Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution

by Paul Marmet
Return to: List of Papers on the Web Go to: Frequently Asked Questions

1 - Promulgation of Absurdities
1-1 The Copenhagen Interpretation. All humans are continuously surrounded, every day of their life, by real facts of nature. We believe in the existence of galaxies, stars, the sun and the moon and the earth. Nobody denies the real existence of cities, streets, houses and all the objects that we see. We believe that the floor supporting our weight and the air that we breathe really do exist. When there is a car accident, in which a person is injured, who believes that the car did not exist before the collision! We believe that our mind becomes informed of these facts and it tries to understand all those realities. However, the Copenhagen interpretation used in modern physics teaches that none of this is real. There is another surprise. Many physicists are not aware that the interpretation of modern physics implies that matter does not exist independently of the observer. What is taught is that it is the observer's knowledge that creates the result. Of course, physics students have to study some interpretation of modern physics but most of their professors do not consider the interpretational aspect of physics important. At the end of the 20th century, almost all physicists are concentrating their efforts on calculating predictions using mathematical formalism or in finding practical applications. Few really try to understand the fundamental nature of physical phenomena. Physicists believe that the most fundamental nature of physics is nothing but equations. Most physicists prefer to ignore all the contradictions and the absurdities existing in the interpretation of modern physics. Fortunately, some very rare scientists, like Baggott [1.1] and some others, have rational reactions when, at length, they discover by themselves, the absurdities in the interpretation of modern physics. The contradictions found in modern science are so absurd that most physicists assume that somebody must certainly have solved them long ago. The degree of indifference of most physicists about these contradictions is phenomenal. Physics is the fundamental science that aims to understand all fundamental things of Nature. The role of physics is to improve our understanding of things surrounding us, at the macroscopic as well as at the microscopic scale. The best description of Nature is the one that is closest to reality. It is the consequence of that understanding of Nature that should allow scientists to predict new results. Modern physics has brought a new description of Nature. It is based on what is called: The Copenhagen Interpretation. We will see that this interpretation is just the opposite of the accurate rational description that one expects from science.

Those contradictions are usually presented under the name of paradoxes because that expression seems less absurd. we use what appears to be the most frequently accepted version. the Copenhagen interpretation leads to observations that clearly imply three unsurmountable difficulties. or the quantum interpretation of modern physics etc. In simple terms.2] states: "Despite an extensive literature that refers to. Many different versions of the Copenhagen interpretation can be identified. as much as possible. Consequently. Surprisingly. a) negation of causality b) negation of realism and c) involvement of infinite and imaginary velocities or masses. and criticizes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Werner Heisenberg. the Copenhagen interpretation gives an interpretation to the mathematical result with respect to our physical understanding of nature. No document bearing that name exists and there is no agreement among scientists as to what precise documents are involved. In this book. its definition leaves plenty of room for readers' own opinions. It is elusively known under several general names as: the interpretation of quantum mechanics. we will give. They just don't believe that these absurdities exist. discusses. The Copenhagen interpretation (whatever it means) has reached an ultimate importance in physics after more that sixty years.What exactly is the Copenhagen interpretation? It is an interpretation given to the formalism of modern physics in order to give a physical meaning of the terms used in the equations. depending on the author studying the subject. Exact citations are necessary because too many physicists are not aware of all the absurdities accepted in science. Furthermore. . The main description comes from papers written by Niels Bohr. there is no precise agreement on what the Copenhagen interpretation really is. To use the most faithful description of the Copenhagen interpretation. nowhere does there seem to be any concise statement that defines the full Copenhagen interpretation. exact citations from renowned scientists who first developed the interpretation. Cramer [1. M. Pauli and others. The Copenhagen interpretation has been written by a few renowned scientists at the beginning of the century." The set of articles considered as forming the best description of the Copenhagen interpretation differs. The Copenhagen interpretation leads to the most astonishing set of contradictions that ever existed in science.

