The Fundamental Error of Quantum Mechanics

A Right Criticism

but 

The Wrong Solution

There is a Stanford "Continuing Education" Lecture, by Leonard Susskind, the purpose of which is supposedly to deliver, to a collection of mature-and-interested general auditors, an interesting Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, and its Foundations in Theory.

But Susskind's Lecture, from its very outset, instead attempts to ground his criticisms of Classical Physics, solely from a Quantum Mechanical (basically a Copenhagen) standpoint, via what seems initially to be a valid revelation of the fundamental-and-debilitating weaknesses of the former. 

He wrongly puts it down to congenital errors, due to actual "inaccuracies-in-measurements", but he does it, by inferring that the blame should be put solely upon the unavoidably inadequate means used in obtaining them, instead of Classical Physics' actually wholly flawed and totally inadequate mathematical rationality, which ever since its inception in Ancient Greece, was wholly incorrectly and damagingly transferred to ALL the Sciences.

Susskind does not even recognise this problem - but he also, in attaching the errors solely to poorly arranged-for experimental means, thereby delivering the blamed evident inaccuracies of the results obtained.

But in that he is doubly wrong: for his criticisms, which still leave him (and his auditors) totally unaware of the real causes, so, both cannot, in any way, deliver a solution, but also, in that wrong attribution, he completely hides the real causes, and, therefore, allows his "purely theoretically-perfected" equations to be the ONLY Ultimate Sources of Truth.

He establishes his position by this as totally idealist.

He establishes it NOT via Reality, but through Mathematical Rationality alone.

Theoretical Physicists have always dealt with all experimentally achieved results and consequently theoretically interpreted them via the mistakenly applied Pluralist Rationality, which sees all extracted relations solely as products of Eternally Fixed Natural Laws. That ONLY come out of the consequently formulated and theoretically confirmed Equations. The data so originally achieved will NOT be the Form that is required, but, on the contrary, that imposed upon the situation by just those constraints that ensure its total conformity to Plurality.

We do not directly measure Reality-as-is, but a Reality so constrained as to reveal more clearly only exactly what is purposely sought! But, unless the data-producing experiments required for the usual Pluralist Approach have been "perfectly applied", both in how the experiments were set-up-and-maintained throughout, they will never deliver the exactly aimed-for data, which is necessary, and will instead only produce data certain to differ from what could be either achieved in such sufficiently-rigidly controlled experiments OR taken directly from prior, "accurate" individual Equations, as all simultaneously-acting Laws are assumed to be wholly independent of one another, and hence arranged to be extracted one-at-a-time - pluralistically!

Whereas, in the actual Real Holist World outside, those could, if done correctly, actually reflect Reality-as-it-actually-is.

The problem is that the Rationality of Mathematics, as fully exemplified in Euclidian Geometry, did indeed define a legitimate Rationality - it works flawlessly - but ONLY in constrained areas. This is solely because Form, unlike almost everything else in Reality, does indeed soundly conform to Plurality's rules: a specific Logic for dealing with a Discipline composed exclusively of separable entires and FIXED relations or Unchanging Laws!

But, the trouble was, that following the universal successes of Pluralist Logic, it was applied to all the sciences, in a way which omitted the richness and dynamism of the material Universe.

In assuming that revealed relations are Eternal Natural Laws, all Real Development is excluded.

And, Susskind, in his Lecture, then proceeds to "Compound the Felony", by marshalling all his arguments, via the same mistaken Rationality. He correctly demonstrates the inability to predict in literally ALL situations, but instead makes it solely due to measured inaccuracies, whereas the most important of them are all due to the total exclusion of handling All Qualitative Change. 

And, he conversely puts down the simple addition of results into more complex situations, as due to the very same reason - rather than the actual reason that classical Pluralist Physics cannot deal with Reality-as-is, and merely substitutes, instead, the additions of multiple Fixed Laws, for the actual totally unknown and unconsidered Real Qualitative Changes that are involved.

He declares that the Double Slit Experiments all totally prove his case, whereas the opposite is true. 

Their paradoxes, on the contrary, and much like those of Zeno, expose the fundamental inadequacies of Pluralist Logic.

[See "The Theory of the Double Slit Experiments" in SHAPE Journal]

And, in a significantly ineffectual following section, he then resorts (as is usual for him) to proving his case using Mathematical Equations alone - the very cause of the major failures, to "prove" the opposite!

NOTE:

A whole series of papers dedicated to a major prior series of lectures by Susskind, has also been published in SHAPE Journal, but give-yourself-time, SHAPE has been publishing for 11 years now, delivering 125 issues with perhaps somewhat more than 1000 individual papers available!

Having spent most of my professional life posing these difficult questions, the importance of this now mature philosophical stance in addressing what is wrong with Modern Physics, is also succesfully employed across many different disciplines, from Politics to Evolutionary Biology. 

The flaws of the dominant Pluralist stance are revealed inadvertently by Susskind himself, for he passionately believes in Pluralistic Theory over-and-above any messy purely Pragmatic Extractions from Reality-as-is. 

When presented with "beautiful", generally consistent-and-coherent elegant Theory, and the messy error-filled "facts" from Nature, he resolutely chooses the Former as "containing the Real Truth". 

However difficult, Reality must be our final arbiter. 

Anything else can only be delusional!

 

The Ghosts in a Ghost Substrate

A Hauntograph by Michael C Coldwell

The following is a quote from an article in New Scientist (3205) called How a ghostly, forgotten particle could be the saviour of physics, and I extract it here long before the writer gets to revealing which particular particle she is telling us about. For they are indeed legion in the standard Copenhagen approach, and also because there is an alternative theoretical stance which has proved that it can cope very well indeed with such problems, but which is currently anathema in consensus Sub Atomic Physics.

"THIS is the story of a particle that has refused to die. For 50 years, it has haunted particle physics, with hints of its presence appearing in maddeningly ambiguous ways. Some believe they have seen it. Others think it is a figment of our imagination. But every time we think it is definitely not there, a sudden gust of wind knocks over the furniture and once more there is confusion." 

Ghosts in New Scientist 3205

 Now, the most fleeting of particles actually occur at the very heart of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, indeed they involve absolutely all-of-those included in the concept of Wave/Particle Duality, wherein such entities can sometimes act as classical Particles, while at others, act as if subject to their own intrinsic Wave, which somehow determines, but does not reveal, where they are!

The reason for such remarkable behaviour is never explained, but instead is "put down to" Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which makes the Sub Atomic Realm very different from the rest of Reality, by being totally indeterminate.

Yet, the suggested physical alternative to Copenhagen, achieves a general resolution of all its founding anomalies present in the ill-famed Double Slit Experiments, merely by including a Universal Substrate in the situations.

Though, it has to also be undetectable!

Now, I bring it up here, because just such an Undetectable Universal Substrate has been theoretically-defined, solely in terms of mutually-orbiting pairs of diametrically-opposite Leptons. And, several crucial Units of that Substrate involve the very Neutrinos that are considered in this article.

