Under this title the journal Economist has published a Leaders article (Oct. 19, 2013), in which theajtention has been called to the situation in contemporary science. They have introduced that the main idea underpinning science: “trust, but verify” has been subsequently abandoned after the science started to explore the world after direct recognition. In the article main attention has been devoted to bio-technological research. It has been argued that a great part of corresponding research has been based on wrong assumptions as it has not been possible to replicate a half of published research and in some research regions it has been managed to repeat less than a quarter of important published papers only. Negative results have not been practically published and leading journals (trying to safeguard their exclusivity) have refused a very great part of submitted papers, which means that new important research ideas cannot be practically presented to broader community. The corresponding published results have not been sufficiently verified, either. Other shortages have been introduced and summarized, too.
It has been mentioned at the same time that the situation is much better in the region of mathematical and physical research. We should like to show, however, that the same problems concern even the region of basic physical science, which has more important consequences as the corresponding conclusions influence the thinking of the whole human society. It is possible to say that the main change in this direction in the physical scientific region started approximately in the middle of the 19th century. It was initiated by the ideas of Descartes and by positivism, when the research of the microscopic world started to be developed and mathematical models to be made use of.
The actual beginning of the present situation is to be, however, put into 1927 when Bohr changed fundamentally the physical interpretation of the solutions of Schroedinger equation, at difference to that introduced originally by its proposer. Bohr’s Copenhagen quantum mechanics was refused by Einstein on the basis of ontological experience; he showed on the basis of a Gedankenexperiment proposed by him that the Copenhagen alternative required the existence of immediate mutual interaction (at any distance) between two particles going from the same source (phenomenon denoted now usually as entanglement). Bohr refused Einstein’s criticism by arguing that the given phenomenon may exist between microscopic particles. The world scientific community refused then Einstein’s criticism and supported fully Bohr’s standpoint. Most physicists have taken the entanglement as one of the basic properties of microscopic objects even if for the whole time nobody has been able to show how the standard macroscopic world may consist of such miraculous microscopic particles.
However, to understand the given problem at least in principle it is necessary to follow at least schematically the corresponding story in the past century. In the middle of this century two different quantum alternatives were yet considered (different interpretations of Schroedinger equation), one corresponding to Einstein’s ontological requirement and the other to Bohr’s entanglement. The final support for the latter alternative followed then when J. Bell derived his famous inequality in 1964 and the experiment performed ini 982 showed that this inequality has not been valid. It was commonly assumed in the past that the given inequality held in Einstein’s alternative (our abbreviated denotation) and not in Bohr’s one; without any argument for such an assumption having been given. The given inequality has been derived, however, on the basis of an assumption that has not been valid in the given experiment as we have found several years ago.
We have shown for the first time ini 998 (published in internet arxiv only) that the given inequality has held in a purely classical theory only and not in any quantum alternative. Consequently, any support for Bohr’s alternative does not exist while different arguments against its plausibility may be introduced as it has been shown by us in last years. To publishthese papers in standard journals was, however, always refused. Only later it has been possible to present the given results in some less important journals. Now several papers published by us are already available in different journals (see [1-4]) where all necessary arguments*have been introduced. The first two papers being available on internet have been downloaded by several thousands of physicists, without any critical comment being known.
However, Bohr’s (anti-ontological) quantum theory based on the given deforming assumption is being still developed in the framework of EU-COST collaboration, supported strongly by sizeable money amounts. When I tried to call the attention of main organizers to the given wrong assumption in 2012 the status of the next year conference organized by them was changed; to disable my participation the conference was limited for invited only. And the wrong theory is still being developed in the framework of the given collaboration and paid from European moneys (see, e.g., CERN Courier 54 (2014), No. 4, p.33).
The fundamental support of anti-ontological concept has had, of course, very important impact on the thinking of the whole human community, as it follows from the different official decisions, which has a very inauspicious influence on its contemporary evolution. Consequently, further mistakes have occurred in other regions of basic physics, too. We have presented recently the paper concerning the other mistaken argument on which the validity of the optical theorem in elastic collisions between microscopic particles has been based (see [5,6]). The only way how to remove all corresponding mistakes consists in returning to ontological approach.
This ontological approach was proposed originally by Aristotle (and probably at least in principle already by Sokrates) and developed farther on the basis of medieval knowledge by Thomas Aquinas on the 12th century. The whole progress of knowledge in the new age (all results of the classical physics) has been based on this approach, while any new progress concerning fundamental nanoscopic particles has been practically disabled due to mentioned mistakes. We have now submitted two papers summarizing the problems concerning two mentioned mistaken assumptions into two main physical journals (American and European) and are in greater controversies with these journals as they have refused our papers on the basis of wrong arguments. We wonder how these controversies will evolve. Our next steps will depend fully on their answers.
M.V.Lokajicek, Inst, of Phys., ASCR, Prague (May 2014)
* * *
[1] M.V.Lokajicek: Einstein-Bohr controversy after 75 years, its actual solution and consequences; Some Applications of Quantum Mechanics, edited by M.R.Pahlavani, 409-24, InTech Publisher, February 2012)
[2] M.V.Lokajicek, V.Kundrat and J.Prochazka: Schroedinger equation and (future) quantum physics; Advances in Quantum Mechanics, edited by P.Bracken, 105-32, InTech Publisher, April 2013.
[3] M.V.Lokajicek, V.Kundrat: The controversy between Einstein and Bohr after 75 years, its actual solution and correspondence for the present; Phys. Scr. T151, 014007, 2012
[4] M.V.Lokajicek: The assumption in Bell's inequalities and entanglement problem; J. Comp. Theor. Nanosci. 9, No.12, 2018-2020, 2012; arXiv:quant-ph/l 108.0922
[5] M.V.Lokajicek, V.Kundrat: Optical theorem and elastic nucleon scattering; Proc. of 13th Int. Conf., Blois Workshop; /arXiv:1002.3527
[6] M.V.Lokajicek, V.Kundrat and J.Prochazka: Elastic hadron scattering and optical theorem;
/arxiv-web3 .librarv.comell.edu/abs/1403.1809
Read more...