Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution.

Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution.

by Paul Marmet

 

1 – Promulgation of Absurdities

1-1 The Copenhagen Interpretation.

All humans are continuously surrounded, every day of their life, by real facts of nature. We believe in the existence of galaxies, stars, the sun and the moon and the earth. Nobody denies the real existence of cities, streets, houses and all the objects that we see. We believe that the floor supporting our weight and the air that we breathe really do exist. When there is a car accident, in which a person is injured, who believes that the car did not exist before the collision! We believe that our mind becomes informed of these facts and it tries to understand all those realities. However, the Copenhagen interpretation used in modern physics teaches that none of this is real.

There is another surprise. Many physicists are not aware that the interpretation of modern physics implies that matter does not exist independently of the observer. What is taught is that it is the observer’s knowledge that creates the result. Of course, physics students have to study some interpretation of modern physics but most of their professors do not consider the interpretational aspect of physics important. At the end of the 20th century, almost all physicists are concentrating their efforts on calculating predictions using mathematical formalism or in finding practical applications. Few really try to understand the fundamental nature of physical phenomena. Physicists believe that the most fundamental nature of physics is nothing but equations. Most physicists prefer to ignore all the contradictions and the absurdities existing in the interpretation of modern physics. Fortunately, some very rare scientists, like Baggott [1.1] and some others, have rational reactions when, at length, they discover by themselves, the absurdities in the interpretation of modern physics. The contradictions found in modern science are so absurd that most physicists assume that somebody must certainly have solved them long ago. The degree of indifference of most physicists about these contradictions is phenomenal.

Physics is the fundamental science that aims to understand all fundamental things of Nature. The role of physics is to improve our understanding of things surrounding us, at the macroscopic as well as at the microscopic scale. The best description of Nature is the one that is closest to reality. It is the consequence of that understanding of Nature that should allow scientists to predict new results.

Modern physics has brought a new description of Nature. It is based on what is called: The Copenhagen Interpretation. We will see that this interpretation is just the opposite of the accurate rational description that one expects from science.

What exactly is the Copenhagen interpretation? It is an interpretation given to the formalism of modern physics in order to give a physical meaning of the terms used in the equations. Furthermore, the Copenhagen interpretation gives an interpretation to the mathematical result with respect to our physical understanding of nature. The Copenhagen interpretation has been written by a few renowned scientists at the beginning of the century. The main description comes from papers written by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, M. Pauli and others.
Surprisingly, there is no precise agreement on what the Copenhagen interpretation really is. No document bearing that name exists and there is no agreement among scientists as to what precise documents are involved. Cramer [1.2] states:

“Despite an extensive literature that refers to, discusses, and criticizes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, nowhere does there seem to be any concise statement that defines the full Copenhagen interpretation.”

The set of articles considered as forming the best description of the Copenhagen interpretation differs, depending on the author studying the subject. Many different versions of the Copenhagen interpretation can be identified. Consequently, its definition leaves plenty of room for readers’ own opinions. In this book, we use what appears to be the most frequently accepted version.

To use the most faithful description of the Copenhagen interpretation, we will give, as much as possible, exact citations from renowned scientists who first developed the interpretation. Exact citations are necessary because too many physicists are not aware of all the absurdities accepted in science. They just don’t believe that these absurdities exist. The Copenhagen interpretation (whatever it means) has reached an ultimate importance in physics after more that sixty years. It is elusively known under several general names as: the interpretation of quantum mechanics, or the quantum interpretation of modern physics etc.

The Copenhagen interpretation leads to the most astonishing set of contradictions that ever existed in science. Those contradictions are usually presented under the name of paradoxes because that expression seems less absurd. In simple terms, the Copenhagen interpretation leads to observations that clearly imply three unsurmountable difficulties,

a) negation of causality
b) negation of realism and
c) involvement of infinite and imaginary velocities or masses.
We will first discuss causality because this fundamental concept can be more easily conceived. Causality is also an extremely basic condition in science. Points b) and c) will be discussed in Chapter 4.

1-2 Causality.

