Personal reflections of the author:
Pdf document: Revision of the particle-wave dualism
Download now! (3.2MB)
The biggest problem in present-days science reality regarding amateurs and hobbyist involved (somehow) in scientific or quasi-scientific activities is not in personal and conflicting relations and misunderstandings between such “innovative” and not recognized debutants (often too enthusiastic, partially naïve and not sufficiently supported by their personal and general Physics knowledge) and some specific science leaders, officially recognized and admired in different domains of Physics. They anyway do not speak too much the same language, but it should be obvious that in both groups we can find creative and non-creative, advanced and conservative, intelligent and less intelligent, curious and non-curious, and differently educated elements. Problem is much more of a kind of natural law of universal inertia and resistance to everything what makes sudden changes and big waves (equally valid in Physics, Biology, Economy, Sociology, Politics, Ideology… intrinsically integrated in human nature), and easy victims in such situations are the most courageous, or most advanced, or most naïve science children (if we exclude obvious and bottom-line, trivial cases). This natural inertia and resistance (against big changes of officially established mainstream) is well masked and supported by multi-layer regulative and cosmetics, such as: rules how to write scientific papers and how to present new ideas, mathematics and general language conventions, ultimate requests to know and to respect all official references, publishing and formal limitations, recognition and approval procedures, particular interests of certain groups and professional departments, economical interest of the society or its leaders, habitual diplomacy, inactivity and prudence in such matters, necessity to have technical means to participate in such activities, etc., most of them not well known, not available or not interesting to courageous and impatient debutants and amateurs in science, since such people are primarily and dominantly obsessed and guided only by their (often crazy, not well-supported, poorly presented) ideas and visions (not well understanding, or understanding but not accepting, why anything else of administrative and formal nature, is more important than their innovative thinking). And the big secret of all science advances is that only free-thinking and unconventional minds (not too much saturated with current mainstream knowledge, assumptions and conventions) are able to bring significant novelties and to ask critical questions (usually working against the officially recognized mainstream of science and society establishment/s). The worst kind of official science establishment sabotage could happen in cases when somebody is trying to promote his new, original, advanced, more common-sense and conceptually better theory, in comparison and competition with already (very long time) existing and officially accepted theories. Usually, an old, existing theory is already able to explain correctly number of experimental facts (on its old fashioned and sometimes complicated way, or in some cases like Ptolemy’s elaborated theory that explained “how the planet Earth is really the center of Universe, and all other celestial objects are rotating around it”). On a practical level (only regarding calculated planetary paths compared to observations from the planet Earth), Ptolemy’s theory has been perfectly mathematically operational, but in reality it is conceptually very wrong, and as we know Earth is not the center of Universe… Contrary, a new theory (which should be in competition with some already existing, well-established and maybe even in reality a “Ptolemy-type” theory, but we still do not know this), in its first steps, does just the same, producing the same or similar results as theories already known (and very little of new results). However, it could be more general, presenting the facts on a more elegant, simpler, more logical and more scientifically acceptable way (introducing new concepts and seeing reality in question from different points of view), although not professional enough. Some minor parts of officially recognized scientific community (intentionally excluding others) are usually dismissing such new theories saying (using very elaborated rhetoric and long-time, well-perfected inquisitor style) that such incomers do not bring anything new in science, only explain the facts already known and well explained long time ago (in some old books, or bibles), using old theories, that there is no more practical need to address such items, etc. It could look like absolutely useless, forbidden and heretic to introduce new theories dealing with the same subjects of old theories, or if not explicitly formulated like here (because of usual diplomacy and politeness in such situations), the resistance of “officiallyzed” scientific authorities appears on some other (better hidden) highly negative way against new voices, that could become really painful and long process if somebody is persistent in promoting his new and competing theory. The opinion of the author of this paper is that this is partially the case with modern Quantum Theory and Relativity Theory, both of them operating mathematically well, producing sufficiently correct results (in their domains), but being rich of internal conceptual complexity and some of hard-to-accept initial assumptions, and being mutually still not sufficiently compatible. If a new, more common-sense and conceptually promising (but still unaccepted and hypothetical) theory were given almost one century of development time of thousands of enthusiastic and creative research workers (like the case is with QT and RT), we could only imagine the consequences of scientific results comparison between such new and old theories. If we were against giving a chance to the new visions and concepts in science, it would be too difficult to promote new theories and to bring significant scientific contributions (that are usually coming much later, after initialization).
