In the Beginning…there was the Present

 II. A *tangled web of ambiguous or contradictory definitions and statements

In the preceding list of quotations from theoretical physicists as well as philosophers and spiritualists, we have attempted to bring out the conceptual hurdles and puzzles that beset quantum physicists—whom I will henceforth refer to simply as quantists. Despite its spectacular successes, quantum physics [QP] or mechanics [QM] remains a young and incomplete science, not yet ready to fully replace classical physics even if the current trend suggests so. Let’s just say that the young science of QM has not yet reached the intellectual maturity—from a metaphysical, logical, cosmological, and linguistic point of view, with the exception of mathematics—, so full is it of contradictions and ambiguities in its own conceptual definitions and in the almost daily questioning of its foundations through the media (especially youTube).

The duality of light—the fact that it can behave simultaneously as a material particle [p], the photon, and as an electromagnetic wave [w]— is a real mystery at the heart of QP, and one that classical physics has never been able to explain within the deterministic framework of its physical concepts. This concept of the duality of light stems from a discovery made before the advent of quantum physics in the early 19th century when Thomas Young carried out his famous double-slit experiment in 1803. This experiment demonstrated the [w]-like behavior of light, which exhibits interference patterns similar to those of waves. Subsequent experiments and theories by scientists such as James Clerk Maxwell and Max Planck supported the idea that light possessed both [w] and [p] properties.

Albert Einstein’s later work on the photoelectric effect, for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1905, also helped reinforce the idea of light’s duality. It showed that light waves could also behave as particles called photons.

Yet QP emerged at the beginning of the 20th century, almost a century after Young’s double-slit experiment, mainly thanks to the work of several renowned scientists and physicists. However, the precise date of birth of quantum physics is generally attributed to the year 1900, when Max Planck presented his theory of energy quanta to explain blackbody radiation. This theory marked the beginning of the quantum revolution and laid the foundations for subsequent developments in quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and many other areas of modern physics.

Does classical physics treat light as a duality?

In classical physics, light was primarily treated as an electromagnetic wave, in accordance with Maxwell’s equations, which describe the behavior of light in terms of electromagnetic waves propagating through space. This wave-like description of light was widely accepted in classical physics before the development of QP.

But what prevented classical physics from treating light as a dual phenomenon?

Classical physics found it difficult, if not impossible, to treat light as simultaneously a w and a p, which seemed paradoxical within the framework of existing physical concepts and laws at the time.

On the one hand, light was well described as an electromagnetic wave by Maxwell’s equations, which gave a very precise description of its behavior and interactions. This wave-like perspective on light was widely accepted in classical physics and explained many optical phenomena.

On the other hand, experimental observations such as the photoelectric effect suggested that light could also behave like particles, which was difficult to reconcile with the purely wave-like view of light.

This w/p dualism of light posed a challenge to traditional classical physics, which was based on deterministic concepts and laws. In deterministic classical physics a physical object or entity, in order to be observed and measured, must have predetermined attributes or properties, also have a specific location in space and only one state at a time. There was no room to conceive a physical object without any pre-existing properties like mass, volume, color, texture, etc., also capable of being in two or more states or locations at the same time. There was no conceptual (logical) framework to observe and measure dual objects. It took the development of quantum physics in the early 20th century, with its concepts of probabilities, quantum superpositions, and entanglement, to resolve this paradox and understand the complex, dualistic nature of light. Thus, the limitations of the theoretical framework of classical physics initially prevented light from being treated as both a wave and a particle.

QP had to create a new framework of physical concepts that did not exist in classical physics. But observing and measuring physical objects that are inherently dual required, above all, a unitary theory of light that goes beyond electromagnetism, that could make two contradictory theories work together as a single unified theory of light. The accumulation of observations and probabilistic measurements from experimentation has gone a long way toward explaining precisely how QM works, but it has not helped to remove the mystery of why it works the way it does.

Physicists such as Bohr and Einstein came to explore, by radically opposed paths, ways that might lead to a unitary theory of light, not through experimentation but through recourse to the epistemology of science (Einstein), or through the search for a more appropriate language of words to describe the bizarre behavior of quantum particles in an explanatory way (Bohr).

