cyclic interaction between the particles which form the structure of matter. A point which has generated contradictions in the interpretation of quantum theory is represented by the problem of spatial-temporal localization of particles and implicitly accepting the movement of elementary particles that compose the structure of atoms on precisely defined trajectories. From this point of view I don't agree with Jon Bell's statement that: let me argue against a myth... that quantum theory had undone somehow the Copernican revolution.. (Bell 1987, 170) Giving up the determinist planetary model proposed for the first time by Nicolaus Copernicus as a defined system compared to the concept and indeterministic representation promoted by quantum theory is a step backwards on the road to knowledge. The success and acceptance of the quantum theory has not led to the loss of the spatial-temporal representation and localization of the planetary system. Many physicists as well as scientific philosophers have tried to give a classic interpretation to the structure of the microcosm by giving a spatial-temporal description that contradicts the uncertainty principle. Among them a special place is taken by Karl Popper whom in his early works proposed new interpretations of the concept of probability and in his last works comes back to the necessity of a spatial description in quantum physics. I propose that the thesis which EPR tried to establish was this: a particle possesses sharp position and momentum, and thus a trajectory; and our knowledge of a particle's position cannot, qua knowledge, disturb its momentum: the particle's momentum remains undisturbed. It remains a particle, having position and momentum and a trajectory, a path. (Tarozzi 1985, 5) All of these tries to make quantum theory compatible with the deterministic way of thinking will fail since the fundamental theoretical set of it is indeterministic and a return to the deterministic spatial-temporal description doesn't do anything else except to add a to the confusion regarding its construction and descriptive valence. Thus, quantum mechanics as complementarily may indeed be seen as containing an essential mystery. This mystery is defined by the fact that complementarily places beyond the limits of quantum mechanics something essentially responsible for all observable phenomena in question in it. In particular, it places beyond these limits quantum objects and processes or what we infer or, as I shall explain presently, theorize or idealize as such on the basis of the data in
365

question. In other words, complementarily leaves the ultimate objects it considers beyond any explanation, specifically in terms of an underlying space-time physical description of the kind we use in classical physics (Plotnitsky 2003, 1651) When we accept that there are phenomena and physical processes beyond the theoretical limits of quantum knowledge that is situated outside of the fundamental quantum hypothesis we accept the failure of the quantum theory or at least the limited cognitive character of quantum knowledge. Some physicists have considered complementarities as a way to replace the classical framework nonlocality becomes a very strange property: it is not action at a distance; it is not persistence of pre-existing correlations; it does not involve energy propagation in space, etc. So what, if anything, is nonlocality? I think that nobody knows. (Barut 1995, 97) Quantum agnosticism represents the philosophical concept developed by quantum theory to express the impossibility of knowing the position, speed, impulse and trajectory of an electron moving around the nucleus. At its origin it has the principle of uncertainly as an initial condition of the theoretical system developed by quantum theory by describing the discrete energy of the structure of the material world. The assumption that energy is discrete was made purely based on formal theoretical reasons. At that time the theoretical means did not offer physicists the options that we have now, and I'm talking specifically about numeric modeling that can solve dynamic problems of structures that could not have been efficiently solved by other means. Mario Bunge underlined that the choice of an authentic problem, even an essential one is insufficient for producing adequate results. We have to remark the argument that some epistemologists bring, among whom Karl Popper stands out by his tracing position in respect to the interpretation of quantum theory, being a strong opposition of the excessively formalized theoretical construct as well as its agnostic interpretation, but he is still in line with those who support quantum theory. I am a realist, and I believe in the reality of matter, of energy, of particles, of fields of forces, of wavelike disturbances of these fields, and of propensity fields (de Broglie fields). (These remarks are conjectural, of course.) And I suggest that quantum mechanics is misinterpreted when it is not interpreted realistically. I also suggest that quantum mechanics says nothing whatever about epistemology, about our knowledge and its limits. (Tarozzi 1985, 4) In the attempt to solve the problem of the structure of matter theoreticians have adopted the restrictive and simplistic solution of a discrete energy structure in the frame of the internal structure of matter. To solve the problem of the fieldmatter interaction first we need to solve the problem of the theoretical compatibility of the two systems - the discrete structure of the internal energy and the continuous structure of electromagnetic radiation. In complete contradiction with the electromagnetic theory of light and its waveform structure, confirmed by experimental results regarding the interference and diffraction of light, quantum theory simplifies things and presents the wave-particle interaction as being discrete between substance and a hypothetical particle associated with the electromagnetic wave called photon - a measure of the energy exchange.
366