So, let us investigate exactly how the presence of just such a Substrate affects phenomena occurring within it.

For then, with such a Substrate, the Wave/Particle Duality construct of Copenhagen dissolves instead into a classical Particle interacting with the Substrate to produce Waves, which are then transformed by passing through the Slits and, thereafter, interfering with each other, to then affect the slow-moving, causing Particle, when it finally arrives at the caused Interference Pattern, in that Substrate!

And, thus, such delayed interlopers having been affected by their differing particular passages through that changed Substrate, to finally produce, as Particles, the overall pattern on the detection screen.

Waves are rendered once more properties of extended, connected Substrates, when disturbed by a Particle. which scamper ahead and ultimately produce an interference pattern, that then affects its own much slower-moving cause.

And, the required undetectable Units for such a Substrate, are indeed possible via mutually-orbiting pairs of diametrically-opposite, composing sub-units.

You only have to consider Pair Production and Pair Annihilations, each involve one electron and one positron! For, we are informed that such processes convert Energy-to-Matter and Matter-to-Energy! How??

How about changing from and to mutually-orbiting-pairs instead? The pairs cannot be detected and so the particles appear to vanish or appear, as if from nowhere!

Ghost Particles by Michael C Coldwell

For, such have actually been observed to occur at Fermilab, in the Tevatron, and were named there as Positroniums. And, as it happens, all the other Leptons could also be so linked too!

Aren't such ghost particles usually called Photons - meaning disembodied Energy gobbits?

And, it makes more sense than electrical and magnetic sinusoidal oscillations, acting at right angles to one another, and carrying Energy, supposedly in totally Empty Space - not to mention turning into physical matter and antimatter particles spontaneouly! How all this is meant to happen has never been explained.

In this alternative model it is. The full nature of electromagnetism is indeed encapsulated in an orbiting charged Particle, including the involved Energy, which occur in such mutually-orbiting pairs!

Now, I am well aware of the consensus stance, but reject it both philosophicallyand physically, for I consider such a purely Maths-based stance to be merely an idealist formal construct: indeed a wholly pluralist complexity, embodying all the premise-errors due to an insistence upon Eternal Natural Laws, and also to the total omission of all qualitative changes from all of Mathematics, as well as all consequent non-dialectical Reasoning too.

Though, the complexity of their multi-dimensional Mathematics effectively hides it, their involved philosophical stance is an illegitimate amalgam of several wholly contradictory stances, apparently justified only by the immature Pragmatism of "If it works, it is right!"

The problems outlined in this piece can be transformed, once a Universal Substrate of the kind outlined above is involved, and not only due to their actions as parts of that Substrate, but also as occasionally, temporarily free-moving units dissociated from their usual Substrate roles.

For example, the theoretical Substrate research has revealed by the discovery of several different modes of those units, both as transformed Substrates, and as free-moving Streams and Vortices - the latter allowing a totally non-Copenhagen explanation for quantised electron orbits in atoms.

 

"The bad news is that the latest round of experiments set up to look for it claim that it can’t possibly be there."

But, consider again the theoretical research - when particles can exist in three different modes as :-

1. Free-moving as mutually-orbiting pairs
2. Existing as a part of the Universal Substrate
3. Free-moving as parts of a dissociated Substrate Unit

For then the described anomalies will be due to the transfers in-and-out of being Substrate Units, and in-and-out of being mutually orbiting Pairs!

But then:

"As long ago as the 1960s, however, physicists measuring the quantity of electron neutrinos reaching Earth found a major shortfall, with one experiment detecting only 25 per cent of the expected number."

Clearly, with a totally space-filling Universal Substrate composed in part of just such Particles, the capture of some of that Solar Stream into the all-pervading Substrate composed, in part, of the same kind of Particles, seems more likely than not!

The difference between a Totally Empty Space, and one filled with a complex Universal Substrate, surely has to be colossal. Indeed, not only would such a Substrate allow the explanation of many phenomena, but it would turn a vacuum peopled with only colliding particles, into a maelstrom of turbulences, propagations, transfers and Energy.

But,

"Rather than being massless, each neutrino did in fact have a tiny amount of mass, no more than a millionth that of an electron. This mass gives neutrinos a remarkable ability to switch between flavours"

Now, all-known-Neutrinos have been integrated, via mutually-orbiting Pairs, into my Universal Substrate, and designated as potential Gravitons or alternatively as a similar, though-much-tinier Photon, so clearly, in addition to the usual releases and captures to-and-from the Substrate, and even the regular dissociations and re-associations of pairs to-and-from the individual components, while the mini-photons will also be literally everywhere.

Thus, such a Substrate area, with is multiple processes, could very easily be misinterpreted as described in the above quote!

"That meant electron neutrinos produced in the sun’s core could transform into either muon or tau neutrinos, evading our searches on Earth."

OR, as I hope has become clear, a Universal Substrate, containing all these kinds of neutrinos, in abundance, will undergo dissociations due to the surges from the Sun, so enabling their detection as part of that Solar Stream. Not an oscillation between different types at all!

And the article goes on to mention many other anomalies - all succumbing to the same explanation as I have outlined above. I will not list them all!

But clearly, they all assume that these happen in totally Empty Space - either occurring naturally "in Space", or artificially maintained as in all pluralist experiments. But, clearly in neither situation is the undetectable Universal Substrate actually removed! It is always there, but in different states, perhaps.

However, once you have embraced the infinite variety of Ideality, and causal explanations are no longer open to you, instead you get this type of thing -

"the idea is to invent a fourth, “sterile” flavour of neutrino capable of shape-shifting into any of the other three."

Need I say more!

Now, to those who demand full explanations from myself, as the dissenter, may I say that I am just a theorist, and the task, if it is considered to be worthwhile by other Physicists, is surely to find ways of experimentally investigating my suggested undetectable Universal Substrate.

But, I'm afraid this will be impossible pluralistically!

The whole stance of current Physics prohibits such a task, which involves a complete revolution both philosophically and experimentally.

Finally, having read this article more than once, it has to be said that it reeks of Modern Mathematics, as it must, of course, if the only place to look for "reasons" is Form, therefore redirecting the focus totally from concrete Reality's Properties & Causes to Ideality's infinite Forms.

Notice how even experiment has become subordinated to confirming to the Mathematics!

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and an Undetectable Substrate

This short piece does not stand alone!

It represents a very late, yet crucial, stage in a major philosophical and physical critical assault upon the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, but from a steadfastly materialist standpoint, involving a very different philosophical position, and also the inclusion of a currently undetectable, yet fully-defined and explained Universal Substrate. All the technical questions have been dealt with elsewhere, but there still remains one last piece of the jigsaw -

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle!

The purpose of this essay is to debunk Heisenberg's excuse for the Copenhagen stance, which dispenses with the Classical assumptions about Reality, but only within the special Sub Atomic Realm, where he insists determinism no longer applies, and only an assumption of indeterminism allows Mankind to deal with the phenomena we find there.