As the result of the Copenhagen interpretation. The aim of science is to explain phenomena and predict new observations. This is not surprising since the book is related to science. Causality is also an extremely basic condition in science. Practicing scientific research means to find out why an effect has been produced. 1-2 Causality. It would certainly be more rational to answer that we do not know. it is the interpretation given to the observations that make nature appear incompatible with causality. I expect you will find that lack of explanation quite unsatisfactory. astonished by the apparent lack of causality concluded: "I repeated to myself again and again the question: Can nature possibly be as absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?" Of course. Since Heisenberg is one of the most important contributors to the Copenhagen interpretation. Points b) and c) will be discussed in Chapter 4. According to the Copenhagen interpretation. One might well ask why so many physicists look for causes when they use and support a model that is not causal! A fully causal interpretation of modern physics is given in Chapters 6. If I give you a description of the laws of nature without telling you the reasons for which I am choosing a given description instead of another. since quantum mechanics is not causal. Consequently. it is useless to look for causes. common sense and observations led to the conclusion that the same causes lead to the same effects. let us take his own assessment. For many centuries. Causality is the condition that renders science possible. 7 and 8 of this book. The word because is used about fifty times in this book. Scientists are so used to looking for the cause of an observed specific result that most are not even conscious of looking for it. this is not obvious to all physicists as we will show.3] wrote: "Causality is the basis of all scientific work. there is no cause to a phenomenon. ." It is this very lack of causality that has made Heisenberg. Feynman and others use the word "absurdity". It would be ridiculous and absurd to answer that there is no reason or no cause leading to the observed results .4] himself. It is a natural intelligent reaction to look for causes.that results simply happen like that. Although that discussion seems evident to most of us.We will first discuss causality because this fundamental concept can be more easily conceived. Heisenberg [1. If the same causes do not lead to the same effects. since there cannot be any effect without cause. how can we practice science? Kant [1.

" Even worse. "They could not mean it. However. it is simple magic. Furthermore. from the last two statements that absurdity is enjoyable? We can enjoy magic for entertainment but I disagree that research funds in science should be used for doing magic." Should we not conclude. they claim that. And it agrees fully with experiments. Much more recently.Heisenberg [1.absurd. They are misled by the fact that the equations used in physics lead to predictions that are compatible with observations. He [1. one must conclude that . when one considers all the popularity of the Copenhagen interpretation. and magic should be enjoyed. According to Heisenberg's statement. somebody must mean it. I have met some top physicists that did not admit that modern physics deals with so much absurdity. and the fact that it is the only accepted interpretation. it proves that the model is correct (even if the model is absurd). he simply replied to me.6] uses the same expression and states simply. So I hope you can accept Nature as she is . Mermin states that the results of those absurd interpretations are enjoyable. there is no cause. Physicists are taught to believe that when an equation gives a correct prediction.5] states clearly: "The law of causality is no longer applied in quantum theory. During their undergraduate studies. Feynman [1. following the use of the Copenhagen interpretation. After showing a Nobel Laureate in science one of the original statements written about the Copenhagen interpretation. since the working model is absurd. physicists today should no longer try to find the cause of a physical phenomenon." In order to be coherent.8] writes: "The EPR experiment is as close to magic as any physical phenomenon I know of. "Quantum Mechanics is Magic"." I certainly agree with him that so much absurdity is unbelievable. physicists are gradually taught to accept interpretations that appear more and more surprising (absurd).7] concludes: "The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. Greenberger [1.

Furthermore.10]adds: "this epistemological claim I regarded. The claim is that it has been definitively proved that we already know everything that can be known in quantum mechanics..] These were claimed to show that physics has reached the end of the road. the referee rejected the manuscript claiming that.. the never-to-be-surpassed revolution in physics. Of course. Students are not prepared for such a study. Many students have informed me that sometimes they are quite dissatisfied with the explanations found in books during their studies. and still regard.9] citing Feynman writes: "I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. as outrageous. "The arguments presented against quantum mechanics were settled more than sixty years ago". [. when I tried to publish a section of this work (parts of Chapters 6 and 7) about the difficulties of the Copenhagen interpretation in Canadian Journal of Physics. the final. and they quickly abandon their project after getting their degree. that quantum mechanics was the last. more precisely.10] mentions: "The Copenhagen interpretation . the view of the status of quantum mechanics which Bohr and Heisenberg defended was." Physicists are also told that there is no basic problem left in physics. The philosophy of science and the lack of causality are subjects almost completely avoided in classrooms where physics is taught." Popper [1. quite simply. Most physicists are completely unaware of the absurdities of the Copenhagen interpretation.Nature is absurd. Before the publication of this book. nobody can understand absurdity. Learning about causality and realism without guidance however is a slow and difficult process. In that regard. since there is no one document explaining briefly the Copenhagen interpretation.or. Referees of other scientific journals regularly make the same error. It is probably for that reason that Cramer [1." . as mentioned earlier. They intend to reconsider that dilemma after getting their degree. nobody understands it. Popper [1.