Systemic analysis
In the attempt to formulate a theory for the atomic structure, the creators of quantum theory have created a set of principles and initial conditions in basis of which they could build the theory of the atomic structure. The fundamental hypothesis of quantum theory regarding the discrete character of the energy has represented a major approximation that has as purpose simplifying the solution of the system but consequently also gives a drastic reduction of the possibilities to completely describe the interaction between all the elements of the system. The distant interaction of the elements comprised within the system cannot be analyzed in a system where energy and energy exchanges and discrete and in a fixed quantity. Quantum theory is a hypothetical solution to an imaginary reality which has gone so far from reality that it seems like it lost all connection to it. The vague character of the quantum description, underlined by various authors gives us the reason to consider quantum theory as an approximated knowledge with a vague definition of concepts, based on the uncertainty principle and on the discrete quality of the structure of the microcosm in opposition to the deterministic knowledge - causal and with a continuous description of the trajectories of movement of the elementary particles. This vague character of the quantum theory can be proven by the imprecision of the terms that it uses. In the article Quantum Objects are Vague Objects the authors show that: the defender of ontic vagueness to accept that vague objects must be strongly indistinguishable in the sense that any identity-free property determinately possessed by either must be determinately possessed by both, but that is precisely what quantum mechanics tells us is the case!. (French and Kraus 1996. 21-33) In the rest of the article the authors identify a series of aspects which demonstrate the vague character of quantum theory: - Quantum particles representation (understood in non-trivial sense). - Indistinguishability of non-individuality for quantum particles - In classical statistical mechanics a particle permutation is counted as observable, whereas in the quantum theory it is not - Precisely is a failure of (self-)identity that is attributed to quantum particles - The electrons are absolutely indistinguishable in the `strong' sense. The analysis of the components of the atomic structure separated in nucleus and electron shell that appear as two distinct and unconnected entities divided in two separate branches of physics: quantum and nuclear, gives us reason to underline the necessity of a systemic analysis where the theoretical approach analyzes the atomic structure as a unified complex structure without arbitrary borders or theoretical solutions based on circumstance. The existing scientific theories - based on quantum theory - have the wrong approach as a theoretical interpretation of the structure of the material world, having a unilateral view and a conventional and limited description of the components, a static view regarding them. The lack of clarity and scientific clarity in the description of the structure of matter at the level of the microcosm, from both the point of view of physics as well as chemistry can be pointed out by the fact that
367

these two sciences don't explicitly describe the nature of the bonds that exist between the elements of the material world as I'm trying to define it in the frame of the DESM theory as a complex of forces of electromagnetic and gravitational nature what interact and determine the movement of the elements. Quantum approach doesn't tell us anything about the stability or instability of the proposed pattern. Also it can't explain the relationship between the entities which define the system, and don't explain the procesuallity of the phenomena of the microcosm. Another problem hasn't been approached or elucidated by the quantum theory is that of the aggregation states. The transition between one state and another is done by energy inputs and outputs. It should be mentioned that the same inputs and outputs can take place in the case of atomic structures without modifying the state of aggregation. This is the problem: what is the essential difference between the atomic and molecular structures when the latter changes the state of aggregation? Quantum theory remains a completely obscure theory on this point. We define the notion of state of space as a characteristic of the atomic and molecular structures in which the dynamics of the trajectories remains in the same class as th events determined by the ratio between the forces that define the unchanged atomic structure. If we analyze quantum theory from the point of view of the method by which we can appreciate that it did not take into consideration the processual analysis of the atomic structure, based on valid scientific theories (waveform theory of light) but was set on isolated components of reality such as the absorption and emission of light that it tried to solve with a theory which has run its course (particle theory of light) and which the physics world had given up on. In the development of quantum theory initially they have tried to use solutions that have been already used for the development of the planetary model of the atom (Bhor's model) in which the nucleus is in the middle of the system and the electrons are moving around it. The quantum part of this model came into play to explain the emission and absorption of an energy quanta. This model is a descriptive model and it explains the interaction between the electron and the nucleus in a classic fashion. Newtonian mechanics has fascinated and influenced the appearance of quantum mechanics by the fact that using a relatively simple equation such as:

it explains the entire planetary and universal cosmology. It is an account of the Copernican revolution, with Copernicus, Kepler, and Galilei as heroes. Koestler was of course impressed by the magnitude of the step made by these men. He was also fascinated by the manner in which they made it. He saw them as motivated by irrational prejudice, obstinately adhered to, making mistakes which they did not discover, which somehow cancelled at the important points, and unable to recognize what was important in their results, among the mass of details. He concluded that they were not really aware of what they were doing...sleepwalkers. I thought it would be interesting to keep Koestler's thesis in
368

mind as we hear at this meeting about contemporary theories from contemporary theorists. (Bell 1989, 169) The multitude of forces and the complexity of the field have made necessary a complex approach that didn't represent a simple analytical solution, similar to that of the planetary model. In this way major adjustments and modifications have been made in the system of initial hypothesis in hopes of finding a solution for the atomic model that have places the new theory in opposition to the classic norms and concepts. After crystallizing the theoretical set of the fundamental theories, quantum theory seems to be a rather doubtful ad hoc hypothesis. A fundamental physical concept that calls to the quantum theory in its conceptual development is black-body radiation. It should be noted that this concept is a hypothetical one, a theoretical convention, a statistical approximation that refers to the emission or absorption of electromagnetic radiation that reflects an undeniable truth. The quantity of energy of the electromagnetic wave increases with the increase in frequency and gives the continuous distribution of radiation as a thermal effect. I've analyzed in detail this concept to show that Plank's constant that is the master key to the quantum theory underlined that it's theoretical nature is a statistical one. Quantum theory has taken for itself, without any relevant cognitive reason, the title of the last and most profound form of knowledge, becoming a fashionable theory. The lack of a singular vision regarding the interpretation of quantum reality that has created for many researchers the illusion that they can clarify if and therefore gain easy popularity by adhering to this fashionable theory. Atomic physics must be reconstructed on the basis of new elements of theory by returning to the spirit and values of classical physics. I have chosen this complicated and slow road to describe the structure in a coherent way from the point of view of the fundamental theoretical principles and of the theoretical mechanisms that have been validated for centuries in classical mechanics. Physics is the fundamental science that aims to understand all fundamental things of Nature. The role of physics is to improve our understanding of things surrounding us, at the macroscopic as well as at the microscopic scale. Classical physics, which we are trying to expand to the microcosm and implicitly to demonstrate its solidity and viability in operating with charged particles without the need for quantum concepts. If we accept that these particles are moving, this implies a modification in the tridimensional space and a time in which this movement takes place.

Quantum indeterminism and probabilistic determination

The majority of those who wrote about quantum theory have seen it as the supreme creation of scientific knowledge and have approached it in a superficial and uncritical way. The main characteristic of quantum theory in the explicit indeterminism assumes by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Quantum indeterminism as a philosophical basis is in opposition to the determinism of the procession nature of the material world.
369

In the end quantum theory appears as a self named, encased part of theoretical knowledge, in which the principles on which the entire classical knowledge are based , our common way of interpreting and understanding the world (determinist, spatial-temporal and causal) loses all sense. The problem is the fact that quantum theory couldn't reinterpret the whole of the knowledge of classical physics, and couldn't transpose it to its own code of principles and theoretical standards. Let's analyze such an approach that has solidified in the particle concept of the light. It is an example of quantum reinterpretation of the structure of electromagnetic radiation to make it compatible with the quantum structure of the atomic shell and the photon with which it interacts. With this representation in the quantum system the electromagnetic wave (characterized by the electrical and magnetic intensity, precise spatial-temporal representation, spatial-temporal processuality of the transformation of the electric and magnetic fields, oscillation frequency, polarization, faze, speed and direction of movement) is transformed into a photon that is only characterizes by energy, direction and speed. Analyzing the two representations we can see that the electromagnetic representation is better defined, richer in physical information compared to the particle view of quantum physics. From the point of view of classical physics the photon representation of light corresponds to a preexisting electromagnetic representation that is generally considered as left behind. To analyze and interpret the complex physical phenomena that study charged particles in motion outside of the theory of electromagnetism is completely without sense. I don't agree with sustaining quantum theory with authorities arguments by those that have created the theory as opposed to those who contest its merits such as Jon Bell: So I think it is not right to tell the public that a central role for conscious mind is integrated into modern atomic physics. Or that 'information' is the real stuff of physical theory. It seems to me irresponsible to suggest that technical features of contemporary theory were anticipated by the saints of ancient religions... by introspection. (Bell 1987, 170) A quanta of energy is a fundamental unit of measure of the atomic structure in the quantum representation which differentiates the energy levels, explains the interaction of the atomic structure with light (emission and absorption) as a particle and its effect of these interactions on the atomic structure, and represents an indeterministic measure from the point of view of localization and separation in the description of the microcosm. It is not indeterministic in a quantum sense. People have interpreted the insufficient theoretical descriptions and problems as virtues of a new way of theoretical knowledge. Karl Popper does not consider quantum uncertainty as a principle of the theory but as a subjective doctrine, an interpretation referring to the precision of measurement. There should be a clear distinction between waves and particles, between their properties and specific ways to manifest themselves. They are complementary in the sense that they represent the two forms that matter can take. To replace in the
370