And, consequently, in such circumstances, NO Causal Explanations were possible, and the only methods capable of delivering anything useable were Statistics and Probability.

But, this opponent of Copenhagen, having already managed to theoretically explain many currently "physically-inexplicable phenomena", by assuming the universal presence of a currently existing, yet passively-undetectable Substrate, which can be, both affected-by and affecting-of, any encountered physical entities, and thereafter, even widening that body of explanations, both extensively and successfully - it suddenly struck me how-and-why the Copenhagenists get away with their entirely formal descriptions.

The reason is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle coversfor the incorrect omission of the Universal Substrate as an absolutely crucial premise, within the Sub Atomic Realm in Physics!

What does the Copenhagen Interpretation smuggle in to even make a formal description possible?

It is, of course a Wave Equation!

And, where do such equations usually apply?

They apply to phenomena in Media!

Certainly, the presence of such a Universal Substrate cannot currently be detected, so, in spite of its omission causing innumerable problems, it was still dropped permanently as a necessary premise.

Now, local incidents can cause non-local (extended) effects in such substrates! And, in addition, such effects can then affect not only local entities, but also by propagating to wide areas of the substrate, hence affect more distant entities.

They can even affect the very entities which originally caused them - in reflected-and-recursive interactions, as in the Double Slit Experiments, and in various kinds of resonance.

There is new evidence to consider from current Very Low Temperature Physics - soon to be imminently extended to Gravity-Free conditions in the Space Laboratory in orbit around the Earth - plus it is also abundantly clear from my own researches into Substrates (composed of undetectable joint-particles) that these are not only several in number, but also diverse in their achievable aggregate Phases, presenting very different conditions and possible phenomena to traversing interlopers.

How on earth do you deal with such influences with NO detectable substrate?

Physically, you can't!

So what did they do?

By using forms derived from Mathematics, and previously used with phenomena in observable substrates, you can, with difficulty, also FIT-UP-TO real data just such such formulae, even with no detectable Substrate, BUT never deterministically!

All sorts of workarounds are necessary, both formally and philosophically, to achieve, and then use, these formulae. The formal tricks are no problem, as scientists have been using such rigs throughout their History. But, the philosophical contrivances are more difficult, so the New View would have to take on Philosophy - a very well established discipline! They had to remove, "physically", the bases assumed by the philosophers. And, this was achieved via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - for "At the bottommost levels determinism no longer holds, indeed, a kind of indeterminism holds instead."

Plurality strikes again!

The very principle, which, along with Pragmatism, allowed all the many contradictorily-established disciplines to exist simultaneously, was again brought to bear in this incredible anachronism.

Now, quite apart from the assertions being made here, the whole Philosophical Basis, for the usual range of intellectual disciplines, has already been established by this philosopher-physicist, in his analysis and description of the whole trajectory of intellectual development of Mankind, from their Hunter/Gatherer beginnings, to the present time, which have made various past and present Amalgams of contradictory premises appear "legitimate" via that usual banker premise of Pragmatism - "If it works, it is right!", which, of course, does no such thing, though it can deliver a workable basis for technological gains and productions.

Indeed, Philosophy itself is also one of these disciplines, whereas it should be the measureof them all, and provide the means for dismantling such false separations of disciplines, intellectually at least.

But, the Amalgam of contradictory premises underpinning all the Sciences, was unavoidably adopted, historically, as the only way Mankind had discovered to Control-and-Use many contradictory aspects of Reality to their benefit. It was suggested, initially, by Abstraction, which allowed some sort of discussion of things, achieved by both simplifying and naming them, and with the increasing socialisation of Human beings via the Neolithic Revolution, and the change in their mode of Life, primarily to staying in one place and Farming. For, then Abstraction began to be used in Descriptions, by simplifying observed shapes into Perfect Forms, and studying those in place of their naturally occurring sources: they began to idealiseas well as simplify, and both of these greatly increased what could be done in studying them, and what might be done with them.

From this we arrive at Euclidian Geometry, and the developable power of its Theorems and Proofs. This became a kind of standard for all other intellectual disciplines, and in particular, for Formal Logic, and therefore all the others in which Reasoning was applied too.

But the Mathematics into which Euclidian Geometry grew, was also entirely pluralistic - in that all entities involved were assumed to be separable, and always exactly the same - that is totally unchanging qualitatively - indeed they were considered to be eternal!

All of these disciplines were hamstrung by this totally false limitation.

Now, this imposition of Plurality onto all of these disciplines, including their common Lingua Franca - Formal Reasoning, made absolutely certain that they would always be limited to situations in which nothing ever changed in any profound or qualitative way, so when applied to anything real, it would necessarily only apply to stable situtations involving such things. So, anything involving real development, would necessarily be totally excluded.

This was a crippling restriction, so when Science began to be developed upon the exact same basis, such a Principle implied that no Natural Law (which would necessarily be eternal) would be affected by any changed context. And this tenet both severely handicapped, and yet also enabled a warped-version of Science for many centuries!

It hamstrung it by banning all Qualitative Change to any extracted Laws.

And, it enabled a version of it, as long as the severely-constrained Context, necessarily arranged for to get such Laws extracted in the first place, was identically replicated for its subsequent effective use.

In addition, this also meant that though such "eternal Laws" could be effectively and productively used, they were not those acting in allcircumstances, but only those in the single contexts that alone validated its use. What is generally termed Classical Physics, was actually entirely so crippled, that it should have been termed PluralistPhysics, usable only in very limited constrained circumstances, so that any supposedly General Theory based upon that Law, would always be wrong. And, thus all findings would be both simplified, and also idealised, by taking a pluralist mathematical formula, and fitting it up to the data collected from that pluralist single situation.

Theoretically, as in generating an explanation, that formula would also be wrong: it could be legitimately be used pragmatically, but never theoretically. Indeed, a thorough-going analysis of such a "Law", would reveal it as an illegitimate Amalgam of a Materialist Stance, along with an Idealist stance, and one crippled by Plurality, so would be useless for both explanation and use within any normal natural situation.

And crucially, this was the Physics that failed to cope with Quantized Phenomena: it neither would, nor ever could, cope with such phenomena adequately in any method of experiment in a real world - which also included an undetectable Universal Substrate.

The perpetrators of the Copenhagen Interpretation did not even know of its built-in disabilities - so they kept all the errors of Plurality, and decided instead to throw out Explanation as totally impossible, due to the Sub Atomic Realm being a different world, changed by the Principle of Uncertainty formulated by Werner Heisenberg.

Werner Heisenberg at the blackboard

Clearly, the usual assumptions were indeed adequate above a certain size of the participating components being studied. But, according to Heisenberg, once that size was left behind, and a World of the extremely small was entered, the rules changed dramatically! We had entered the World of Quantum Physics, where things just behaved very differently. Below that level, things became indeterminate - acting within a range of possibilities, and the old determinate Physics could no longer be used.