" In the same article." Let us recall that the main mirror is badly defective and the telescope is in jeopardy with three defective gyroscopes. One should know that: Realism can never be proved mathematically. It's the power of human reason. We can sit here with our little one kilogram of brain and figure out what this universe is all about. Giacconi says: "It's not how big the universe is that's impressive. there was unbelievable self confidence. If we are disappointed. In the New York Times Magazine[1. they must have a modest attitude towards science. not long ago. This attitude has been realized clearly by Murray Gell-Mann [1. Heisenberg [1. 1-3 Role of Mathematics. it's not the telescope's fault or our fault.13] states: "The mathematical image of the system ensures that contradictions cannot occur in the system. Nothing in mathematics exists independently of our mind.11]who wrote: "Niels Bohr brainwashed the whole generation of theorists into thinking that the job [that is an adequate presentation of quantum mechanics] was done 50 years ago. When dealing with quantum systems. Realism is irrelevant in mathematics.12]we read: "John Bahcall expects that the telescope will not fail to do its part. mathematics is used to establish internal correlations within a quantum system. Much too frequently in physics we read that results obtained in quantum mechanics are correct since they have been proved mathematically. Therefore." Scientists question Nature. It will be because of a lack of imagination on the part of God. The non-rational model is believed to be the final answer. Many defeatist scientists claim that it is useless to waste time finding new interpretations. Mathematics is an extraordinary powerful tool to determine or prove relationships. Scientists must feel that they can learn something and not dictate their will to Nature. around the time of launching the Hubble telescope in space. For example." Heisenberg himself shows correctly that mathematics . Overconfidence leads to a reduction of vigilance.It is defeatism to believe that we will never find a rational answer. he says.

Some mathematical formalisms lead to predictions compatible with observations. However in physics. It is clear that mathematics must cope with the internal mathematical relationship between various physical concepts. The fundamental difference between the role of logic in mathematics and the role . the powerful mathematical formalism is illustrated by the well constructed castle. the Copenhagen interpretation (or any other interpretation) deals with relations that are external to mathematical relations. because another different interpretation can possibly (and surely does) lead to a similar result. There are also other errors related to the relevance of mathematics. the choice of the mathematical relations is controlled by external relations dictated by Nature with the help of experiments and observations. Such an agreement between predictions and observations does not prove the correctness of the interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation is expected to provide the external link between Nature and mathematics. Its external relations with Nature however. It is clear that the Copenhagen interpretation fails completely to give a rational explanation of Nature. It must be understood that no experiment or set of experiments can ever prove the correctness of a model. However. In Fig. are represented by the sinking quicksand of the Copenhagen interpretation. 1-A.ensures that there are no internal contradictions. But the first experiment that shows non-compatibility with observations immediately disproves the model. That successful result is usually interpreted as a proof of correctness of the Copenhagen interpretation. The mathematical formalism used in physics forms probably what is the most coherent and logical internal system that exists in science.