The word because is used about fifty times in this book. This is not surprising since the book is related to science. The aim of science is to explain phenomena and predict new observations. Practicing scientific research means to find out why an effect has been produced. It would be ridiculous and absurd to answer that there is no reason or no cause leading to the observed results – that results simply happen like that. It would certainly be more rational to answer that we do not know.

If I give you a description of the laws of nature without telling you the reasons for which I am choosing a given description instead of another, I expect you will find that lack of explanation quite unsatisfactory. Scientists are so used to looking for the cause of an observed specific result that most are not even conscious of looking for it. It is a natural intelligent reaction to look for causes. Although that discussion seems evident to most of us, since there cannot be any effect without cause, this is not obvious to all physicists as we will show.
For many centuries, common sense and observations led to the conclusion that the same causes lead to the same effects. If the same causes do not lead to the same effects, how can we practice science?
Kant [1.3] wrote:

“Causality is the basis of all scientific work. Causality is the condition that renders science possible.”

It is this very lack of causality that has made Heisenberg, Feynman and others use the word “absurdity”. As the result of the Copenhagen interpretation, Heisenberg [1.4] himself, astonished by the apparent lack of causality concluded:

 

“I repeated to myself again and again the question: Can nature possibly be as absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments?”

Of course, it is the interpretation given to the observations that make nature appear incompatible with causality. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, there is no cause to a phenomenon. Consequently, since quantum mechanics is not causal, it is useless to look for causes. One might well ask why so many physicists look for causes when they use and support a model that is not causal! A fully causal interpretation of modern physics is given in Chapters 6, 7 and 8 of this book.

Since Heisenberg is one of the most important contributors to the Copenhagen interpretation, let us take his own assessment. Heisenberg [1.5] states clearly:

“The law of causality is no longer applied in quantum theory.”

In order to be coherent, physicists today should no longer try to find the cause of a physical phenomenon. According to Heisenberg’s statement, there is no cause, it is simple magic. Greenberger [1.6] uses the same expression and states simply,

“Quantum Mechanics is Magic”.

Much more recently, following the use of the Copenhagen interpretation, Feynman [1.7] concludes:

“The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiments. So I hope you can accept Nature as she is – absurd.”

Even worse, Mermin states that the results of those absurd interpretations are enjoyable. He [1.8] writes:

“The EPR experiment is as close to magic as any physical phenomenon I know of, and magic should be enjoyed.”

Should we not conclude, from the last two statements that absurdity is enjoyable? We can enjoy magic for entertainment but I disagree that research funds in science should be used for doing magic.

I have met some top physicists that did not admit that modern physics deals with so much absurdity. After showing a Nobel Laureate in science one of the original statements written about the Copenhagen interpretation, he simply replied to me,

“They could not mean it.”

I certainly agree with him that so much absurdity is unbelievable. However, when one considers all the popularity of the Copenhagen interpretation, and the fact that it is the only accepted interpretation, somebody must mean it.

During their undergraduate studies, physicists are gradually taught to accept interpretations that appear more and more surprising (absurd). They are misled by the fact that the equations used in physics lead to predictions that are compatible with observations. Physicists are taught to believe that when an equation gives a correct prediction, it proves that the model is correct (even if the model is absurd). Furthermore, they claim that, since the working model is absurd, one must conclude that Nature is absurd.

The philosophy of science and the lack of causality are subjects almost completely avoided in classrooms where physics is taught. Many students have informed me that sometimes they are quite dissatisfied with the explanations found in books during their studies. They intend to reconsider that dilemma after getting their degree. Learning about causality and realism without guidance however is a slow and difficult process. Students are not prepared for such a study, and they quickly abandon their project after getting their degree. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, since there is no one document explaining briefly the Copenhagen interpretation, nobody understands it. Of course, nobody can understand absurdity. It is probably for that reason that Cramer [1.9] citing Feynman writes:

“I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics.”

Physicists are also told that there is no basic problem left in physics. Before the publication of this book, when I tried to publish a section of this work (parts of Chapters 6 and 7) about the difficulties of the Copenhagen interpretation in Canadian Journal of Physics, the referee rejected the manuscript claiming that,

“The arguments presented against quantum mechanics were settled more than sixty years ago”.