quantum theory the term duality with the term complementarily does not solve the background problem of interpretation.

Excessive formalization
The formal description needs to be constructed and developed in harmony with the purposes of the theory and in its integrity. In the whole process of theoretical development we have to keep in mind to adapt the formalism to the needs and purposes of the theory. To fulfill its purpose, the formalism of a physics theory is a mathematic instrument with a profound content physically adapted to the purposes of knowledge. Formalism in itself lacks the value of truth, cannot be extracted and developed outside of the theory that generated it. It does not get theoretical autonomy and it cannot formally substitute the theory. The theoretical evaluation is applied to the theory as a whole. Just as a scientific theory cannot be reduced to its formal development and cannot be its substitute, the formalism of the theoretical development cannot exist independently and cannot be a substitute for the theory as a whole. Formalism can be, under certain conditions, the quintessence of a theory when the theoretical development imposes this, but it still cannot be a substitute for the theory, and it cannot determine its factual interpretation. Blind faith in formalism and strictly formal interpretation that contradicts the theory as a whole, or turns the theory away from the purpose of describing the physical world with its real concrete facts is not the right path to follow. Many theories have as a stage, from the point of view of their theoretical development, the formal description, however that does not explain the tendency of many physicists to focus excessively on the mathematic apparatus. There are fields, such as the one that we are discussing (figuring out the atomic structure) where the formal development is not sufficient and does not represent the end of the theoretical process. In the theory presented in the book The end of Quantum Theory, the formal development shows only the behavior of a dipole composed of two charged elementary particles in a very short time that we are approximating as being linear on its trajectory. We need a new step in the theoretical development and that is the numeric modeling which will show the behavior of physical particles and the atomic structure as a whole, in its entire procesuality.

REFERENCES: 1. Abdoullaev, Azamat Sh. The Ultimate of Reality: Reversible Causality, http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Meta/MetaAbdo.htm 2. Barut, Asim O., On the Status of Hidden Variable Theories in Quantum Mechanics, APEIRON, Vol. 2, No. 4 (October, 1995), p. 97. 3. Bell, J. S. 1989. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press.
371

4. Bell, Jon. 1987. Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics, Cambridge University Press. 5. Culda, Lucian. 1992. Procesualitatea social. Bucureti: Licorna. 6. dEspagnat, Bernard, Fundamental Problems of Quantum Physics, APEIRON, Vol. 2, No. 4 (October, 1995), p. 101. 7. French, Steven, and Dcio Kraus. 1996. Quantum Objects are Vague Objects, SORITES Issue #06. 8. Hodorogea,Mihai.2008.TheEndofQuantumTheory,Bucureti:AxiomaPrint. 9. Jammer, Max, The Conceptul Developement of Quantum Mechanics, Mc Graw-Hill. 10. Marmet, Paul. Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution, http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca 11. Plotnitsky, Arkady, Mysteries without Mysticism and Correlations without Correlata: On Quantum Knowledge and Knowledge in General, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 33, No. 11, (November, 2003) pp. 1651, 1653. 12. Santos, Emilio, Foundations of Quantum Physics: Present and Future, APEIRON, Vol. 2, No. 4, (October, 1995), p. 110. 13. Selleri, Franco, Fundamental Problems of Quantum Physics, APEIRON, Vol. 2, No. 4 (October, 1995), p. 112. 14. Tarozzi, A. van der Merwe G. (eds). 1985. Open Questions in Quantum Physics, Kluwer Academic Publisher, by Karl R. Popper.

ENDNOTES:
___________________________________________________

Natureisthegreatestinthesmallestthings. An Italian adagium which translates into something like: If it's not true, at least it'swellinvented. 3 To know the causes of things.
2

372