Indeed, a particular Wave Equation actually delivered that range, but in a very odd way! It delivered only the probabilities of a particle being in each of the whole range of locations covered by that Equation. BUT, we already have detailed knowledge of such phenomena! Long ago, scientists conquered similar situations when they were happening within an affected and effecting visible Substrate. Some material interloper could both disturb, and, in special circumstances, be recursively affected by that disturbance.

Could such methods be appropriate in this area too?

The assumption of a currently undetectable Universal Substrate was included, theoretically, in every single one of the Double Slit Experiments, and every single anomaly was physically explained without any recourse to Heisenberg or the Copenhagen Interpretation whatsoever. It seems that, as with so many of the strange anomalies of the Quantum world, and the subsequent ‘idealisation’ of Physics, this crucial missing premise is to blame.

This paper has been recently published in my new book The Real Philosophy of Science

Jim Al-Khalili and the "Two-Slit" experiment

Al-Khalili has learned nothing on the Copenhagen Interpretation of The Double Slit Experiments

In a recent lecture (see the YouTube clip below), Jim Al-Khalili repeats the usual Copenhagen Interpretation of the ill-famed Double Slit Experiments, and his arguments have not changed one iota.

The video is captioned: "If you can explain this using common sense and logic, do let me know, because there is a Nobel Prize for you.." 

Well Jim! Have you seen our video?

Many years ago I listened to an In Our Time radio programme presented by Melvin Bragg, in which a gaggle of prestigious supporters of the Copenhagen Interpretation of that same experiment, put forward an identical account. But, neither version could transcend the contradictory accounts of particles "sometimes acting like Particles, but at other times acting like Waves".

Ever since Zeno's Paradoxes in Ancient Greece, applications of Formal Logic to certain puzzling scenarios would always end in such contradictory endpoints - entirely inexplicable in Formal Logical terms.

The problems were not trivial!

They were caused by a founding principle of both Mathematics and Formal Logic termed Plurality.

And, the reason that this crucial flaw was never addressed was because the Greeks purposely limited their intellectual disciplines to concepts and things that did not change - they remained the same qualitatively.

And, perhaps surprisingly, it proved to be an extremely empowering stance to take! For, assuming, or even ensuring, such stability in situations, certainly made them predictable.

First, this was the essential Foundation Stone of Mathematics - and legitimately established a whole new and extendable discipline, absolutely-valid for things that remained the same qualitatively: it enabled an effective Discipline of Forms and their Quantities.

But, its powerful methods of Extension and Proof, persuaded the Greeks to carry them over to a system of reasoning, later termed Formal Logic: so the new discipline could only be applied to concepts that did not change.

The logical contradiction of the Double Slit can be traced back to Ancient Greek Philosophy

This same supposition was also embedded in the initial approach to Science too.

In fact, NO real attention was given to this important disability, for about 2,300 years, when Hegel finally realised that Qualitative Changes were just NOT addressable within Formal Logic as-it-then-was, and he determined to unearth as many of these Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts as he could, in order to find out their disabling bases.

He was successful in a whole number of cases, where he found that both concepts in such a Dichotomous Pair arose from the same-inadequate-premises, which would have to be changed to turn the usual non-transcend-able impasse, into a transcend-able Logical Fork.

Now, following this initial success, a great deal more has followed, enabling a major transformation of Formal Reasoning to include the tempo, processes and even the causes of truly qualitative changes.

Yet merely the application of Hegel's initial discoveries, to the Double Slit Experiments, would be sufficient to address every single anomaly of that confusing evidence. For, the mistaken premises can be both incorrect or actually missing: and the inclusion of a currently undetectable Substrate within those experiments did indeed physically explain everything!

Michelson-Morley disproved Luminiferous Aether

Now, of course, no such Substrate has ever been found, and the Michelson-Morley Experiments had seemingly banished and then denounced that assumed-to-be-present Ether, as non-existent. But, that did not banish any currently undetectable Substrate that was, nevertheless, both affected-by-and affecting-of interloping entities.

Every single anomaly was easily explained by assuming auch an intermediary.

But it had to be established that such a Universal, yet-undetectable, Substrate could both exist, and, deliver physical explanations of everything involved. It was initially undertaken to establish, theoretically, just such a Substrate - composed entirely of various mutually-orbiting pairs of Leptons, with diametrically opposite properties.

The first of these was a stable version of the Positronium, which was re-labelled as a Neutritron. This was a remarkable entity, neutral in every way, which could exist in three different modes and associations, and also be dissociated back into its separate components - one Electron and one Positron.

A very loosely-associated medium, termed a 'Paving', was possible, which could propagate Electromagnetic Energy at the Speed of Light, but could also be dissociated into its individual Neutritrons - identical to Photons, which could behave like a random Gas, or be driven into energetic Streams and even into Vortices.

A Substrate of particle-pairs like the Positronium, could be an invisible medium for EM radiation

Now, every kind of Substrate Unit was, because of their mutually-orbiting nature, also capable of carrying quanta of electromagnetic Energy via the promotion of that orbit: and could deliver such quanta by the demotion of their orbits.

And, elsewhere, it has been possible to explain the quantized orbits of Electrons within Atoms, by the dissociation of the Paving, and driving of Neutritrons into accompanying Streams and Vortices, which because of the constant return of the driving electrons, can find stable orbits wherein the net transfer of energy between electron orbit and maintained vortices arrives at a balance via stable maintained radii.

I could go on, but my sole purpose here is to counterpose the above Physics to what Al' Khalili peddles.

What do you think?

The Photon

The Photon

Pure Energy Quantum or Undetectable Container?

Purely Formal Description or Material Explanation?

Clearly, such paradoxes, as appear in the subtitles of this paper, reflect the now universally-accepted, paradoxical properties of this crucial entity. For, current theories, based upon the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory insist upon such paradoxes as being absolutely-essential to the real nature of this entity, and of Sub Atomic Physics in general.

Perhaps the most incongruous of these ideas are the related phenomena of Pair Production and Pair Annihilation! For, in Pair Production, a high-energy Photon suddenly converts from being a Quantum of Pure Energy into TWO material particles - an ordinary matter Electron with a negative charge, and an antimatter Positron with a positive charge.

Clearly, an example of matter being created out of Pure Energy - initially in some non-material, yet finite and localised form, which, then, all by itself, converts into two material particles of "incompatible" matter-types, moving off in exactly opposite directions...

Wow!

So, perhaps the opposite process of Pair Annihilation will help our understanding?

For, in Pair Annihilation, the encounter of an Electron and a Positron, immediately causes the destruction of these two well-defined material entities, in which their physically-based properties, are converted into a Quantum - as a finite, localised concentration of Pure Energy - somehow retaining something of its previous incarnation, but converted into "the possibility" of Electromagnetic Energy, which is traditionally described in terms of two interwoven, varying vectors - one electric and the other magnetic.

"Magic?"