Different versions of that approach have led to the dual interpretation of light.14] discusses the: "titanic struggle between Einstein and Bohr. For example. One of the most important and disastrous consequences of the Copenhagen interpretation is observed in the case of the dualist wave-particle interpretation of light. The successful shift of the problem by Bohr is such that the external relationship (the relation between Nature and mathematical formalism). It has led to an interpretation in which one uses the property of a particle when needed. That consequence leads to a naive belief that a photon might be a particle and a wave at the same time. is related to the fundamental relations of physics (that are external). if one claims that this is an external relationship described by the duality of waves-particles. that are their coherence with Nature. The so called completeness. and the property of a wave when needed. in Bohr's discussion with Einstein. are quite irrational. All sorts of confusing words are used to say that. Light (or photons) behaves simultaneously as a wave and as a particle. This hypothesis is extremely convenient because adding the properties of waves to those of particles is feasible mathematically. which is one of the most challenging problem of physics. the external relationships of physics. The difficulty of explaining the behavior of light has a very long history in physics. this is not a problem as long as we consider that it is an internal property of the mathematical formalism. The complete demonstration of absurdity of duality does not only reside in the argument of causality and in the internal versus external relationship considered in .of causality in physics has led to many confusions. that interpretation is absurd. 1-4 Duality. interpreted through the Copenhagen interpretation. Of course. There is no fundamental problem of coherence in the internal relations of physics because it is the part that actually uses nothing but mathematics. is generally avoided and has never been solved. The only thing to do is to consider a wave solution to the equation when needed and also a solution compatible with a particle when needed. However. avoided by Bohr. However. while the freedom from contradictions discussed by Bohr is related to the coherence in the mathematical formalism (that is internal). the subject of discussion shifted from fundamental principles of physics to the freedom of contradictions in the mathematical formalism.14]also described clearly: "Bohr's shift of the problem from completeness to soundness (=freedom from contradiction)." He [1." The last parenthesis is from Popper. Popper [1.

" Let us insist on Messiah's words. in both models.15]when he writes: "Microscopic objects have a very general property: they appear under two apparently irreconcilable aspects.16] writes: "But in the meantime we should have learned at least two lessons. they were hidden somehow in the mathematical scheme. no physical reality can exist before detection. He concludes in the following way: "Both the Copenhagen and the dualist .17]: "The paradoxes of the dualism between wave picture and particle picture were not solved." The word hidden. the wave aspect on the one hand. He writes [1. that is the model of light made out of a wave and of a particle. and the corpuscular aspect on the other hand. is an excellent description of the facts. We will see in Chapter 4 that condition b). exhibiting the superposition property characteristic of waves. "irreconcilable aspects". The dualistic model is just as absurd as the Copenhagen interpretation because. Bunge [1. is totally irreconcilable. things are created by the observer's knowledge. The first is.18]also comments on the dualist interpretation. as admitted by Heisenberg. the fact that the two models were irreconcilable was realized but not solved. This is exactly what is explained by Messiah [1. That description is incompatible with the realism of Nature. This statement is so obvious that it appears in different forms. For example. In the Copenhagen interpretation. that the particle and the wave analogies are weak and moreover mutually inconsistent.this Chapter. Condition a) is possible. namely localized grains of energy and momentum. There is an incompatible difference between: a) combining mathematically two sets of properties in an equation. in reality. and: b) saying that. Bunge [1." When the model of duality was proposed. light is simultaneously made out of a wave and of a particle. This shows that the internal mathematical description is feasible but this internal relationship is used to hide the absurdities of the external descriptions. The strongest argument of absurdity of dualism follows from the argument on realism that will be discussed in Chapter 4. used by Heisenberg.

That erroneous conclusion is however the conclusion given by Descartes. it has reached the stage of incurable irrationality. Therefore. might lead to conclude to the reality of existence. and the ghost like matter coming into existence through the collapse of a wave function. therefore I exist. were Cardinal Ballarmino and Bishop Berkeley. He wrote: "I think.. The history of realism did not begin only with Bohr around 1920. Even if the fact of thinking. therefore. However." But he went on to explain that a table does not think. For him.." This shows that modern physics has even gone beyond a state of confusion. the inverse is not true. we will consider here the historical origin of realism and nonrealism. This description is so important that we reproduce it here in Appendix I. was challenged well before Niels Bohr and Heisenberg. who both believed that observations are merely mental . a table does not exist.interpretations of physical theories arise from a confusion between theoretical and experimental concepts. physical causality implies realism. Realism was clearly understood about twenty-four centuries ago. as described by the Copenhagen interpretation. It is quite extraordinary how Socrates can teach an important lesson of realism to many modern scientists. Realism. One cannot say that a sleeping person does not exist because the person is not thinking.] This confusion may not be deplored by the Copenhagen philosopher. It was first challenged by Descartes. It is the Allegory of the Cave conceived by Socrates and written by his famous pupil. for whom everything is incurably irrational at bottom. using the Copenhagen interpretation show that they cannot make the same distinction. It is certainly worth reading how Socrates was able to distinguish shadows from realities while modern physicists. [. The most striking example of realism and causality is a masterpiece written by Plato. defined as the result that matter has its own existence independent of the observer. Following Descartes. There is a clear analogy between the ghost like shadows of puppets described by the dwellers of the den related by Plato. Descartes believed that a table does not have its own independent existence. mentioned by Descartes. a table could not really exist without an observer. 1-5 Early Historical Origin of Non-Realism Looking for causes that can be responsible for the effects observed implies logically that a cause exists independently of the observer. The description of realism will be considered in detail in chapter 4. Descartes' syllogism does not show that a non-thinking object does not exist.