Referees of other scientific journals regularly make the same error. Most physicists are completely unaware of the absurdities of the Copenhagen interpretation. The claim is that it has been definitively proved that we already know everything that can be known in quantum mechanics. In that regard, Popper [1.10] mentions:

“The Copenhagen interpretation – or, more precisely, the view of the status of quantum mechanics which Bohr and Heisenberg defended – was, quite simply, that quantum mechanics was the last, the final, the never-to-be-surpassed revolution in physics. […] These were claimed to show that physics has reached the end of the road.”

Popper [1.10]adds:

“this epistemological claim I regarded, and still regard, as outrageous.”

It is defeatism to believe that we will never find a rational answer. Many defeatist scientists claim that it is useless to waste time finding new interpretations. The non-rational model is believed to be the final answer. This attitude has been realized clearly by Murray Gell-Mann [1.11]who wrote:

“Niels Bohr brainwashed the whole generation of theorists into thinking that the job [that is an adequate presentation of quantum mechanics] was done 50 years ago.”

Scientists question Nature. Therefore, they must have a modest attitude towards science. Scientists must feel that they can learn something and not dictate their will to Nature. Over-confidence leads to a reduction of vigilance. For example, not long ago, around the time of launching the Hubble telescope in space, there was unbelievable self confidence. In the New York Times Magazine[1.12]we read:

“John Bahcall expects that the telescope will not fail to do its part. If we are disappointed, he says, it’s not the telescope’s fault or our fault. It will be because of a lack of imagination on the part of God.”

In the same article, Giacconi says:

“It’s not how big the universe is that’s impressive. It’s the power of human reason. We can sit here with our little one kilogram of brain and figure out what this universe is all about.”

Let us recall that the main mirror is badly defective and the telescope is in jeopardy with three defective gyroscopes.
1-3 Role of Mathematics.

Much too frequently in physics we read that results obtained in quantum mechanics are correct since they have been proved mathematically. One should know that: Realism can never be proved mathematically; Realism is irrelevant in mathematics. Nothing in mathematics exists independently of our mind.

Mathematics is an extraordinary powerful tool to determine or prove relationships. When dealing with quantum systems, mathematics is used to establish internal correlations within a quantum system. Heisenberg [1.13] states:

“The mathematical image of the system ensures that contradictions cannot occur in the system.”

Heisenberg himself shows correctly that mathematics ensures that there are no internal contradictions. However, the Copenhagen interpretation (or any other interpretation) deals with relations that are external to mathematical relations.

It is clear that mathematics must cope with the internal mathematical relationship between various physical concepts. The mathematical formalism used in physics forms probably what is the most coherent and logical internal system that exists in science. However in physics, the choice of the mathematical relations is controlled by external relations dictated by Nature with the help of experiments and observations. The Copenhagen interpretation is expected to provide the external link between Nature and mathematics. It is clear that the Copenhagen interpretation fails completely to give a rational explanation of Nature.

In Fig. 1-A, the powerful mathematical formalism is illustrated by the well constructed castle. Its external relations with Nature however, are represented by the sinking quicksand of the Copenhagen interpretation.
There are also other errors related to the relevance of mathematics. Some mathematical formalisms lead to predictions compatible with observations. That successful result is usually interpreted as a proof of correctness of the Copenhagen interpretation. Such an agreement between predictions and observations does not prove the correctness of the interpretation, because another different interpretation can possibly (and surely does) lead to a similar result.

It must be understood that no experiment or set of experiments can ever prove the correctness of a model. But the first experiment that shows non-compatibility with observations immediately disproves the model.
The fundamental difference between the role of logic in mathematics and the role of causality in physics has led to many confusions. For example, in Bohr’s discussion with Einstein, the subject of discussion shifted from fundamental principles of physics to the freedom of contradictions in the mathematical formalism. Popper [1.14] discusses the:

“titanic struggle between Einstein and Bohr.”

He [1.14]also described clearly:

“Bohr’s shift of the problem from completeness to soundness (=freedom from contradiction).”

The last parenthesis is from Popper.

The so called completeness, avoided by Bohr, is related to the fundamental relations of physics (that are external), while the freedom from contradictions discussed by Bohr is related to the coherence in the mathematical formalism (that is internal). There is no fundamental problem of coherence in the internal relations of physics because it is the part that actually uses nothing but mathematics. However, the external relationships of physics, that are their coherence with Nature, interpreted through the Copenhagen interpretation, are quite irrational.

