Megascopic Quantum Phenomena
353
However, the incomplete character of the wave function of the Universe should not
set us off to look for some local “beables”. As we have seen, there is a complementary
field description of the Universe, leading ultimately to real objects, the symmetries
of which can be broken. The second complementarity has an original significance
for a proper understanding of all SSB phenomena. These processes have a sign of
complexity and emergence, and therefore one must ask which fundamental principle
lies behind. Rowlands has adequately formulated this request [137]: “This is symmetry, which we see all about us in the laws of physics, the fundamental interactions
and the fundamental particles. Finding symmetries can help us to decomplexify our
explanations, and, if we can understand where symmetry comes from, lead to more
profound understanding. We should also note that some symmetries are broken; that
is, what is fundamentally symmetric appears, under certain conditions, to display
some asymmetry. The reason for this cannot be arbitrary, and if we can discover it,
along with the reason for symmetry, this will be a big step in our understanding of
the foundations. One thing it can’t be is fundamental because nature never acts in
such an arbitrary way. It has to be, in some way, a sign of complexity or emergence.”
With the up till now known laws of quantum physics one can simply only arrive
at a mechanical many-body description with no symmetries violated and a field
description exhibiting possible broken symmetries. But to suggest an explanation
for the broken symmetry, understood as a transition from unbroken to broken states,
on needs to accept the new axiom. We continue quoting Rowlands giving his opinion
[137]: “Again, if we decide that simplicity is to be preferred over complexity, we
should be looking for something that is staggeringly simple, yet somehow capable
of generating complexity. If we think our basic idea is a complicated construction,
say a 10-dimensional space-time, then we have no way of knowing how this breaks
up into the simpler component parts that must exist because we have no fundamental
mechanism for doing this. We should certainly take notice of what the string theorists
say about the symmetries required by nature, and we should expect to find them, even
those expressed in 10 dimensions, but we should expect to find them by working out
how such a complex idea emerges from simpler ones, in which the structures of the
components reveal them as diverse in origin, the ‘brokenness’ of the larger symmetry
coming from its inherent complexity, not by some arbitrarily-imposed concept of
‘symmetry-breaking’. Broken symmetries are a sure signature of complexity, not of
simplicity.”
In the above citation Rowlands has touched upon the crucial problem how symmetry breaking is comprehended today as some arbitrarily imposed conception. Yet
if the second complementarity is original, then every SSB is an emergent process,
i.e. the succession of events, appearing either on the microscopic or the macroscopic
level, as a consequence of the perpetual sequence of megascopic quantum jumps
between states that represent the wholeness and the fragmentation of the Universe.
Unfortunately megascopic quantum jumps are not measurable. This fact is
reflected in emergent SSB phenomena, such as superconductivity and the J-T effect
being the best-known examples. Knowing, that the density and velocity of superconducting carriers are non-measurable in principle, see Sect. 9, Bersuker describes a
similar situation in J-T systems [112]: “Among other things Van Vleck [138] wrote
353
However, the incomplete character of the wave function of the Universe should not
set us off to look for some local “beables”. As we have seen, there is a complementary
field description of the Universe, leading ultimately to real objects, the symmetries
of which can be broken. The second complementarity has an original significance
for a proper understanding of all SSB phenomena. These processes have a sign of
complexity and emergence, and therefore one must ask which fundamental principle
lies behind. Rowlands has adequately formulated this request [137]: “This is symmetry, which we see all about us in the laws of physics, the fundamental interactions
and the fundamental particles. Finding symmetries can help us to decomplexify our
explanations, and, if we can understand where symmetry comes from, lead to more
profound understanding. We should also note that some symmetries are broken; that
is, what is fundamentally symmetric appears, under certain conditions, to display
some asymmetry. The reason for this cannot be arbitrary, and if we can discover it,
along with the reason for symmetry, this will be a big step in our understanding of
the foundations. One thing it can’t be is fundamental because nature never acts in
such an arbitrary way. It has to be, in some way, a sign of complexity or emergence.”
With the up till now known laws of quantum physics one can simply only arrive
at a mechanical many-body description with no symmetries violated and a field
description exhibiting possible broken symmetries. But to suggest an explanation
for the broken symmetry, understood as a transition from unbroken to broken states,
on needs to accept the new axiom. We continue quoting Rowlands giving his opinion
[137]: “Again, if we decide that simplicity is to be preferred over complexity, we
should be looking for something that is staggeringly simple, yet somehow capable
of generating complexity. If we think our basic idea is a complicated construction,
say a 10-dimensional space-time, then we have no way of knowing how this breaks
up into the simpler component parts that must exist because we have no fundamental
mechanism for doing this. We should certainly take notice of what the string theorists
say about the symmetries required by nature, and we should expect to find them, even
those expressed in 10 dimensions, but we should expect to find them by working out
how such a complex idea emerges from simpler ones, in which the structures of the
components reveal them as diverse in origin, the ‘brokenness’ of the larger symmetry
coming from its inherent complexity, not by some arbitrarily-imposed concept of
‘symmetry-breaking’. Broken symmetries are a sure signature of complexity, not of
simplicity.”
In the above citation Rowlands has touched upon the crucial problem how symmetry breaking is comprehended today as some arbitrarily imposed conception. Yet
if the second complementarity is original, then every SSB is an emergent process,
i.e. the succession of events, appearing either on the microscopic or the macroscopic
level, as a consequence of the perpetual sequence of megascopic quantum jumps
between states that represent the wholeness and the fragmentation of the Universe.
Unfortunately megascopic quantum jumps are not measurable. This fact is
reflected in emergent SSB phenomena, such as superconductivity and the J-T effect
being the best-known examples. Knowing, that the density and velocity of superconducting carriers are non-measurable in principle, see Sect. 9, Bersuker describes a
similar situation in J-T systems [112]: “Among other things Van Vleck [138] wrote