to wit." Berkeley concludes: "Esse est percipi" meaning "Existence is perception. His feelings in favor of the positivism of Auguste Comte were extremely strong. We must notice that this modern philosophy is astonishingly identical to modern physics as suggested by the Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr. Berkeley finds it strange that some humans believe that things could have an existence independent of what is perceived. Existence is nothing more than perception. Here is what Berkeley [1. We must realize that it is the consequence of the weakness of the human mind. Such I take this important one to be. and in word all sensible objects have an existence natural or real.) There is a striking proof of the direct influence of Berkeley's philosophy on the Copenhagen interpretation.20]also writes: "Some truths there are so near and obvious to the mind. matter is not considered to have its own independent existence before it is detected. that houses. (Esse est percipi. that their being is to be perceived or known. Heisenberg and Pauli. In modern physics. just as in the case of modern philosophy of Descartes and Berkeley. just as for Descartes and Berkeley." At this point. 1-6 The Berkeley-Copenhagen Interpretation The positivism of Descartes is pushed to an extreme degree by Berkeley. Berkeley [1.21]statement in his own words: . Similar arguments are given by Kant. that a man need only open his eyes to see them. distinct from their being perceived by the understanding." In other words. Hume and others. forming a new thinking called Modern Philosophy. rivers. Let us recall Heisenberg's [1. That proof is in Heisenberg's book. mountains.19]writes about reality: "It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men. Hagel and many others. Heisenberg writes clearly that he agrees with Berkeley's philosophy. I wish to ask rational readers not to be too upset by these absurdities. that all the choir of heaven and furniture of the earth. For Heisenberg and for Bohr.constructions. Berkeley was an Irish philosopher of the seventeenth century. in a word all those bodies which compose the mighty frame of the world have not any subsistence without a mind.

Berkeley and Heisenberg considered only the knowledge acquired from the perception by one single observer. Heisenberg's statement proves it. Berkeley's name cannot be ignored."The next step was taken by Berkeley. Therefore. there is no meaning in the statement that the things really exist. However. Non-realism has clearly been borrowed from Berkeley's philosophy. whether things exist independently of any observer. even if non-realism received then a new application in the field of science. there is no meaning in the statement that the things really exist. Berkeley's philosophy provided the essential fundamental ideas that led to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. that has to be analyzed. They did not realize that the independent existence of things can be shown from the coherent . Heisenberg admits that he just carried Berkeley's idea of modern philosophy to modern physics. to be perceived is identical with existence. There is a second idea in Heisenberg's statement. It is: "If actually all our knowledge is derived from perception." Berkeley and Heisenberg did not greatly use their powers of inference when they shared that opinion. I believe that it is ethically more appropriate to call the interpretation of modern physics.21]." We might believe that this statement must have been written by a philosopher in Berkeley's time. Therefore. The thing could be perceived by independent observers and lead to compatible independent reports (by all observers). if all our knowledge was simply derived from the perception of an object by one single individual. because if the perception is given it cannot possibly make any difference whether the things exist or do not exist. it would not make sense claiming that things do exist independently of the observer. It is a common practice in our society to give names that best characterize the origin of what is being described. it could be tested. It was really written by Heisenberg [1. the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation. Heisenberg shows clearly that modern physics did not innovate when it was suggested that matter had no existence before detection. However. as we can see from Heisenberg's reference about Berkeley. It is clear that non-realism in science originated from Bohr and Heisenberg under the name of the Copenhagen interpretation. Of course. If actually all our knowledge is derived from perception. the basic idea was certainly not new.

