Megascopic Quantum Phenomena
289
quantum chemistry.” Although he was correct with the formulation of the “no reduction theorem”, he is certainly wrong with his later interpretation. His approach is to
introduce the so-called “Lie-admissible algebras” for the construction of irreversible
equations of the microworld, seemingly giving up the concept of reversible quantum
equations. As a consequence the macroscopic limit of his irreversible equations will
lead also to classical irreversible expressions, e.g. replacing the standard Newtonian
laws, unravelling puzzles arising from his earlier theorem once and for all. In doing so
he does not object to microscopic irreversibility even when no irreversible equations
are needed. This appears justified since any intervention during measurement is an
irreversible act, causing the reduction of the wave function of the system, ultimately
in agreement with microscopic irreversibility. Yet he destroys the philosophical logic
of a consistent quantum philosophical microscopic view simply for the limited purpose to explain macroscopic irreversibility. A better alternative would be to accept
the incompleteness of quantum theory as stated by the Copenhagen interpretation,
rather than rewriting physics in its entirety.
Looking into the history of quantum mechanics, Bohr initially described the
Heisenberg principle of uncertainty as a purely epistemic problem. In this context
there is no problem to accept the “objective reality” in the macroscopic limit. But
today we know that the principle of uncertainty is also ontological, and there is
unfortunately no classical limit relating to some “objective reality”, even if, on the
macroscopic scale, “objective potentiality” still persists. This raises the question:
how to relate the various forms of “objective potentiality” at the macroscopic level
into one reality. The problem is that classical physics describes events at the scale
of continuous time. On the contrary, quantum equations cannot describe any event,
since they arise only after outside intervention, i.e. after a measurement which can
lead to irreversible processes. However, there are also many irreversible processes,
e.g. chemical reactions that occur independently on any observer, i.e. without any
specific measurement process. Consequently, if there is no macroscopic ontological limit of quantum laws that applies to the microworld, then there must exist yet
another type of events, that occurs on the macroscopic level, which are responsible
for the time irreversibility, but have no roots in the original Copenhagen School. This
is of fundamental importance, since if and when we find this, until now unknown
type of events, we will recover the concept of unitary transformations as pertaining
to reversible equations on both the microscopic as well as the macroscopic levels.
Classical physics recognizes reversible processes as the primary ones along with
the full reversibility on the time axis, whereas irreversible processes violate this symmetry with the arrow of time oriented only in the “forward” direction. This stance
also carries over in microscopic quantum theory. Santilli recognized the ascending
order of irreversibility, but nevertheless made an inaccurate inference in the assumption of irreversibility conceiving reversibility as a constricted limit of his irreversible
equations. There is essentially no irreversibility in the primary equations of physics,
which leads us to explore deep-seated formulations that might reveal precise relations between reversibility/irreversibility allowing solutions that provide the proper
characteristics depending on the case at hand. Therefore the classical concept of the
289
quantum chemistry.” Although he was correct with the formulation of the “no reduction theorem”, he is certainly wrong with his later interpretation. His approach is to
introduce the so-called “Lie-admissible algebras” for the construction of irreversible
equations of the microworld, seemingly giving up the concept of reversible quantum
equations. As a consequence the macroscopic limit of his irreversible equations will
lead also to classical irreversible expressions, e.g. replacing the standard Newtonian
laws, unravelling puzzles arising from his earlier theorem once and for all. In doing so
he does not object to microscopic irreversibility even when no irreversible equations
are needed. This appears justified since any intervention during measurement is an
irreversible act, causing the reduction of the wave function of the system, ultimately
in agreement with microscopic irreversibility. Yet he destroys the philosophical logic
of a consistent quantum philosophical microscopic view simply for the limited purpose to explain macroscopic irreversibility. A better alternative would be to accept
the incompleteness of quantum theory as stated by the Copenhagen interpretation,
rather than rewriting physics in its entirety.
Looking into the history of quantum mechanics, Bohr initially described the
Heisenberg principle of uncertainty as a purely epistemic problem. In this context
there is no problem to accept the “objective reality” in the macroscopic limit. But
today we know that the principle of uncertainty is also ontological, and there is
unfortunately no classical limit relating to some “objective reality”, even if, on the
macroscopic scale, “objective potentiality” still persists. This raises the question:
how to relate the various forms of “objective potentiality” at the macroscopic level
into one reality. The problem is that classical physics describes events at the scale
of continuous time. On the contrary, quantum equations cannot describe any event,
since they arise only after outside intervention, i.e. after a measurement which can
lead to irreversible processes. However, there are also many irreversible processes,
e.g. chemical reactions that occur independently on any observer, i.e. without any
specific measurement process. Consequently, if there is no macroscopic ontological limit of quantum laws that applies to the microworld, then there must exist yet
another type of events, that occurs on the macroscopic level, which are responsible
for the time irreversibility, but have no roots in the original Copenhagen School. This
is of fundamental importance, since if and when we find this, until now unknown
type of events, we will recover the concept of unitary transformations as pertaining
to reversible equations on both the microscopic as well as the macroscopic levels.
Classical physics recognizes reversible processes as the primary ones along with
the full reversibility on the time axis, whereas irreversible processes violate this symmetry with the arrow of time oriented only in the “forward” direction. This stance
also carries over in microscopic quantum theory. Santilli recognized the ascending
order of irreversibility, but nevertheless made an inaccurate inference in the assumption of irreversibility conceiving reversibility as a constricted limit of his irreversible
equations. There is essentially no irreversibility in the primary equations of physics,
which leads us to explore deep-seated formulations that might reveal precise relations between reversibility/irreversibility allowing solutions that provide the proper
characteristics depending on the case at hand. Therefore the classical concept of the