Absurdities in Modern Physics:

          A Solution

                        by   Paul Marmet

Preface
         When I chose to study physics, I thought that science was always rational. Modern physics has certainly failed to fulfill those expectations. For example, I found that the widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation does not allow us to believe in the real existence of matter and that the law of causality is not applied in quantum theory. David Layzer gave one of the most honest descriptions of modern physics when he said that modern physics is merely a computational device for predicting the outcomes of possible measurements. Unfortunately, his statement is true.
        Physics can be studied from many different points of view. Its aim can be to make numerical predictions of some phenomena or to present a rational way of explaining physical observations. These are two quite different aspects.
        Let us consider the first aspect predicting events. Using mathematical equations, modern physics can make predictions with extreme reliability. The mathematical formalism used in physics is so powerful that, when it leads to cases that can be calculated, it gives predictions that are compatible with all known experiments.
        This book does not directly deal with mathematical physics. Therefore, we will avoid using, as much as possible, most of the equations known in modern physics. We do not challenge any of the mathematical equations of modern physics. The usual aspect of physics, as being a computational device for predicting the outcomes of possible measurements, is not considered here at all.
        In this book, we consider only the second aspect of physics. When we deal with physics, we must ask: Do rules other than the ones imposed by mathematical logic exist? Yes, there are in physics some elements that do not exist in mathematics. Physics deals with concepts such as mass, length, time and energy. These concepts correspond in our mind to images different from the ones represented by mathematical relations. They have a different representation in our mind because they must be submitted to external tests. They have to comply with observational results. There is no equivalence in mathematics. A mathematical demonstration never implies any experimentation. Mathematics simply deals with the calculation of relations between those concepts.
        The next question is: Can we apply logically any existing mathematical relationship to those physical concepts, and expect to find a result compatible with experiments? The answer is certainly "No". Physics possesses its own rules different from those of mathematics. Mathematics allows the calculation of things that cannot exist. Here are some examples. Physically, it does not make sense to consider negative or imaginary masses although mathematics can calculate them. Also, it is observed that masses never move to velocities faster than light. Instantaneous interaction at a distance is not a problem in mathematics, it is not however compatible with physical reality.
        When we deal with physical reality, a mass must have an existence independent of the observer. We can show that mathematics can be used to calculate objects that do not have an autonomous existence. Pure mathematical results do not necessarily have a correspondence with physical reality. For example, mathematics allows us to calculate the effects of the reversal of time although this reversal is not compatible with experiments. We also try to find a cause for any physical phenomenon. However, the physical cause of the phenomenon is irrelevant in mathematics.
        We must conclude that since physics must be compatible with observations, specific rules are required. We cannot claim that the rules of mathematics are exactly the same as those that apply in physics. Without the characteristic rules of physics, there would then be no difference between physics and mathematics and experiments would be useless. Physics requires extra rules that are not pertinent in mathematics.
        It is the specific rules of physics that we discuss in this book. The main rules discussed here are causality, realism and the coherence of physical laws. Those rules are essential to a rational explanation to paradoxes about light and wave-particle interpretation. Furthermore, those rules must be coherent and not contradict each other as usually happens when we try to explain light.
        In this book, we first recall the well-known absurdities of the Copenhagen interpretation of modern physics. We then realize that there is a substantial need to define realism in physics. The difficulties of the dualistic model for the interpretation of light and particles are examined. The realism of Einstein's relativity is shown to be of the utmost importance. Using relativity, we show that a rational solution exists to explain light behavior without having to deal with the absurdities of the Copenhagen interpretation. We present a rational solution to the paradoxes of modern physics. Contrary to what has been claimed, it is erroneous to believe that those paradoxes have no rational solution.
        Finally one essential result is that the interpretations given here are completely compatible with the existing formalism of the mathematics of modern physics. In a few words, it is shown that Nature is logical and that matter is compatible with realism, contrary to the claim offered by the interpretation of modern physics.

Acknowledgment.
        The author wishes to express his gratitude to Luc Gauthier for his devoted and unfailing assistance. I also acknowledge fruitful discussions with L. Marmet, M. Proulx, B. Richardson, A. St-Jacques and some friends. I wish to thank Mrs. J. R. Beaty and Mr. S. Beaty for the editorial help. A research grant from Natural Science and Engineer Research Council of Canada given for a related subject largely contributed to create the conditions suitable for active research and to the printing of this report.

  Contents      Chapter 1

Return to: List of Papers on the Web
Author address