Dualism is not a physical phenomenon, even if it can be observed through physical manifestations or behaviors. Strictly speaking, it could be said to be a metaphysical phenomenon, and therefore not directly observable or quantifiable, unless the dual aspects were treated separately, just as if they were not dual. Duality is the concept of two opposing or contrasting forces or elements existing together in harmony. Once again, QM could just tell us how it works, and in telling us how it works, it has told us about the basic peculiarities of all QM. There was no satisfactory interpretation of the physical law of duality in nature. Einstein summarized the whole situation: 

“It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but, it can not be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now.

 At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best and feels more surely where the shoe *pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified and are necessities.”Einstein, in Physics and reality, General consideration concerning the method of science.

In the matter of “philosophical” interpretation of quantum objects’ behaviors in QM, the very concept of duality or dualism contradicts Aristotelian logic and syllogistics. Aristotle’s logic is a system of deductive reasoning based on the principles of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle, according to which something cannot both be and not be true at the same time and in the same respect. This challenges the strict linear, binary thinking of Aristotelian logic in that dualism suggests that two seemingly contradictory elements or propositions can coexist and be interconnected.

Not being a physical phenomenon, but rather a meta-physical one, the interpretation of dualism does not belong to a deductive system of thought in which one concludes from propositions taken as premises or axioms to a proposition that necessarily follows from them (conclusion), for the simple and blunt reason that QT does not benefit from such premises to deduce the dual nature of light. It remains a fundamental phenomenon without a logical explanation. Or, rather, we could say that we need an alternative logic, capable of generating an interpretation more in line with the reality of dualism.

From which premise(s) or axiom(s) can we deduce the duality [w] and [p] of light? It has been provisionally deduced from Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetic radiation, i.e. from the unification of oscillating electric and magnetic fields by theoretical physicists, but this definition of [p] by [w], or by the field [ƒ], or [p] included in [w] does not convincingly account for the inherent duality of light.

 If we accept the principle that duality or dualism is not physical but rather metaphysical— and even if it was both physical and metaphysical at the same time—, as Schrödinger said, metaphysics is not a deductive affair but a speculative one.” And, indeed, human linear binary logic can hardly deal with two mutually exclusive statements that are both true at the same time: it is not one or the other like in a dichotomy but one and the other at the same time. The problem cannot be grasped because the human mind can not observe and measure the simultaneity of opposing phenomena.

 Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy (Uncertainty) Principle states that you cannot observe and measure the location and velocity of a particle at the same time. To a certain extent, location and velocity form a dual phenomenon in the sense that they negate each other: a moving object continually changes location, hence, it is never at a precise location—a variant of the Zeno tortoise paradox. So if you calculate precisely the speed of a moving object, you cannot calculate at the same time its precise location. If you try to calculate its location, you must give up calculating its speed.

That is why QT uses statistical, probabilistic mathematical methods to locatemoving particles or deal with the simultaneous multiple quantum states or configurations that an object can exist in at any given moment. The mathematical wavefunction collapse illustrates that when an object exists in a superposition of multiple states, the act of measuring the quantum system makes the superposition collapse into a single definite state as the system interacts with the measurement apparatus. It is one and only one of the states as the outcome of the measurement. It’s easy to see why, even today, the definitions and word-language statements of quantum concepts are situated at the frontier of physics and metaphysics, logic, and poetry, where the dimensionality meets and interacts with the metaphor.

“We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.” N. Bohr

The duality of light has led physics down a path of epistemological or, more broadly, metaphysical speculation, which has clearly resulted in a conceptual and linguistic ambiguity from which it has yet to emerge 

It must be remembered that classical physics, in its framework, did not treat light as a dual nature, but rather as a dichotomy, wave and particle being mutually exclusive concepts. 

A TANGLED WEB OF DEFINITIONS

The case of (mis)understanding the definitions of w and p comes from the fact that a priori, QM confuses the two descriptions: a photon, an electron, an atom or even a molecule are both w and p at the same time, whereas, classical physics maintain them separate. Ironically, QM proceeds by superposing the definitions of w and p, as if the physicist were trying to do two opposite things at the same time, like spinning in two directions at the same time. The theoretical physicist is completely subjected to his object of observation: his wave function must collapse in a w or in a p but not both, just like in flipping a coin. His mind collapses on one or the other. He can’t pull the plug from within the quantum system. Here are a few examples.