Now, if the reader finds all this somewhat confusing - join the club! For, it was precisely such inexplicable paradoxes which led to the abandonment of the prior Explanatory Physics, to be totally replaced by a purely Descriptive, Mathematical alternative.

For, the new non-explanatory form could still be effectively used! It could predict, in a new way, with remarkable accuracy - and with the still major persistence of Pragmatism, as a long-relied-upon means of getting-around contradictions, physicists found that the prior requirement of also coherently-and-physically explaining phenomena, could be jettisoned for a pure mathematical consistency instead, which, henceforth, replaced Explanation as a sufficient "Theory"!

But, two immediate questions present themselves:-

1. Is such a change philosophically sound?
2. Is there a different physical explanation?

Now, there is an immediate answer to Question 1, which also explains a great deal more than we are considering here. To carry it through with sufficient philosophical rigor would be a significant undertaking. So, the briefest answer will have to suffice here (though a full treatment is available from this theorist elsewhere).

Ever since the breakthroughs of the Ancient Greeks, Mankind has had to manage with an incompatible amalgam of basically contradictory philosophic stances. Indeed, the prior major intellectual stance of Pragmatism was retained, but overlain, first, with Idealism and Plurality (from their invention of Mathematics), and then with Materialism from early observational Science. There was no avoiding inevitable contradictions, and a powerful blinkering to restrict study to exclusively actual or man-made Stabilities, and ignoring qualitative change as being solely due to mere quantitative accumulation. Finally, their development of Formal Logic was also damaged by the very same premise-extractions from Mathematics.

Such a basis was always, and still is, inadequate to the tasks presented to scientists by Development, Evolution and the emerging Nature of Reality at the Sub Atomic Level. The unavoidable contradictions proved just too much, and without a real philosophical solution, they just dropped the "culprit" of Physical Explanation completely.

Now, as to question 2!

There is, in fact, an alternative Physical Explanation, which certainly explains both Pair Production and Pair Annihilation, which I will touch on here. And, when extended beyond these phenomena and involving different components, seems to offer a full refutation to Copenhagen in general.

It involves the combination of an Electron and a Positron into a stable joint particle!

This is usually discounted due to the universally accepted tenet that matter and antimatter mutually annihilate one another on contact to deliver Pure Energy: but what if they mutually orbit one another instead?

We know it can happen because of the Positronium - a mutually-orbiting pair of precisely these two entities, as was observed in the Tevatron at Fermilab, but in that accelerator, what was produced never survived for long!

The alternative is a sufficiently stable version of that joint particle, which I have re-named the Neutritron.

So what do we get?

It appears to be a very small, wholly neutral particle with no magnetic dipole moment. It will therefore be undetectable in almost all circumstances, but, nevertheless, it is capable of having its internal orbit promoted by absorbing energy. And, if it is then moving freely it appears to us as a physical Photon!

Also, if too much energy is absorbed, it is clear that such an entity will dissociate into its component units - giving us Pair Production too.

Remarkably, this theorist has also established that in spite of its neutrality it can form a weakly-associated Substrate, termed a Paving, for, in very close proximity to one another, two Neutritrons can experience an oscillating attraction and repulsion, due to the effects of the orbiting sub-particles in one affecting those in the other. Indeed, as this only occurs within a small, fixed distance apart, the Paving seems an ideal medium for the propagation of quanta of Electromagnetic Energy, travelling from unit-to-unit in a bucket-brigade fashion, giving us the fixed Speed-of-Light!

Further, investigations have enabled this Theory to explain ALL of the anomalies of the Double Slit Experiments too.

 

Dissociations of the Paving into free-Moving Neutritrons (Photons) has also allowed driven streams of these units and even Vortices, which when associated with orbiting electrons in atoms, can physically explain Quantised Orbits - without the need for Planck's Constant and the rest of the Copenhagen "theories".

[With thanks to Yves Couder for his earlier Walker Experiments, with his revealing of similarly-caused Quantised orbits at the Macro Level in a "Substrate-only" Experiment]

Yves Couder's experiment shows the potential for a physical substrate to explain quantum phenomena

As a postscript, I cannot omit the extension of this Theory to include both Magneton and Graviton units of such a Universal Substrate, which are fast removing all the anomalies of Fields - which become re-arrangements of the Substrate.

Maths-first Science? II

Not Mathematical Form But Physical Content

Now, with diametrically opposed premises and physical contributing entities, delivering the Copenhageners' formulae, by a non-Copenhagen means, will not be straight forward.

Instead of the Wave/Particle Duality and Uncertainty Principle, this alternative will be primarily physical, and will produce the supposedly anomalous behaviours by interactions between Particles and an affective and responsive Universal Substrate, which will indeed produce wave-like disturbances, and recursive effects upon the causing Particles, depending upon interactions with crucial physical conditions.

The Key phenomena for us, as they are also currently for the Copenhageners too, will be the series of Double Slit Experiments. But, the processing will NOT resort to the idealist Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory at any point in either the explanations or the predictions.

Now, the key departure from Classical Physics in the Copenhagen stance is in having "The Particle" as an inexplicably transformative entity, ranging from something like a classical Particle, to alternatively behaving according to wave-like properties. BUT, and this is very important, there aren't any actual Waves.

For, the trick used by the Copenhageners, is that Wave Equations are used to give only Probabilities that the "Particle" is currently in a given position. Indeed, the Wave Equation will deliver probabilities for every single position (literally off to infinity), though, of course, these will be prohibitively low for more distant positions.

It is NOT a physically valid use of such an equation, which was established for delivering disturbances over an extensive range of an existing and affected medium.

And, given these Copenhagen equations, it is impossible to derive from them some conception of a physically existing situation, and, even more inadmissible, is the conception of the Collapse of the Wave Function, which occurs when the ONLY entity involved, reverts to being something like a classical Particle once more.

Their key entity is a magically transforming "beastie" that can switch from acting like a descrete particle to delivering a seemingly "wave determined" performance and vice versa.

How on earth, you might well ask, could, and indeed did, the scientists involved arrive at such an amazing and impossible concoction?

These two questions deserve full answers!

The only way the wave-like behaviours could possibly match measured Reality, would be because some form of real waves are involved. But, the scientists taking this position insist that there is no medium, so that is not possible in the classical sense.

But, the second part of that key question, as to why they did devise this concoction, was because their faith in Formal Equations surmounts any purely physical conceptions. They believe that forms can be found to fit everything that exists, AND, crucially, and idealistically, that these forms actually drive Reality. They have embraced Idealism, and abandoned explanatory Materialism!

So, how would a materialist explain their success (for their amazing amalgam does predict sufficiently well for things to be achieved)? Now, to answer that important question properly, would involve a clear understanding of what Mathematics actually is, and how it relates to concretely-existing Reality.

This work is already available from the writer of this paper, but cannot be inserted-in-full here. But, it can be more briefly explained in terms of Description versus Explanation.