The experienced and officially recognized science veterans are often making formally perfect theories and “science bibles”, mathematically well-fitted with the texture of measurements and relevant historical backgrounds, being already known in their fields of work, this way usually creating (almost) dead-end streets for others, or for future advances (since in reality they are mostly making the best fitting/s, or interpolation, or result approximation on the limited set of already known points, because naturally everybody (of creative human beings) has also a tendency to finalize and verify his work by making most general formulations that are practically not leaving a lot of space for future developments, or a space for creative or naïve painters and inexperienced incomers).
Also giving licenses and certificates to specifically trained, chosen and/or educated groups, regarding having exclusivity and priority to produce and publish new scientific results (politically and conceptually correct), and systematically neglecting others (who have much different ideas) is in some cases not giving expected results and significant scientific advances; -very much in agreement with F. Nietzsche’s philosophical statements that only extreme personalities, clearly separated from the mainstream, are producing extraordinary and exceptional results (either positive or negative, depending from which side we qualify them).
The very common and very negative reality of today’s scientific theatre could also be the fact that some of officially title-recognized scientific people are in permanent need to publish (where the bottom line motivation is maintaining some kind of power or economy-related existence). Sooner or later they are mastering the “politically and diplomatically perfect language” of saying and writing good sounding scientific-alike, papers, comments and statements, combining available real and correct science facts with ingredients of semi-reality, virtual reality and semi-truth facts, using supporting chain of similar semi-false references coming from certain small number of similar, title-recognized colleagues. In most of the cases they even do not see or recognize that they are part of such a process. Later, some of these people could take important positions in a system which is in charge of creating acceptance criteria and filtering ideas, results and contributions to the others who still did not master a “politically perfect language” of multilevel combinations and manipulations regarding scientific paperwork (and even they could have preferences to “enrich” their operating environment with similar and well obeying colleagues), and instead of establishing challenging and competitive science, merged with real and unbounded creativity, the self-degrading and conservative system would be unintentionally established. Of course, this is the worst possible imaginable scenario, or negative vision that should absolutely be avoided in practice if we really would like to make important scientific advances and progress.
The author of this paper is a kind of passionate and (in this field) self-educated amateur (with all of the above mentioned weaknesses of courageous and naïve players), trying to promote his vision of new Physics (mostly regarding Particle-Wave Duality of matter; and, of course, on his own, intuitive, simplified and mostly brainstorming, common-sense way). Regardless to all disadvantages of being courageous, passionate and self-educated amateur, the author of this paper has been thinking that his science related concepts should be somehow documented (even unprofessionally, by writing this paper), in a hidden hope that somebody more experienced in Physics, and more open-minded could, one day, transform such rough ideas into much more healthy and richer property of the valuable Physics (compared to the state of the art of our contemporary Physics).
The leading ideas of the author is that Physics should be formulated to be easy understandable, simple, clear, internally coherent theory, based on experimental and mathematical facts, as much as possible (without unverifiable assumptions), in order to explain profound secrets of Nature (and this is not always the case of modern Physics). Only outsiders, debutants and amateurs faced with Physics facts and existing theoretical explanations can say how much simple, clear, common-sense and elementary theory they find in available literature (since professionals are well armed and bounded by what and how they learned to become officially recognized professionals, and they are usually loosing the ability to ask simple questions, and to see presentation-related problems). To put it differently, “children and debutants” or amateurs, are able to ask good, unusual, unbounded (or crazy) questions, and to initiate new and extraordinary insights. The biggest complexity of problems in modern Physics-house is in its fundaments and starting assumptions, and we are usually analyzing only what is the visible part of the house (or floating tip of the iceberg), only adding new “decorations” and new levels of complexity to its structure, avoiding touching the basements, because one of the famous and untouchable predecessors invested there his authority and his life-carrier, and left a lot of powerful followers and guardians of his published heritage, designing and maintaining the Physics-theater almost like a background of long-lasting religious and ideological dogmas, where the highest authority is a certain “bible”, which is written once in the past, made to stay valid forever, and it is not allowed to be changed, and everybody who starts introducing ideas belonging to the world outside of the frames of existing bibles has no rights because his arguments are not in agreement with bible’s prescriptions and teachings. In other words, some of the officially accepted “bibles” have hidden tendency of promoting themselves as unique and exclusive sources of all acceptable arguments and frameworks for discussing, criticizing, dismissing and punishing any other teachings that are touching the space inside and outside of them. Consequently, it could happen that somebody who takes a freedom to modify a bible (or write a new one) should be as soon as possible in a way punished or eliminated, or totally discredited and classified as a trivial and foolish case (of course, all of that kind of doings in the name of general well-being would be realized using much more elaborated and more sophisticated methods and language, than over-simplified formulations found here, still being applicable in all other domains of human life).