• The paradox of determinism and non-determinism in QP

Ever since Einstein famously quipped: “God does not play dice with the universe“, we’ve often been led to believe that QP is entirely indeterministic, whereas Newtonian physics has only room for determinism.

QP is now considered to be both deterministic and non-deterministic, due to its interpretation of quantum phenomena.

On the one hand, there are aspects of QP that appear to be deterministic, i.e. they follow causal and predictable laws. For example, Schrödinger’s equations describe the temporal evolution of a quantum system in a deterministic way, providing a probability of existence for each possible quantum state. Another striking example is that of the wavefunction collapse, mentioned above, which also takes the place of determinism. This determinism contradicts the concept of non-causality, which refers to the idea that certain quantum phenomena can occur without a clearly defined cause-and-effect relationship. This means that in some quantum systems, events can occur randomly or non-deterministically, without a specific cause being attributed to their occurrence. This calls into question the classical principle of causality, where every effect is attributed to a specific cause.

Another non-deterministic concept is that of non-locality, which refers to quantum phenomena that seem to defy the classical notion of locality i.e. the idea that influences cannot be transmitted instantaneously at a distance (Einstein spooky action at a distance). Within the framework of quantum non-locality, spatially separated particles can be entangled in such a way that measurements made on one of the particles instantly affect the state of the other particle, regardless of the distance between them. This non-local behavior of entangled particles has been experimentally confirmed through tests of Bell’s inequalities and other experiments. These results indicate that quantum physics cannot be fully explained by local hidden variable theories, as suggested by the famous Bell’s theorem. The non-locality of quantum physics challenges our intuitive understanding of causality and locality, leading to a challenge of our conception about the nature of reality

On the other hand, quantum physics also has other aspects that appear to be non-deterministic, i.e. they involve elements of randomness and indeterminism. For example, the concept of quantum superposition indicates that quantum particles can exist in several states simultaneously. Furthermore, the phenomenon of quantum decoherence shows that the measurement of a quantum state can lead to a non-deterministic “collapse” of the wave function.

Finally, measurement indeterminism is a fundamental principle of QP, referring to the idea that the results of certain quantum measurements cannot be predicted with certainty in advance. Unlike classical physics, where physical quantities are determined precisely and predictably, quantum physics introduces a notion of intrinsic indeterminism at the subatomic scale.

In short, quantum physics combines deterministic and non-deterministic elements, making its interpretation paradoxical and open to different philosophical interpretations. Some interpretations, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, reconcile these two aspects by involving the role of the observer in the process of measuring and “collapsing” the wave function.

• Particles don’t really exist. They are only excitations or oscillations of the magnetic field. While it’s true that in quantum physics, particles can be considered as excitations or oscillations of fields, it’s still important to note that particles, as quanta of fields or underlying fields, provide a still useful conceptual framework for describing and understanding the behavior of matter and energy. So, even if particles have no physical substance in the classical sense of the term, they play a crucial role in our current understanding of the dualism of the universe.

• There are no waves involved in quantum theory.

This statement is ambiguous. Because we know that in QT, waves play a very significant role, especially in w/p duality. We might well wonder what would be left of QPh if we eliminated this duality, as well as that of superposition or entanglement. It would probably return to the classes of classical physics. Duality is the soul of QM.

The wave-like properties of particles are often described through mathematical wave functions that represent the probability distribution of finding a particle in a particular state. These wave functions can exhibit wave-like behavior, such as interference and diffraction, similar to the behavior of classical waves. Therefore, while quantum theory does involve waves, it is important to note that these waves are distinct from the classical notion of waves, but rather represent the probabilistic nature of quantum particles. But a wave function is a mathematical idealization of a physical wave, but it is not a wave.

• quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles. 

This is the loophole of dualism in QM. For the same reason  as above, the concept of a p or a “w is an approximation for our classical understanding, and quantum phenomena are ultimately described by mathematical objects called wavefunctions that exhibit both wave-like and particle-like characteristics.

• a wavicle—an hybrid of a wave and of a particle— is an entity having characteristic properties of both w and p.. But a wavelike property is not a wave. It is a mathematical function of a wave. Penrose thinks that the concept of a wavicle is incorrect.

• the pilot-wave theory stipulates that particles don’t just exist as probabilistic waves, but that there are both real particles – which always have definable properties – and real waves that influence the way particles move. Take the example of the double-slit experiment.