unaware that they are philosophizing." . Heisenberg and Pauli. This is the model used now in quantum physics. he accepted the view that matter exists only in the observer's mind. irrational.22]when discussing Heisenberg's ideas expressed his deception in the following way: "It was he [Heisenberg] who led a generation of physicists to accept the absurd view that one can learn from quantum mechanics. of course.23] did not survive.24]states: "Modern instrumentalists are. Accordingly. From these above statements. This point is discussed in section 4-4. With a lesser strength. The understanding of Socrates' allegory in which the dwellers of the den assign reality to the shadows of puppets (see Plato in Appendix 1) instead of ascribing reality to the real objects. That last condition of the compatibility of independent observations in space and in time. gives a crucial extra knowledge that has been neglected by Berkeley and Heisenberg. mainly Bohr. would be important to modern physicists. That extra information provides the necessary knowledge in favor of independent existence.as I am convinced it is. Jordan and P. It is very sad that the ideas established by Socrates and Plato [1. Popper [1. Since Heisenberg did not realize this argument in favor of realism. The Allegory of the Cave is reproduced in Appendix I of this book to show the decline of logic during the past centuries. This is certain since Heisenberg used Berkeley's statement when arguing in favor of non-realism in physics. M." 1-7 Discredit of Philosophy The irrationalities of modern physics have been developed by the scientific philosophers of the Copenhagen group. Some basic philosophical knowledge of logic could help many physicists. Dirac defended the Copenhagen interpretation. P. they are unaware of even the possibility that their fashionable philosophy may in fact be uncritical. Max Born. it is clear that Descartes. Popper [1. Erwin Schrödinger and especially Einstein were consistent dissidents and did not believe that physics is magic. and objectionable . Ballarmino and Berkeley had a very strong influence on Bohr and Heisenberg and therefore on the Copenhagen philosophy.reports of independent observers located anywhere and at any time.

" That problem of infinite velocities will be discussed below in chapter 5. I cannot ignore the statement by one of my friends [1. He then notes that the principles of quantum mechanics. as it is now called.. Reason and Simplicity.25]is extraordinarily open to new ideas except for philosophical considerations. . in practice. First he formulates clearly the principle of locality. mathematics. referring to it as the principle of action at vanishing distances. it is irrational". [. The exclusion of such articles is not usually specified by the editor of scientific journals but.] Philosophical considerations will generally not be accepted" It is surprising that a journal particularly interested in Reason would exclude philosophical considerations.Philosophy is not only regarded as useless. at least in the Copenhagen interpretation. Above Authority) [1. We must admit that the consequences of QM were not fully known in Bohr's time. However. or the 'Prinzip der Nahewirkung'.27]states: "In his Dialectica article Einstein advances a very modest and simple argument against the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. the principle of the excluded action at a distance. For example. that is. 1-8 QM implies infinite velocities Another unsurmountable difficulty of QM is that it implies infinite velocities of interactions. Philosophical considerations are looked on with suspicion in most scientific journals.26]: "Deciding to ignore philosophy and choosing ignorance is a philosophy. but also as a nuisance in modern physics. the result is the same in most journals. Popper [1.. the scientific journal Galilean Electrodynamics (Experience. are incompatible with this principle of locality. and that if quantum mechanics is true as interpreted by Bohr there must be action at a distance. The editorial policy for the acceptance of articles states clearly: "All papers are expected to be in the realm of physics. Infinite velocities that contradict relativity were not noticed in those years.