We could also safely say that until the end of the 20-th century of modern human history, the human society (in all aspects of life, including science) was guided and mastered mostly by the rigid “power of authority”, where authority means power of strong personalities and their operating bodies, and power associated to certain “bibles”, politics and ideologies established by strong personalities and groups. It has been always somebody who could say YES or NO, regardless of arguments and logic (even in natural sciences), but officially everything was packed in the frames of some kind of legalized correctness. Basically, the biggest obstacle for innovative free-thinkers in that period of human history on the planet Earth was the complexity of barriers, effectively disabling them to efficiently communicate, publish, propagate, or spread their unconventional ideas (and eventually punishing or humiliating them economically, existentially, and on number of different perfidy ways, some of them being very cruel, if they would try to oppose officially accepted concepts).
Fortunately, with the development of high power computing and advanced, global communicational means (one of them Internet), we are now slowly and gradually getting free of old power managements, and entering the period where “power of arguments and creativity” would (and should) be more and more dominant managing framework. In the present period of human history, almost everybody is getting able to find official or unofficial channels and means to spread his ideas, regardless the opinion/s and positions of powerful authorities. It is really interesting and challenging to analyze the evolving conflict between the two different power managements, being an integral part of it, since our present period of life is still a transitional one (and maybe it would or should stay like that forever).
Allover this paper are scattered small comments placed inside the squared brackets, such as: [♣ COMMENTS & FREE-THINKING CORNER… ♣]. The idea here has been to establish intuitive and brainstorming, not-confirmed and free-thinking corners for making fast comments, and presenting challenging ideas, that could be some other time developed towards something much more meaningful and more properly integrated into Physics. Without addressing such situations, many of potentially valuable ideas and concepts (or just good proposals) would simply disappear. This is also a way to document the logical and thinking background regarding generating new ideas, concepts and hypotheses (to present how an author was really thinking in process of formulating his contribution…). Now we could have the situation that last judgments and explanations regarding how somebody of founders of certain theory was thinking (and what he/she had in mind) is given by present “untouchable rulers” of state of the art theories that are officially accepted, which in some cases could basically modify such explanations (mostly unconsciously) in order to additionally support their own platforms, indirectly saying that they are direct successors and the best students of their famous founder/s and maybe even greater than their origins (the situation being something like a hierarchy of priests who are interpreting god’s messages, in well-established religious structures).
Author of this paper would also like to say that this paper has been evolving, changing, and updating during very long period of time (in rear moments when author was able to find a little bit of his free-thinking and mentally relaxing time; -during more than 25 years), and that there is a significant redundancy, scattering and discontinuity regarding presenting basically similar or familiar concepts allover this paper (written or simply attached to old chapters in different time periods). Since, this paper presents mostly an amateurship type, still time evolving effort of the author to roughly and briefly summarize number of his ideas, it should be clear that a lot of additional work, editing and smoothing must be invested to make the real, well-organized and scientifically looking paper. Regardless of such weak sides, the author is profoundly convinced that the potential power and significance of here presented ideas, concepts and brainstorming thinking would survive all negative aspects scattered allover this paper, and hopes that future readers wouldn’t over-dissipate their mental power only on criticizing such negative elements, instead of taking the most positive and creative approach that could result in developing new and more valuable scientific property based on their own thinking and on certain of ideas, concepts and proposals taken from this paper. Of course, the real and fully convinced members of the Orthodox Community of present Quantum and Relativistic Theory establishment are not advised to spend any of their precious time on such paperwork. Mostly modern science dissidents and suspicious non-believers could find some pleasure reading this paper.
Since the author realized relatively late that he cannot himself finish this paper, taking into account present age of the author, the author decided to publish the paper as it is (basically as a brainstorming open-ended draft and challenging task list), without asking anybody for authorization, editing and approvals, and in parallel continuing its updating as long as the nature would allow it.
Miodrag Prokic
May 2006, Switzerland, Le Locle
Pdf document: Revision of the particle-wave dualism
Download now! (3.2MB)