The successful shift of the problem by Bohr is such that the external relationship (the relation between Nature and mathematical formalism), which is one of the most challenging problem of physics, is generally avoided and has never been solved.

1-4 Duality.

One of the most important and disastrous consequences of the Copenhagen interpretation is observed in the case of the dualist wave-particle interpretation of light. The difficulty of explaining the behavior of light has a very long history in physics. It has led to an interpretation in which one uses the property of a particle when needed, and the property of a wave when needed. Different versions of that approach have led to the dual interpretation of light. Light (or photons) behaves simultaneously as a wave and as a particle. All sorts of confusing words are used to say that. That consequence leads to a naive belief that a photon might be a particle and a wave at the same time.
This hypothesis is extremely convenient because adding the properties of waves to those of particles is feasible mathematically. The only thing to do is to consider a wave solution to the equation when needed and also a solution compatible with a particle when needed. Of course, this is not a problem as long as we consider that it is an internal property of the mathematical formalism. However, if one claims that this is an external relationship described by the duality of waves-particles, that interpretation is absurd.

The complete demonstration of absurdity of duality does not only reside in the argument of causality and in the internal versus external relationship considered in this Chapter. The strongest argument of absurdity of dualism follows from the argument on realism that will be discussed in Chapter 4.

The dualistic model is just as absurd as the Copenhagen interpretation because, in both models, no physical reality can exist before detection. In the Copenhagen interpretation, things are created by the observer’s knowledge. There is an incompatible difference between:
a) combining mathematically two sets of properties in an equation, and:
b) saying that, in reality, light is simultaneously made out of a wave and of a particle.
Condition a) is possible. We will see in Chapter 4 that condition b), that is the model of light made out of a wave and of a particle, is totally irreconcilable.

This is exactly what is explained by Messiah [1.15]when he writes:

“Microscopic objects have a very general property: they appear under two apparently irreconcilable aspects, the wave aspect on the one hand, exhibiting the superposition property characteristic of waves, and the corpuscular aspect on the other hand, namely localized grains of energy and momentum.”

Let us insist on Messiah’s words,

“irreconcilable aspects”.

This statement is so obvious that it appears in different forms. For example, Bunge [1.16] writes:

“But in the meantime we should have learned at least two lessons. The first is, that the particle and the wave analogies are weak and moreover mutually inconsistent.”

When the model of duality was proposed, the fact that the two models were irreconcilable was realized but not solved, as admitted by Heisenberg. He writes [1.17]:

“The paradoxes of the dualism between wave picture and particle picture were not solved; they were hidden somehow in the mathematical scheme.”

The word hidden, used by Heisenberg, is an excellent description of the facts. This shows that the internal mathematical description is feasible but this internal relationship is used to hide the absurdities of the external descriptions. That description is incompatible with the realism of Nature.

Bunge [1.18]also comments on the dualist interpretation. He concludes in the following way:

“Both the Copenhagen and the dualist interpretations of physical theories arise from a confusion between theoretical and experimental concepts, […] This confusion may not be deplored by the Copenhagen philosopher, for whom everything is incurably irrational at bottom.”

This shows that modern physics has even gone beyond a state of confusion, it has reached the stage of incurable irrationality.

1-5 Early Historical Origin of Non-Realism

Looking for causes that can be responsible for the effects observed implies logically that a cause exists independently of the observer. Therefore, physical causality implies realism. The description of realism will be considered in detail in chapter 4. However, we will consider here the historical origin of realism and non-realism.

The history of realism did not begin only with Bohr around 1920. Realism was clearly understood about twenty-four centuries ago. The most striking example of realism and causality is a masterpiece written by Plato. It is the Allegory of the Cave conceived by Socrates and written by his famous pupil. This description is so important that we reproduce it here in Appendix I. It is quite extraordinary how Socrates can teach an important lesson of realism to many modern scientists. It is certainly worth reading how Socrates was able to distinguish shadows from realities while modern physicists, using the Copenhagen interpretation show that they cannot make the same distinction. There is a clear analogy between the ghost like shadows of puppets described by the dwellers of the den related by Plato, and the ghost like matter coming into existence through the collapse of a wave function, as described by the Copenhagen interpretation.