Historically, Mankind had noticed recurring patterns or Forms, long before he had any idea at all as to why they occurred. Indeed, the first serious and extensive intellectual discipline, Mathematics, was an entirely descriptive undertaking. And, its power, in allowing predictions, resided in the universal occurrence of various describable patterns. The very same pattern could occur in very diverse circumstances, and for very different reasons. In other words, describing how something behaved or appeared in a given pattern, could never, YES NEVER, explain exactly why it took that pattern in those precise circumstances.

To do that you had to be schooled in a very different discipline, namely Science. To claim to explain phenomena, purely on the basis of their evident Forms, is an Idealist position, whereas actually explaining situations, in terms of entities and their properties, is a Materialist position.

Clearly, there is a causal relation between forms and nature, but it is only one-way. Forms do not determine Nature, but Nature does determine Forms.

So, our objective is possible, even though the vastly different premises involved are likely to confuse the unwary! We must proceed from a sound materialist base to explain why the Copenhagenists idealist formulae can match Reality, even though they cannot produce the Reality in themselves!

Let us, therefore, establish our materialist basis despite, as yet, not being in a position to prove all that we assume.

To justify this claim, I am pressed to remind readers of the example of James Clerk Maxwell, who, despite not knowing the nature of his assumed universal medium - The Ether, still managed, via his devised model - based upon significant objective evidence, to develop his world famous, and still used, conceptions and equations of Electromagnetism.

Though Absolute Truth is never available to us, the increase in Objective Content, parts or aspects of that truth, are indeed both possible and successfully useable in both Theory and in Practice.

The key assumption is, like Maxwell's, the existence of an existing, but currently-undetectable, Universal Substrate, and based, once again like Maxwell's, upon extensive knowledge such as Energy Propagation, Electrical and Magnetic fields, Pair annihilations and Productions, and the ubiquitous Action-at-a-distance (as with Gravity).

Now, clearly, the pseudo-science of Copenhagen-type Wave Equations is here replaced in these premises by actually-caused and recursively-causing Waves in this Substrate. Without any other assumptions at all, absolutely ALL, yes every single one, of the anomalies, occurring in the Double Slit Experiments, were removed immediately, by this premise alone!

The main exemplar explanation involved a moving charged particle (for example) causing a disturbance in the Substrate, which was propagated in all directions, including towards the Slits, at the Speed of Light (much faster than that of the causing Particle). These disturbances would reach BOTH of the slits and pass through, so that after diffraction at those slits, would cause the propagations to cross one another, and set up an interference pattern in the space beyond.

So, when the Particle itself arrives, it will pass through either one of the slits but then encounter its self-caused interference pattern, and be deflected or not, depending upon its passage through the pattern.

Consequently, the final striking, on the detection screen, would be determined by its passage through, and, over a series of such Particles, they would build up the observed pattern on the detection screen.

Now, we must remember that the disturbance was caused by a single tiny particle, so, it would not be strongly maintained, and the insertion of any measuring device in the area beyond the slits would cause many, and much stronger, disturbances, which would totally dissociate the interference pattern, and allow any following particles to pass through in the classical way, and give a very different pattern on the screen.

So, instead of the idealist Collapse of the Wave Function, we have, instead, the collapse of the interference pattern in the Substrate, for good materialist reasons.

Now, my objective is clear: with thorough-going theories for the propagations in the suggested Substrate, for the diffraction at the Slits, and for the kind of "interference pattern" within that Substrate, we will have alternatives to use overall to predict the Pattern on the screen, and we, like the Copenhagenists will use overall methods to do this. But, this time real particles will be considered, travelling all possible paths, to deliver a predicted pattern on the screen.

The particles will NOT be switching between an implicit Wave and Particle nature, they will be causing Substrate effects, and being caused by Substrate effects (also affected by the Slits) to traverse various possible paths from straight through to various degrees of deflection.

But, straight forward classical Wave Theory will not be sufficient. The Substrate will NOT be a classical continuous, elastically-connected Medium!

It will, however, be sufficiently similar, for the Classical Theory to approximate to what happens. But, other demanding criteria have required a very different nature to this Substrate. To deliver all the other requirements (as briefly mentioned earlier), the substrate has to deliver Propagation of Electromagnetic Energy in Quanta! And, this demands a Substrate composed of Units, with similar properties to a Hydrogen Atom (say): that is particles composed of two, mutually-orbiting sub-particles, with internal, promoteable and demote-able orbits. And, to compound the felony, these particles would also have to be undetectable in every possible way.

Immediately, such a substrate will NOT be like an elastic medium, where the composing units bodily oscillate to hold energy, and behaving naturally due to elastic connections, pass it on. The energy will, instead, be held internally as in atoms, and propagation will involve promotion to a higher orbit via externally supplied energy, immediately followed by the demotion of that orbit, to give up the energy to the nearest adjacent substrate unit.

Now, that requires something else too... It cannot be a gas - it just wouldn't work!

It would have to be in some very closely, if loosely, linked association, with adjacent units of the substrate.

And, the units undetectability infers that they are completely neutral, and hence the usual means of Substrate association would not be available.

Now, finally, we just had to suggest a unit for this Substrate, but, once more, referring to James Clerk Maxwell's model of the Ether, it isn't necessary to get it absolutely right. What has to be achieved, though, is a particle that theoretically-at-least, could indeed deliver the required properties of the resulting Substrate.

So, this theorist devised an Empty Photon - a mutually orbiting pair consisting of one electron and one positron. And as these were of opposite charge, and opposite matter type, yet identical in size, they would differ from a Hydrogen atom, in that the two subunits would symmetrically orbit one another, in a shared orbit.

And, as they would occupy exactly opposite sides, this would make certain properties available.

The charged sub-particles would both be as far away from each other as possible, yet each one would be right at the edges of the joint unit.

Also being neutral identical units such as these could approach one another very closely indeed! Close enough, in fact, the sub-particles within adjacent units to briefly affect one another. And as both would be orbiting, the effect when extremely close would be a sinusoidally varying attraction/repulsion cycle.

If undisturbed the two substrate units would remain close together oscillating towards and way-from each other, and remaining within a tiny separating gap.

A loose, but binding association could form undisturbed units into what I call a Paving!

But, in addition, and significantly, any energetic passage through such a Paving, will, at least, temporarily dissociate the Paving back into separate joint-units, and will, in addition, cause vortices of those separated units to be formed around, and be left behind such a vigorous interloper.

Interestingly, any constantly repeating motion, like an orbit, will be continually re-encountering its own vortices, allowing further energy transfers in both directions between orbit and vortices, which will naturally settle into a stable balance, when the two speeds are harmonically related.

This has made it possible to explain quantized orbits in atoms, entirely without any recourse to Copenhagen premises whatsoever!

So, having established something of the suggested Universal Substrate, and some of its already known features, it may now be possible to identify what must be done in a non-Copenhagen way, but without some of the past contradictory assumptions, to map onto a non Copenhagen way of "explaining" Copenhagen theories and equations.

