A long ignored theory

challenges the accepted

tenet of subatomic nuclei

A paper by:

Comm. RM Wey, Md. Ph.D.

COSR: SFS / SFC

CO: DSS Centarus

Quantum mechanics as a science is based on a probabilistic and subjectivistic view of the universe. Which in simpler terms means that it is considered to be an axiom that pure chance governs the very essence and existence of nature. It is also considered a given substantiality that material objects always occupy space, but that they may [from time to time] be in no one particular region of space at all. But what exactly does that mean? After all, god does NOT play dice with the universe.

Now there has been, for some time, a theory [(Bohms theory) heretofore referred to as " The Theory] long since worked out, that accounts for all the known behaviors of subatomic particles. This without the need for "chance". For every material object

[Invariably] does occupy some particular region of space. The theory itself Consists of a single set of basic physical laws which apply in exactly the same way to every physical object that exists.

In experiments using the conventional, accepted form of quantum mechanical probability which were conducted by the Office of Scientific Research involving the measurements of the two components of electrons [referred to here as spins (and henceforth referred to as Top and Bottom)], it happens to be an empirical fact (meaning observed, not theoretical) as far as the current acceptable thought goes, that the Top spins of electrons can assume only one of two possible values. The values of the Top spin

[Which I have designated + and - for simplicity], and the Bottom spin [designated High and Low] can be measured quite easily and accurately.

Achieved by devices, which alter the direction of an electron as it passes through, and their measurements later determined by the electron's position.

Another empirical fact is that there are no correlation’s between the Top spin values and their Bottom spin counterparts. Quantum Mechanics has an experimental truth, one of some importance to the matter at hand, that states that a measurement of the Top spin of an electron can disrupt the value of its Bottom counterpart and vice versa. Thus one cannot determine the values of both at any particular moment. This phenomenon is explained in the uncertainty principle, which says that certain pairs of measurable physical properties are incompatible with each other.

The mathematical object with which quantum mechanics represents the states of physical systems is referred to as the Wave function [or the state vector]. In our simplified case of a single - particle system, the quantum mechanical wave function becomes a straightforward function of position.

It is considered a commandment of Quantum Mechanics [which the theory on which this paper is based will dispute] that representing physical objects by a wave function represents them completely, and that absolutely everything there is to be said about any given physical system at any given instant can be read from the wave function [though some would regard this as lacking of common sense].

In current thought, the laws of physics,

[According to Quantum Mechanics] deal with how the wave functions of physical systems evolve in time. In textbook thought there are two categories of such laws, one set for when the physical systems in question are observed, and the other, for when they are not.

The laws of the first category are usually written down in the form of linear differential "equations of motion". A probability equation for motion of a particle follows:

But being completely deterministic [where "chance" is the axiom of the theory itself] they cannot be conclusive if wave functions are indeed complete descriptions of physical systems, as Quantum mechanics maintains.

Now straightforward calculations reveal that the linear differential equations of motion do offer a definite prediction as to the outcome of such an experiment, but such a tenet would, when used in an actual experiment, determine that an electron sent through a device would exit through both openings at the same time.

Thus arises the "measurement problem". One solution [ on which this paper is based ] to the problem, being clearer than is the Copenhagen interpretation, postulates that wave functions are not merely mathematical objects, but physical ones as well.

The laws that govern those wave functions are stipulated to be precisely the standard linear differential quantum - mechanical equations of motion , but without exceptions.

The are other laws in the theory, all of which are fully deterministic in nature. Therefore the positions of all the particles in the world at any time, and their quantum - mechanical wave functions, can be calculated with certainty.

Any inability to do so, or any uncertainty in the results, is a necessarily in this theory an epistemic uncertainty. It is simply a matter of ignorance, which this theory entails to exist for us as a matter of principle. The laws of motion within the theory force such ignorance upon us, which accurately reproduce the familiar statistical predictions of Quantum Mechanics.

The exact mathematical formulation of the theory consists of three elements and is as follows: The first ( a deterministic law, namely Schodingers' equation ) describes how the wave functions of physical systems evolve over time.

The second element [ also a deterministic ], the law of the motion of those particles:

The third element is a statistical rule, it stipulates precisely how one goes about

The theory describes a real tangible and deterministic physical process - which can be followed out in exact mathematical detail - wherein the act of measurement itself gets in the way of what is being measured. In other words, such ignorance ( though merely of perfectly definite facts about the world ), cannot be eliminated without a violation of physical law.

This theory can, however, fully account for the anomalies within the two-path contraption. That is to say, that in an experiment where an electron takes the High route, and thus be "informed" of how things were along the path it did not take. But the part of the wave function ( the one not traveled by the electron ) is itself completely undetectable. Thus, the theory is free of any of the metaphysical perplexities associated with quantum mechanical superposition.

Yet, in spite of its fundament soundness, this theory has been discounted on the grounds that it granted a privileged mathematical role to the positions of particles. Or because it makes no empirical predictions of its own that differ from the standard interpretations.