Realism, defined as the result that matter has its own existence independent of the observer, was challenged well before Niels Bohr and Heisenberg. It was first challenged by Descartes. He wrote:

“I think, therefore I exist.”

But he went on to explain that a table does not think, therefore, a table does not exist. Descartes believed that a table does not have its own independent existence. For him, a table could not really exist without an observer.
Even if the fact of thinking, mentioned by Descartes, might lead to conclude to the reality of existence, the inverse is not true. Descartes’ syllogism does not show that a non-thinking object does not exist. One cannot say that a sleeping person does not exist because the person is not thinking. That erroneous conclusion is however the conclusion given by Descartes.

Following Descartes, were Cardinal Ballarmino and Bishop Berkeley, who both believed that observations are merely mental constructions. Berkeley was an Irish philosopher of the seventeenth century. His feelings in favor of the positivism of Auguste Comte were extremely strong. Here is what Berkeley [1.19]writes about reality:

“It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers, and in word all sensible objects have an existence natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding.”

In other words, Berkeley finds it strange that some humans believe that things could have an existence independent of what is perceived. Berkeley [1.20]also writes:

“Some truths there are so near and obvious to the mind, that a man need only open his eyes to see them. Such I take this important one to be, to wit, that all the choir of heaven and furniture of the earth, in a word all those bodies which compose the mighty frame of the world have not any subsistence without a mind, that their being is to be perceived or known.”

Berkeley concludes:

“Esse est percipi” meaning “Existence is perception.”

At this point, I wish to ask rational readers not to be too upset by these absurdities. We must realize that it is the consequence of the weakness of the human mind.

1-6 The Berkeley-Copenhagen Interpretation

The positivism of Descartes is pushed to an extreme degree by Berkeley, Hume and others, forming a new thinking called Modern Philosophy. Similar arguments are given by Kant, Hagel and many others.
We must notice that this modern philosophy is astonishingly identical to modern physics as suggested by the Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr, Heisenberg and Pauli. In modern physics, matter is not considered to have its own independent existence before it is detected, just as in the case of modern philosophy of Descartes and Berkeley. For Heisenberg and for Bohr, just as for Descartes and Berkeley, Existence is nothing more than perception. (Esse est percipi.)

There is a striking proof of the direct influence of Berkeley’s philosophy on the Copenhagen interpretation. That proof is in Heisenberg’s book. Heisenberg writes clearly that he agrees with Berkeley’s philosophy. Let us recall Heisenberg’s [1.21]statement in his own words:

“The next step was taken by Berkeley. If actually all our knowledge is derived from perception, there is no meaning in the statement that the things really exist; because if the perception is given it cannot possibly make any difference whether the things exist or do not exist. Therefore, to be perceived is identical with existence.”

We might believe that this statement must have been written by a philosopher in Berkeley’s time. It was really written by Heisenberg [1.21]. Heisenberg shows clearly that modern physics did not innovate when it was suggested that matter had no existence before detection. Heisenberg admits that he just carried Berkeley’s idea of modern philosophy to modern physics.

It is a common practice in our society to give names that best characterize the origin of what is being described. It is clear that non-realism in science originated from Bohr and Heisenberg under the name of the Copenhagen interpretation. However, even if non-realism received then a new application in the field of science, the basic idea was certainly not new, as we can see from Heisenberg’s reference about Berkeley. Non-realism has clearly been borrowed from Berkeley’s philosophy. Heisenberg’s statement proves it. Therefore, I believe that it is ethically more appropriate to call the interpretation of modern physics, the Berkeley-Copenhagen interpretation. Berkeley’s philosophy provided the essential fundamental ideas that led to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Berkeley’s name cannot be ignored.

There is a second idea in Heisenberg’s statement, that has to be analyzed. It is:

“If actually all our knowledge is derived from perception, there is no meaning in the statement that the things really exist.”