• is quantum field a physical reality or only a framework integrating classical physics?

There’s a tendency, in this age of scientism, to confuse the physical reality of the universe with its mathematical representations. This purely mathematical representation is essentially based on observations and measurements. In some cases, certain interactions are forced. While it’s true that these quantum fields started out as a mathematical construct, it turned out to be a surprisingly accurate description of our observable reality, to such an extent that a theoretical physicist like Roger Penrose, imagines that every time the mind perceives a mathematical/geometrical idea, it makes contact with the *Platonic world of ideas that turn out to correspond to external reality.

• in classical physics, a particle is a purely local phenomenon, a wave is nonlocal, or rather omnilocal. 

• In QM, a particle or “wavicle” should be both local and nonlocal.

In fact, in QM, the behavior of particles can sometimes appear to be both local and nonlocal, which can be a bit perplexing. As wave-like, particles can spread out and exist in multiple places simultaneously, even when not observed” they are then described by wave functions. On the other hand, they can also exhibit local behavior when interacting with their surroundings, appearing more particle-like, with specific properties at specific locations. This appears like a contradiction between having a local and non local behavior at the same time— as Schrödinger’s cat dead and alive at the same time, before the wave function collapse yielding dead or alive solution, but not both at the same time (It seems that the wave function collapse is a logical mistake in QT” it is a case of dialetheia in Oneness)

• if particles are only oscillations resulting from an excitation of a magnetic field, how does this excitation transform itself into a photoelectron?  So we have two representations of a wave: one is a plain sinusoid, the other one is a point-like particle—an idealization of particles heavily used in physics— a “thing, a particle because the wave is broken down into a sum of elementary waves that collapse in a single point.

                 A wave collapsing in a point-like particle:
       from w (nonlocal) to p (local)

The wavefunction collapse seems somewhat arbitrary and not well defined, at least controversial and subject to debate in QM. It derives from the Copenhagen interpretation which proposes that the act of measurement causes the wavefunction of a quantum system to “collapse” into a specific state. It introduces a discontinuity in the quantum evolution of a system.

This perceived discontinuity in the quantum evolution of a system is rather the result of a discontinuity in the logic applied to dual systems. Duality is logically regulated by the need to obtain a unique response to duality: only one out come can occur at a time. It is more likely a cognitive discontinuity that pertain to the observer-measurer.

There are also alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the many-worlds interpretation or the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation, that do not require the notion of wavefunction collapse. These interpretations propose different ways to understand the behavior of quantum systems without invoking a collapse of the wavefunction.

• there is widespread confusion between a wavefunction, a wave, and a field. A field is a mathematically defined phenomenon by a value at all points in space  The wavefunction is an abstract representation of the state of a quantum system; it is neither a field nor a wave. A wave is not a wave function.

• electrons, which we usually represent ourselves as spheric particles, are being standing waves, and all matter could be considered as waves according to Louis de Broglie.

• more confusing is the fact that a wave (continuous) in quantum theory is described in terms of a discrete unit, the photon-quantum. The wave is represented by photons. But quanta are not themselves waves. Now quantum theory claims that it is the fields that are fundamental.

• a photon can be split into two under certain conditions.redondant avec ce qui suit: A particle as no parta
In 2019, New Physics research from Colorado University in Boulder challenged the quantum theory of light by dividing the indivisible, namely splitting a photon into two by reducing its dimensions (Romsdateschke).

Until now, the term elementary particle has been used to designate a fundamental constituent of matter. As such, the photon is an elementary particle.  An element is an indivisible principle of a thing, constituting in itself the totality of what it is.We could say that an element is identical to itself. It therefore constitutes in itself a whole, an integrity, which cannot be the object of any diminution, of any restriction, that of being divisible, never to be reduced to being less than itself, never to a fraction (half of what it originally was. ). Splitting a photon into two poses a major theoretical challenge to QM, which does not accept that the half-photon produced is not an integer. To the w/p duality is now added the duality of the indivisibility/divisibility of elementary particles. For QT, the problem of stopping the process of dichotomization (division by two), which continues indefinitely, analogically until a computer program (algorithm)or axiom can be found to exit the infinite loop, to stop on its own. There remains an alternative, that of denying the epistemological problem simply by pulling the plug (ending the infinite loop. There is no room in QM for free particles to be split into two; it can’t be true.