Interference and Interaction in a Neutritron Substrate

Let us consider both the Interference within a Neutritron Substrate, and, thereafter, the effects of such a Substrate, both a normal undisturbed one, and one involving an interference situation, upon any interloping, charged particles, for example.

The interference in a Neutritron Substrate will be very different from that in a classical medium: for here, the individual units do not usually move about: they stay in relatively fixed positions with respect to one another, and do not pass on propagated energy as a transferable oscillation of strongly (elastically) connected and already-oscillating, whole substrate units, but, on the contrary, as transfers of internally-contained quanta of energy, between adjacent closely positioned and relatively loosely-connected substrate units.

Indeed, a propagation is extremely rapid, traversing, sometimes enormous sequences of stationary units, in a bucket brigade fashion, "like a veritable hot potato being immediately got rid of, as soon as it is received, by each temporary holder in a line of tender-handed people".

Though the quanta are held (briefly) in a promoted internal orbit, there is nothing to keep it there, and it is immediately off-loaded to the next immediately adjacent and as yet un-promoted next-unit-in-line.

BUT, and it is a big but, "What determines the direction of transfer, for every substrate unit will be surrounded by many others?"

It has to be the incoming direction of transfer from the previous unit! Somehow, this must direct the then transfer to only the adjacent unit on the exact opposite side from that of the incoming direction.

In other words the direction of transfer will be retained throughout a series of transitions. Something of that prior direction must influence the immediately subsequent direction.

Let us say that a small movement of the unit itself must be involved in the transfer, which moves it towards only one adjacent unit, so that is the direction of subsequent transfer: it moves to the closest adjacent unit, and in turn, gives it a small kick as it transfers the quantum. And, this in turn-after-turn, moves the receiving unit closer to the next unit in line, which will then be the natural receiver.

But, where do all these kicks com from?

In fact, its only one kick, passed on from unit to unit, literally forever - like the transferred impulse in a Newton's Cradle, but with no losses. And, for this to be the case, all that will be required is an initial directional impulse along with the initial transfer of a quantum into the Substrate.

Now, switching from propagation of pure energy to the effect upon the Substrate by an interloping particle, such as an electron. It will merely plough through and, depending on its speed will leave a narrow or wider path of units dissociated from their weak connections to the Paving, left behind separately. Yet, these tracks don't last long, as they very soon naturally re-associate.

And, such a path-through will be pretty straight.

But, things will be very different if the traversed Substrate contains a maintained interference pattern within it, due to colliding propagations (as in the Double Slit case). For, we know exactly what happens there, and, as it is surprising, indeed classically inexplicable by the usual means, we must explain it.

Clearly, depending upon its path through the pattern, the interloping particle will be affected in a range of ways, extending from "Not-at-all" to "Significantly, left or right", with all possible gradations in between included too. What occurs can only mean that the interference pattern is affecting the particle in different ways depending upon its path.

The Copenhagenists have the Wave/Particle-unified-entity interfering with itself, but that is idealist nonsense. The particle is being affected by the actual changes in the physical substrate caused by the interference of the two waves emanating from the apparatus's two Slits.

The question, of course, is, "How?"

Now, this isn't another example of normal classical Wave Theory!

How could the Substrate units be so changed by the process of interference to selectively affect the traversing particle in such an organised range of ways?

It can only be in the orientations of the units' internal orbits!

So, instead of the amplitudes of sinusoidal oscillations either adding up (in two ways) or totally cancelling out, we must here have a "similar pattern of interactions, but with the orientations of the internal orbits of the substrate units involved.

And, thereafter, when the interloper passes through, it will be let through when the orientations are effectively a random mix along that path, but, alternatively they can all be aligned, and deliver a summing series of deflections to the traversing particle, which moves it out of that channel, and into the ajoining channel.

Juicy! Innit?

Marxist Theory Today IV

Assimilating and Using the Marxist Method

My first tack in pursuing this objective was basic but crucial: I had to understand Mankind's developed processes of Abstraction-from-Reality, in order to begin to see how our original concepts were arrived at.

I back-traced the processes involved all the way to initial Observations. Then, gradually unearthed the necessary sequence of processes, and the productions, that were involved.

Crucially, I then attempted to concentrate my findings into a clear and concise diagram.

The completed diagram (shown below) related Man and Reality, via those Key Processes to deliver Abstract Productions (or concepts), without which, any kind of understanding would be impossible.

New Marxist theories: Jim Schofield's 'Processes and Productions of Abstraction'

The final result was profoundly significant, for it not only showed the sequence and hierarchy of processes and concepts, but also revealed a higher order of phases of development from Basic to those involved in Science.

And, profoundly, it also revealed clearly exactly how Mathematics arose via a specially devised subset & extension of Reality, which I termed Ideality!

And, his began to inform a trenchant criticism of my own most successful subject Mathematics, as well as the contradictions present in Science itself.

It also led to the next and most important phase of my philosophical researches.

By 2010, I had devised The Theory of Emergences, as a culmination and focussing of 50 years as a professed Marxist, transformed by this vital and revealing last few years. Let me regale you with the final diagram of that Theory.

New Marxist theory: Jim Schofield's Trajectory of an Emergence

This wasn't as general as its title seems to claim, for it was primarily an attempt to trace out the trajectory of a known and well-documented (by reliable Marxists) an actual Social Revolution - The Russian Revolution of 1917.

The profile was from pre-Revolution Stability, through Crises and Oscillations, via seemingly terminal Collapse, to a construction/dissolution oscillating and ascending Phase, gradually achieving a final and persisting Stability at a wholly new level.

I, finally, had an inkling of what someone like Lenin had to cope with, to analyse objectively, and do what was required, in the midst of a Social Revolution - indeed, to ride the rollicking, dangerous tiger to a successful outcome!

But, I was a scientist, and, I believe, a good one.

I knew that my task, and also the most important task for Marxism, was to free Science from the idealist manacles of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory for good.

My use of the gains that I had made, would have to be employed across the board!

Now, this latter development was in many ways putting the cart before the horse. Though both immediately and fruitfully applicable, it all still lacked the use of the detailed discoveries by Friedrich Hegel and Karl Marx, which had profoundly transformed Philosophy, and severely criticised Formal Logic and the methods of Reasoning that were the only ones available, and totally incapable of dealing with the creative, qualitative developments, as in Evolution, and the whole History of the Universe.

Hence, a detailed study of those essential early stages followed, starting with Hegel's revolutionary Thinking about Thought, and his realisation of the many, and recurring, rational impasses occurring in all thinking that is limited by Formal Logic, the Principle of Plurality and the unavoidability of clearly rationally-insuperable Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts (Abstractions), which arose directly from the very same set of assumed, basic premises.

He was able to show that when the relevant premises were dug out, and carefully traced through, to deliver both arms of an evident Dichotomous Pair, it was entirely possible to examine all those premises one-by-one, identify possible dodgy ones, and find out whether changes could be implemented, which allowed a transcendence of the caused impasse.

