Megascopic Quantum Phenomena
291
call such symmetry breakings “spontaneous” imparting adverse formulations of such
phenomena that are based on this type of symmetry violation. We will discuss this
problem in more detail below.
The second statement reads:
2. “When it comes to the informal language and mode of thought in physics, which
infuses the imagination and provokes the sense of what is real and substantial,
most physicists still speak and think, with an utter conviction of truth, in terms
of the traditional atomistic notion that the universe is constituted of elementary
particles which are ‘basic building blocks’ out of which everything is made. In
other sciences, such as biology, the strength of this conviction is even greater,
because among workers in these fields there is little awareness of the revolutionary
character of development in modern physics. For example, modern molecular
biologists generally believe that the whole of life and mind can ultimately be
understood in more or less mechanical terms, through some kind of extension of
the work that has been done on the structure and function of DNA molecules. A
similar trend has already begun to dominate in psychology.”
The quantum physics community, as understood today by a vast majority of physicists, constitutes an unluckily fulfilment of the materialistic ideas of Democritus. As
concerns ancient Democritus’ atomism, the concepts of quantum physics differs little or not at all from classical mechanics. In fact the great men of classical physics
(Newton, Leibniz, Laplace and others) sincerely believed that if someone gives them
the laws of motion for all existing constituents of matter, they could predict the
motion of the whole universe. No matter how much the laws of motion of elementary particles in quantum physics are profoundly dissimilar, both mathematically and
philosophically, to the laws of classical physics, yet by introducing complementarity
and uncertainty no one dares to contest any unambiguousness in the formulation of
many-body quantum equations. As a result many physicists, particularly cosmologists, believe in the existence of a wave function describing the whole of the universe,
one of the first and main anticipation in the Everett relative state interpretation [17].
Bohm’s conclusion is absolutely correct, and we will prove here that the conventional
many-body formulation in quantum physics is ambiguous as well, and that microscopic quantum laws are not the ultimate and unique platform for understanding all
natural phenomena.
The third citation becomes:
3. “So fragmentation is in essence a confusion around the question of difference and
sameness (or one-ness), but the clear perception of these categories is necessary
in every phase of life. To be confused about what is different and what is not, is
to be confused about everything… The question of fragmentation and wholeness
is a subtle and difficult one, more subtle and difficult than those which lead to
fundamentally new discoveries in science. To ask how to end fragmentation and
to expect an answer in a few minutes makes even less sense than to ask how to
develop a theory as new as Einstein’s was when he was working on it, and to
291
call such symmetry breakings “spontaneous” imparting adverse formulations of such
phenomena that are based on this type of symmetry violation. We will discuss this
problem in more detail below.
The second statement reads:
2. “When it comes to the informal language and mode of thought in physics, which
infuses the imagination and provokes the sense of what is real and substantial,
most physicists still speak and think, with an utter conviction of truth, in terms
of the traditional atomistic notion that the universe is constituted of elementary
particles which are ‘basic building blocks’ out of which everything is made. In
other sciences, such as biology, the strength of this conviction is even greater,
because among workers in these fields there is little awareness of the revolutionary
character of development in modern physics. For example, modern molecular
biologists generally believe that the whole of life and mind can ultimately be
understood in more or less mechanical terms, through some kind of extension of
the work that has been done on the structure and function of DNA molecules. A
similar trend has already begun to dominate in psychology.”
The quantum physics community, as understood today by a vast majority of physicists, constitutes an unluckily fulfilment of the materialistic ideas of Democritus. As
concerns ancient Democritus’ atomism, the concepts of quantum physics differs little or not at all from classical mechanics. In fact the great men of classical physics
(Newton, Leibniz, Laplace and others) sincerely believed that if someone gives them
the laws of motion for all existing constituents of matter, they could predict the
motion of the whole universe. No matter how much the laws of motion of elementary particles in quantum physics are profoundly dissimilar, both mathematically and
philosophically, to the laws of classical physics, yet by introducing complementarity
and uncertainty no one dares to contest any unambiguousness in the formulation of
many-body quantum equations. As a result many physicists, particularly cosmologists, believe in the existence of a wave function describing the whole of the universe,
one of the first and main anticipation in the Everett relative state interpretation [17].
Bohm’s conclusion is absolutely correct, and we will prove here that the conventional
many-body formulation in quantum physics is ambiguous as well, and that microscopic quantum laws are not the ultimate and unique platform for understanding all
natural phenomena.
The third citation becomes:
3. “So fragmentation is in essence a confusion around the question of difference and
sameness (or one-ness), but the clear perception of these categories is necessary
in every phase of life. To be confused about what is different and what is not, is
to be confused about everything… The question of fragmentation and wholeness
is a subtle and difficult one, more subtle and difficult than those which lead to
fundamentally new discoveries in science. To ask how to end fragmentation and
to expect an answer in a few minutes makes even less sense than to ask how to
develop a theory as new as Einstein’s was when he was working on it, and to