58. 1. 1. N. New York. 1. Vol. Daniel. Philosophers discover that the teaching of absurdities is just as common in physics as in philosophy. admiring the apparent success of scientific achievement. John G. April 1984. Oxford University Press. Discussion remarks at the Symposium on Fundamental Questions in Quantum Mechanics. let us give a citation by Lovelock [1. Those philosophers rightfully feel that they are back in the dark ages of humanity..1 Baggott. a Guide for Students of Chemistry and Physics. p. Totowa (New Jersey). in recent years. 42. 1982. 1. Werner.Conclusion. Those statements do not give much confidence in the usefulness of philosophy. When some philosophers read about the Copenhagen interpretation. 1992. 88. because of the absurd statements written by some modern philosophers like Berkeley. He wrote: "To cap it all. 230 p. have decided to study physics and its interpretation of nature. Jim. New Jersey. Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. But. Werner.. "The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". Rowman and Littlefield.3 Kant cited by Popper. 3. Physics and Philosophy. Princeton University Press. p. they make the sad discovery about all the absurdities taught in science. they burned Bruno and imprisoned Galileo.8 Mermin.4 Heisenberg. New York. see the preface. New York. 649. The Meaning of Quantum Theory. it has teeth and can wreck a career by refusing funds for research or by censoring publications. [. Physics and Philosophy. SUNY. in Reviews of Modern Physics. The Strange Theory of Light and Matter.] Like the inquisition of the medieval church. July 1986. 10. 1988. "Is the Moon There when Nobody Looks? Reality and the . Harper and Row. 1. Albany. One can argue that philosophy is not much respected by physicists. Richard P. the "purity" of science has been ever more closely guarded by a self-imposed inquisition called the peer review. Even in our century. Karl R.2 Cramer. p. 1966. Some centuries ago. David. why did Heisenberg and Bohr adopt the same philosophy? It must also be realized that many philosophers.7 Feynman.." There is not much hope for new scientists to try writing new papers to rationalize physics unless they accept to end their career.28]about the freedom of expression in research. 1.. a dissident of the Copenhagen interpretation is rejected and called a crank.. 1. Finally. 229 p.5 Heisenberg. References Chapter 1 1. the Revolution in Modern Science.6 Greenberger. No. Harper and Row. p. the Revolution in Modern Science.. 1966.

. 1963. p. Québec. Rowman and Littlefield.27 Popper. Karl R. Reidel. Philosopher. Boston. cited by Popper. Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. 1. p. 1. Everyman's library. Albert. Mario.15 Messiah.. 9. "Small Science". Karl R. 40. Vol. 1990. p. Totowa (New Jersey).. Reviews of Modern Physics. 1. Rowman and Littlefield. Karl R. 1. Reidel. Canada. R. 103.14 Popper. Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. 1. 115-116 1. 1982. 1. 1. Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. The Reality Club. p. Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. Physics and Philosophy. Werner. Harper and Row. 1966. New York. 1979. 84. Vol. the Revolution in Modern Science.26 St-Jacques. 1966. 1. New York. M.17 Heisenberg. A.18 Bunge. 59.S. New York.A. North-Holland Publishing Company. p. . p. 114.19 Berkeley. 1982.). Rowman and Littlefield. New York. 21. 1973.21 Heisenberg. p. 39. 58. 1991. Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. 63. Toronto. Everyman's library. Boston. The Character of Physical Law.. 1982..16 Bunge. p. 1967. p. 3. 29. 1. April 1985. 129. Boulder.13 Heisenberg. 1986.12 Bahcall. Quantum Mechanics.24 Popper. and Other Writings. U.. New York. James E. No. cited by Cramer.20 Berkeley. 1. Werner. 1982. Mario. 1.28 Lovelock. p. 1966. Harper and Row. p. Rowman and Littlefield.23 See Appendix I. in Douglas Huff and Omer Prewett. Philosophy of Physics. 1. Karl R. February 11. 1. Harper and Row. p. 647. 59. John. p. p. 1961. 1963. p. D. 108. in Doing Science. in Physics Today. Totowa (New Jersey). the Revolution in Modern Science.. 6.22 Popper.. Philosophy of Physics. 178. Totowa (New Jersey). 1. New York.25 Galilean Electrodynamics (Box 251. and Other Writings. 1. 1982.11 Gell-Mann. George. Karl R. A New Theory of Vision. Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics. 93. 1.Quantum Theory". p. Amsterdam. 1.10 Popper.. 1. the Revolution in Modern Science. p. P. George. Rowman and Littlefield. 10. in The New York Times Magazine. D. Werner. 47. Prentice Hall Press. 1. The Nature of the Physical Universe: 1976 Nobel Conference. Physics and Philosophy. p. p. Colorado 80306.9 Feynman. Totowa (New Jersey). 1982. Totowa (New Jersey). A New Theory of Vision. Physics and Philosophy. p. 1. 1973.