354
M. Svrˇ cek
that “it is a great merit of the J-T effect that it disappears when not needed.” This
declaration reflects the situation when there was very poor understanding of what
observable effects should be expected as a consequence of the J-T theorem. The
point is that the simplified formulation of the consequences of the J-T theorem as
“spontaneous distortion” is incomplete and therefore inaccurate, and may lead to
misunderstanding. In fact, there are several (or an infinite number of) equivalent
directions of distortion, and the system may resonate between them (the dynamic
J-T effect)… It does not necessarily lead to observable nuclear configuration distortion, and this explains why such distortions often cannot be observed directly…
Even in 1960 Low in his book [139] stated that “it is a property of the J-T effect that
whenever one tries to find it, it eludes measurements.””
Bersuker’s countering argument against Van Vleck and Low can only be acceded
from the point of view of the microscopic origin of the J-T effect. But as we have realized, the J-T effect is a megascopic phenomenon. Any other attempt to explain this
effect microscopically leads inevitably to paradoxes. From a microscopic perspective quantum tunnelling between differently distorted J-T states restores the original
symmetry provided one considers a sufficiently long period of time. And this opens
directly the problem discussed at the end of the previous section, i.e. is there any SSB
or not. Moreover consider the simplest microscopic example of quantum tunnelling,
the particle in a box, divided into two parts by a barrier. If the particle is initially
located in the first part, after an extended time period it will be found with the same
probability in both parts. But in the case of the J-T effect, there is no observer who
selects one of the possible distorted J-T states. Therefore the microscopic concept
of quantum tunnelling cannot be applied to the J-T effect, and Van Vleck and Low
were absolutely right, when they challenged its direct measurability. Incidentally
microscopic processes are causal, while megascopic ones are teleological. Teleology interpreted as the final cause can be then understood as downward causality,
descending from the Greatest One, the whole Universe, in contrast to the upward
causality, ascending from the smallest entities, the elementary particles. In this way
teleology finally gains a primary significance, as it was requested by Bohm, quoted
in his 1st statement in Sect. 4. Causality in physics has its well-established empirical
basis, but the principal non-measurability of megascopic phenomena might perhaps
be the main reason why teleology is not till now explicitly incorporated in the exact
sciences.
Approaching the next questions, i.e. what identifies the probabilities of
megascopic quantum jumps, and what are the megascopic mirrors of the microscopic
projection and the Born rule, Bohm in his 5th cited statement, see above, speaks about
projections and injections. Indeed the latter phrase agrees perfectly with a requested
megascopic mirror of the former. One can observe in various international forums
that some scientists do feel that there is a connection between the mechanism of SSB
and Zurek’s einselection, but that no one knows exactly how the latter might explicitly be incorporated. The quantum decoherence program is focused on replacing the
Born rule by einselection and entirely removing the von Neumann–Wigner rule, see
Sect. 7. This program, however, was inspired by Universal Darwinism, and Darwin
M. Svrˇ cek
that “it is a great merit of the J-T effect that it disappears when not needed.” This
declaration reflects the situation when there was very poor understanding of what
observable effects should be expected as a consequence of the J-T theorem. The
point is that the simplified formulation of the consequences of the J-T theorem as
“spontaneous distortion” is incomplete and therefore inaccurate, and may lead to
misunderstanding. In fact, there are several (or an infinite number of) equivalent
directions of distortion, and the system may resonate between them (the dynamic
J-T effect)… It does not necessarily lead to observable nuclear configuration distortion, and this explains why such distortions often cannot be observed directly…
Even in 1960 Low in his book [139] stated that “it is a property of the J-T effect that
whenever one tries to find it, it eludes measurements.””
Bersuker’s countering argument against Van Vleck and Low can only be acceded
from the point of view of the microscopic origin of the J-T effect. But as we have realized, the J-T effect is a megascopic phenomenon. Any other attempt to explain this
effect microscopically leads inevitably to paradoxes. From a microscopic perspective quantum tunnelling between differently distorted J-T states restores the original
symmetry provided one considers a sufficiently long period of time. And this opens
directly the problem discussed at the end of the previous section, i.e. is there any SSB
or not. Moreover consider the simplest microscopic example of quantum tunnelling,
the particle in a box, divided into two parts by a barrier. If the particle is initially
located in the first part, after an extended time period it will be found with the same
probability in both parts. But in the case of the J-T effect, there is no observer who
selects one of the possible distorted J-T states. Therefore the microscopic concept
of quantum tunnelling cannot be applied to the J-T effect, and Van Vleck and Low
were absolutely right, when they challenged its direct measurability. Incidentally
microscopic processes are causal, while megascopic ones are teleological. Teleology interpreted as the final cause can be then understood as downward causality,
descending from the Greatest One, the whole Universe, in contrast to the upward
causality, ascending from the smallest entities, the elementary particles. In this way
teleology finally gains a primary significance, as it was requested by Bohm, quoted
in his 1st statement in Sect. 4. Causality in physics has its well-established empirical
basis, but the principal non-measurability of megascopic phenomena might perhaps
be the main reason why teleology is not till now explicitly incorporated in the exact
sciences.
Approaching the next questions, i.e. what identifies the probabilities of
megascopic quantum jumps, and what are the megascopic mirrors of the microscopic
projection and the Born rule, Bohm in his 5th cited statement, see above, speaks about
projections and injections. Indeed the latter phrase agrees perfectly with a requested
megascopic mirror of the former. One can observe in various international forums
that some scientists do feel that there is a connection between the mechanism of SSB
and Zurek’s einselection, but that no one knows exactly how the latter might explicitly be incorporated. The quantum decoherence program is focused on replacing the
Born rule by einselection and entirely removing the von Neumann–Wigner rule, see
Sect. 7. This program, however, was inspired by Universal Darwinism, and Darwin