Hegel immediately knew that he had discovered a new kind of thinking, which for the first time delivered a working method of addressing the weakest aspects of the 2,500-years-old Formal Logic, and also included the beginnings of what he called his Logic of Change, and a means of not only dealing with the evident failures of strictly Formal Logic, but much more widely, by addressing the trajectories of Qualitative Change that, thus far, had never been properly addressed.

The basic method described here, only in outline, he termed Dialectics. 

Systems Dialectics - interesting diagram trying to address something similar in theory, not sure if it quite works! - source: https://rdln.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/dialectical-systems-and-chaos-part-2/

However, among his Young Hegelian followers, Karl Marx considered that the features, which Hegel only applied to Human Thought, were also true in all areas of natural development. He exported both Dialectics, and his own philosophical stance, from Hegel's trenchant Idealism to Materialism!

But, clearly, Marx's subsequent direction was not what Philosophy usually did. If at all, such things as Marx was now including, were usually addressed by historians, scientists, economists and mathematicians etc. etc.

Marx realised that all those disciplines, too, were also limited by Formal Logic, and its kind of Reasoning, so he declared that his new Dialectical Materialism alone could, and indeed, would transform these areas too, initially by using the same methods of addressing the impasses involving Dichotomous Pairs, and caused by inadequate premises.

And, his primary target just had to be Economics! He needed to understand the current Economic System of Capitalism, and its avowed principles and premises.

And, both History and Archaeology showed quite clearly that Human Societies had definitely developed, and moved through a sequence of distinct Economic Systems - and, each one had been terminated by what had become known as Social Revolutions.

And, to strongly focus such an investigator's attention, the 15 year trajectory of the French Revolution had only very recently occurred, and very nearly totally transformed a continent.

It just had to be understood!

Jules Michelet - History of the French Revolution

And, as circumstances also dictated, the right historian had been similarly focussed into logging the whole event in meticulous detail: the brilliant French historian, Michelet, in doing this, had transformed the methods of his discipline, and the full richness of a studied Revolution was there in his brilliant work, for people like Marx to study: and that is exactly what this serious and brilliant philosopher did!

Now, you can see why I and millions of others had been let down by generations of self-professed Marxists throughout our political lives.

None of this was revealed and explained!

None of it was even used!

The Dialectical Materialist Method was not delivered!

And, clearly and crucially, none of it was ever applied in Science!

So, what was left was just Political Activity, maintained, primarily, by the prestige and momentum generated by the Russian Revolution, without the necessary extensions, in the manner of Marx himself, into the many, still-outstanding and absolutely-necessary disciplines, such as Science, and most crucially of all, Physics!

Such people were a long way from being real Marxists.

In fact, their distortions of Marxist Theory had actually misled the world Working Class, and failed to cope with the rise of Fascism, and yet another World War, where literally millions of workers died at the behest of their ruling classes.

And, even the landside election victory of a Labour Government in Britain led to only temporary gains, now being increasingly flushed down the toilet at an ever increasing rate.

We were ALL, from workers to intellectuals, betrayed by these fakers! As my original title for this essay declares:- They were, at best, merely "Descriptive, Retroactive and Activity-Based" in both Theory and Practice.

And that isn't Marxism!

The Large Hadron Collider

Tackling the Crisis in Physics

So, having personally got to this point, what did I now do?

Since I was 19 years old, I had been stymied by what I had been taught in my Physics Degree Course at University, but had no idea what to do about it. Lenin's Materialism and Empirio Criticism promised a Marxist alternative, but it was never subsequently delivered.

But, NOW, I was in a position to tackle this vital task myself!

Throughout my career as a physicist, I had been brought to a halt by a classical Hegelian Dichotomous Pair embodied in the infamous Wave/Particle Duality insisted upon by the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory.

Clearly, now, I had to use the Dialectical Materialist Method of Marx to reveal the flawed common premises, which gave rise to this impasse, and determine what was wrong.

Initially I found simplification, context-farming and even idealisation embedded in the universally applied Scientific Method, but I still couldn't correct the premises involved. UNTIL, that is, I noticed a glaring omission. Most Sub Atomic Phenomena had NO physical explanation - only detailed descriptions and useable formulae - allowing effective use, but totally without any explanations, without any Theory!

Now, Mankind had explained things in the past, which they couldn't do any longer. So, I looked at these and realised that the current impasse was due to the banning of the explanatory concept of a Universal Substrate in the basic premises upon which Sub Atomic Physics was then built.

So, I checked out what would happen in the ill-famed Double Slit series of experiments if a substrate were included.

The Double Slit: Matter in Motion?

Amazingly, all the problems and confusing anomalies dissolved away: all phenomena, in every version of the experiment could be explained physically! No Superposition or Wave/Particle Duality: no collapsing of the Wave Function - it all became totally irrelevant.

Now, this concept, of a Substrate, had long been jettisoned because it could not be detected, but, as James Clerk Maxwell had shown, if such an idea could lead to successful theories they were, at least temporarily, valid - remember it was he, assuming the Ether, that produced the still universally used Electromagnetic Equations.

Of course, the belief in eternal, directing, Natural Laws, long assumed in Physics, made the validity of concepts like an unknown Substrate reprehensible: but that prejudice was mistaken!

Mankind's theories were all approximations, but as long as they contained enough Objective Content to be better than those they replaced, they would be legitimate steps forward.

Man has never had access to so-called Absolute Truth, though the myth of eternal Natural Laws, encapsulated fully in Formal Equations, implied the opposite.

Clearly, the assumption of a Universal Substrate, was significantly BETTER than the Copenhagen retreat from explanation entirely!

However, scientists have certainly sought the presence of a Universal Substrate over an extended period, and never found even the slightest trace. Yet, here we are, with its firm assumption of existence, demolishing the whole edifice of Copenhagen.

So, I decided to theoretically devise a "real" Substrate that would, for sound, physical reasons, be entirely undetectable, yet would deliver, in a physically explicable way, ALL the requirements I had worked up for The Theory of the Double Slit - and I succeeded!

The flaw in the premises, was not a mistakenly described component or idea, but an actual omission.

New Marxist theories of Physics by Jim Schofield

I had used Hegel and Marx's Dialectics to crack a problem, not only in Sub Atomic Physics, but generally. 

For, apart from the inclusion of the Universal Substrate, the whole mish-mash of contradictory philosophical assumptions, which for millennia had not only involved Materialism, but also Idealism and Pragmatism.

That amalgam had also been demolished.

An amazing claim, you might think, but the Double Slit success has been followed by other equally important gains, in dispensing with Quantum entanglement and Superposition, while a totally non-Copenhagen explanation of Quantised Electrical Orbits in Atoms has also been completed.

The door is now ajar, and through it could be seen the Future of Science, and a re-invigorated Philosophy of Marxism!

This post is the last in this blog series entitled Marxist Theory Today. Watch this space for more articles in our grand Shape Journal series on Marxism & Physics.