Berkeley and Heisenberg did not greatly use their powers of inference when they shared that opinion. Of course, if all our knowledge was simply derived from the perception of an object by one single individual, it would not make sense claiming that things do exist independently of the observer. However, it could be tested, whether things exist independently of any observer. The thing could be perceived by independent observers and lead to compatible independent reports (by all observers). Berkeley and Heisenberg considered only the knowledge acquired from the perception by one single observer. They did not realize that the independent existence of things can be shown from the coherent reports of independent observers located anywhere and at any time. That last condition of the compatibility of independent observations in space and in time, gives a crucial extra knowledge that has been neglected by Berkeley and Heisenberg. That extra information provides the necessary knowledge in favor of independent existence. This point is discussed in section 4-4.

Since Heisenberg did not realize this argument in favor of realism, he accepted the view that matter exists only in the observer’s mind. This is the model used now in quantum physics.

Popper [1.22]when discussing Heisenberg’s ideas expressed his deception in the following way:

“It was he [Heisenberg] who led a generation of physicists to accept the absurd view that one can learn from quantum mechanics.”

1-7 Discredit of Philosophy

The irrationalities of modern physics have been developed by the scientific philosophers of the Copenhagen group, mainly Bohr, Heisenberg and Pauli. With a lesser strength, Max Born, P. Jordan and P. M. Dirac defended the Copenhagen interpretation. Erwin Schrödinger and especially Einstein were consistent dissidents and did not believe that physics is magic.

From these above statements, it is clear that Descartes, Ballarmino and Berkeley had a very strong influence on Bohr and Heisenberg and therefore on the Copenhagen philosophy. This is certain since Heisenberg used Berkeley’s statement when arguing in favor of non-realism in physics.

It is very sad that the ideas established by Socrates and Plato [1.23] did not survive. The Allegory of the Cave is reproduced in Appendix I of this book to show the decline of logic during the past centuries. The understanding of Socrates’ allegory in which the dwellers of the den assign reality to the shadows of puppets (see Plato in Appendix 1) instead of ascribing reality to the real objects, would be important to modern physicists. Some basic philosophical knowledge of logic could help many physicists. Popper [1.24]states:

“Modern instrumentalists are, of course, unaware that they are philosophizing. Accordingly, they are unaware of even the possibility that their fashionable philosophy may in fact be uncritical, irrational, and objectionable – as I am convinced it is.”

Philosophy is not only regarded as useless, but also as a nuisance in modern physics. For example, the scientific journal Galilean Electrodynamics (Experience, Reason and Simplicity, Above Authority) [1.25]is extraordinarily open to new ideas except for philosophical considerations. The editorial policy for the acceptance of articles states clearly:

“All papers are expected to be in the realm of physics, mathematics, […] Philosophical considerations will generally not be accepted”

It is surprising that a journal particularly interested in Reason would exclude philosophical considerations. The exclusion of such articles is not usually specified by the editor of scientific journals but, in practice, the result is the same in most journals. Philosophical considerations are looked on with suspicion in most scientific journals.
I cannot ignore the statement by one of my friends [1.26]:

“Deciding to ignore philosophy and choosing ignorance is a philosophy. However, it is irrational”.

1-8 QM implies infinite velocities

Another unsurmountable difficulty of QM is that it implies infinite velocities of interactions. We must admit that the consequences of QM were not fully known in Bohr’s time. Infinite velocities that contradict relativity were not noticed in those years. Popper [1.27]states:

“In his Dialectica article Einstein advances a very modest and simple argument against the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. First he formulates clearly the principle of locality, as it is now called, that is, the principle of the excluded action at a distance, referring to it as the principle of action at vanishing distances, or the ‘Prinzip der Nahewirkung’. He then notes that the principles of quantum mechanics, at least in the Copenhagen interpretation, are incompatible with this principle of locality, and that if quantum mechanics is true as interpreted by Bohr there must be action at a distance.”

That problem of infinite velocities will be discussed below in chapter 5.
Conclusion.
One can argue that philosophy is not much respected by physicists, because of the absurd statements written by some modern philosophers like Berkeley. Those statements do not give much confidence in the usefulness of philosophy. But, why did Heisenberg and Bohr adopt the same philosophy?
It must also be realized that many philosophers, admiring the apparent success of scientific achievement, have decided to study physics and its interpretation of nature. When some philosophers read about the Copenhagen interpretation, they make the sad discovery about all the absurdities taught in science. Philosophers discover that the teaching of absurdities is just as common in physics as in philosophy. Those philosophers rightfully feel that they are back in the dark ages of humanity.

Finally, let us give a citation by Lovelock [1.28]about the freedom of expression in research. He wrote:

“To cap it all, in recent years, the “purity” of science has been ever more closely guarded by a self-imposed inquisition called the peer review. […] Like the inquisition of the medieval church, it has teeth and can wreck a career by refusing funds for research or by censoring publications.”

There is not much hope for new scientists to try writing new papers to rationalize physics unless they accept to end their career. Some centuries ago, they burned Bruno and imprisoned Galileo. Even in our century, a dissident of the Copenhagen interpretation is rejected and called a crank.
References

Chapter 1
1.1 Baggott, Jim, The Meaning of Quantum Theory, a Guide for Students of Chemistry and Physics, New York, Oxford University Press, 1992, 230 p., see the preface.

1.2 Cramer, John G., “The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 58, No. 3, July 1986, p. 649.

1.3 Kant cited by Popper, Karl R., Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Totowa (New Jersey), Rowman and Littlefield, 1982, 229 p.

1.4 Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Philosophy, the Revolution in Modern Science, New York, Harper and Row, 1966, p. 42.

1.5 Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Philosophy, the Revolution in Modern Science, New York, Harper and Row, 1966, p. 88.

1.6 Greenberger, Daniel, Discussion remarks at the Symposium on Fundamental Questions in Quantum Mechanics, Albany, SUNY, April 1984.

1.7 Feynman, Richard P., The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1988, p. 10.

1.8 Mermin, N. David, “Is the Moon There when Nobody Looks? Reality and the Quantum Theory”, in Physics Today, April 1985, p. 47.

1.9 Feynman, R. P., The Character of Physical Law, 1967, p. 129, cited by Cramer, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 58, No. 3, 1986, p. 647.

1.10 Popper, Karl R., Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Totowa (New Jersey), Rowman and Littlefield, 1982, p. 6.

1.11 Gell-Mann, M., in Douglas Huff and Omer Prewett, The Nature of the Physical Universe: 1976 Nobel Conference, New York, 1979, p. 29, cited by Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, 1982, p. 10.

1.12 Bahcall, John, in The New York Times Magazine, February 11, 1990, p. 59.

1.13 Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Philosophy, the Revolution in Modern Science, New York, Harper and Row, 1966, p. 93.

1.14 Popper, Karl R., Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Totowa (New Jersey), Rowman and Littlefield, 1982, p. 39.

1.15 Messiah, Albert, Quantum Mechanics, Vol. 1, Amsterdam, North-Holland Publishing Company, 1961, p. 59.

1.16 Bunge, Mario, Philosophy of Physics, Boston, D. Reidel, 1973, p. 108.

1.17 Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Philosophy, the Revolution in Modern Science, New York, Harper and Row, 1966, p. 40.

1.18 Bunge, Mario, Philosophy of Physics, Boston, D. Reidel, 1973, p. 63.

1.19 Berkeley, George, A New Theory of Vision, and Other Writings, New York, Everyman’s library, 1963, p. 114.

1.20 Berkeley, George, A New Theory of Vision, and Other Writings, New York, Everyman’s library, 1963, p. 115-116

1.21 Heisenberg, Werner, Physics and Philosophy, the Revolution in Modern Science, New York, Harper and Row, 1966, p. 84.

1.22 Popper, Karl R., Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Totowa (New Jersey), Rowman and Littlefield, 1982, p. 9.

1.23 See Appendix I.

1.24 Popper, Karl R., Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Totowa (New Jersey), Rowman and Littlefield, 1982, p. 103.

1.25 Galilean Electrodynamics (Box 251, Boulder, Colorado 80306, U.S.A.).

1.26 St-Jacques, A., Philosopher, Québec, Canada.

1.27 Popper, Karl R., Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Totowa (New Jersey), Rowman and Littlefield, 1982, p. 21.

1.28 Lovelock, James E., “Small Science”, in Doing Science, The Reality Club, Toronto, Prentice Hall Press, 1991, p. 178.

link collected : http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/chapter1.html#Section2