Thinh Tran's Home
The END OF PROBABILITY and the
NEW MEANING OF QUANTUM PHYSICS
Foreword
Summary
Excerpts
THE MIDDLE-WAY APPROACH TO SCIENCE
1. Logic for the End of Probability
2. The Space-Time Foundation of Quantum Physics (NEW!)
3. The Resolution Limits of Space and Time
4. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Link to bookseller
Excerpts
Book 1: The End of Probability
I started writing the book with the assumption that it would have very
little to do with everyday’s life. I was proven wrong. It is very relevant to life,
as can be seen in the following excerpts.from chapter 6: The Central Limit Theorem and the Future of Science
Systems and the Central Limit Theorem (page 111)
As far as the system is concerned, it does not differentiate the events from one another. All it cares about is that the rules of the system will somehow be enforced.
We can compare the system to an organization, single events to individuals in the organization. An organization must have rules to keep things under control. In order for a real life organization, say a country, to keep things under control it must evaluate the total situation and act accordingly. But what criterion or criteria does it use to evaluate the total situation? The average, of course! This is why we keep hearing things like “earning per capita”, “average consumer spending”, “average crime rate per 10,000 citizens”, etc.
The rules of a real life system, then, are the Laws of Average. The word “average” is the very key word of the Central Limit Theorem. We already know that the Central Limit Theorem is the dominant force in distributive processes. We now see that it could be the dominant force of life itself!
System determinism and individual freedom (page 112)
We have found that at finite randomness, some events are deterministic in the very strict sense of classical physics. It is not difficult to see that when randomness is reduced to zero, all events are classically deterministic and distributive processes cannot exist at all!
Thus, the determinism of classical physics must rely on the assumption that the universe is completely devoid of distributive process. The very existence of distributive processes, then, assures us that the deterministic picture assumed by classical physics is an incomplete description of Nature. In the correct description, there is always some level of randomness.
“Randomness” is a word with bad connotation. As far as individuals are concerned, we feel better with the word “freedom”. Now that we know for sure that classical determinism is only a partial picture of Nature, we can be certain that at least some of us, hopefully most of us, are free from the stranglehold of “the system” and operate with a different set of principles. It follows that our current reliance on deterministic sciences to solve the problems of life is the wrong approach; which explains why the incredible progresses in science have not been translated into any measurable progress in our spiritual well being. If anything, science and technology have pushed us away from one another, making us more and more lonely and isolated.
The Distribution theory is equally guilty because it is a study of the system, not of the individuals. However, it opens the door of opportunity, because it tells us that a completely new scientific approach is needed to investigate the “force of one” of the individuals.
The need for a new approach to science (page 112)
It is important to emphasize what we mean by “a new scientific approach”. By existing definition, science is the objective observer of the universe. The problem is, an objective observer has to rely on a uniform standard while he gathers information. For this reason, science has no choice but to treat all observed objects as if they are equally passive. The all-important “cause and effect” connection, then, can only be decided by the time factor. For example, if B always follows A science would make the statement that “A causes B”. This approach has been very effective, but it is expected to fail miserably in distributive processes. Why? Because distributive processes have no respect for time, as evident by the “time-indifference principle”.
The Distribution theory is still an objective observer’s view of “the system”. This view tells us that the system affects the individuals and not the other way around. But is this a correct statement? Not necessarily. While there is no doubt that a computer program affects the numbers that it will output, we should keep in mind that the program itself is kept under control by the opposing forces of randomness and the Central Limit Theorem. Thus, in their own passive way, the outputs themselves do have an effect on the program.
The process of life is even more dynamic. Earlier we have used a country as an example of “the system”. By a country, we mean its government. But what does a government consist of? People, of course. Thus, in life “cause and effect” does not go just one way. A government will affect the life of the citizens, but when a determined citizen with revolutionary ideas is voted in as the new president of the country, we can bet that the government itself will undergo revolutionary changes. Even the meaning of “determinism” becomes vague in this “two way” environment. It could mean a passive destiny (i.e., has to pay a new tax), but at the same time it could mean an unshakable determination fostered by previous events (i.e., determined to become a leader after seeing too much suffering by the people.)
The Central Limit Theorem averaging process has been presented by the Distribution theory as if it is an invisible power that spares no individual event. But could it be that, in life at least, the Central Limit Theorem is at times the rule exercised by the people for or against the system? Were the massive uprisings against communism in Europe in 1989 an averaging act of “the system”, or that the people decided to average things out themselves?
It can be seen that in the investigation of individual events in distributive processes, the old method of “objective observer” becomes very fuzzy, which defeats its own purpose. But can we really replace the “objective observer” model and still have science? What will the new approach be? The writer is looking forward to the opportunity to offer his answers to these challenging and exciting questions in the near future.
Life as a quantum process (page 116)
But coin flipping is admittedly a boring process, the curious reader would ask “What about real life? My life”? The surprising answer is that life in general and individual lives in particular are very much quantum. In fact, it is not an outrageous overstatement to say that life is all quantum!!!
To illustrate this point let’s follow the life of a female person from the beginning of her life. She was born female, the result of a quantum choice by Nature (or by her parents in this new age where sex could conceivably be manipulated.) In her childhood, she was taken care of by her mother and hardly knew her father because of a complex quantum choice evolved in the general culture where she was born. When a child, she preferred red shoes and white dresses, and felt very strongly about these quantum choices. Her father made a quantum choice between three schools and ending up picking the one closest to home for her. She got mostly A’s and B’s in the quantum system of grading imposed by the educational system. As a teenager she liked two boys, but decided to make a quantum choice to go steady with one. After graduation from college, a new man entered her life by accident. She had to make a quantum choice between her long time boyfriend and the new but charming person. She finally chose one and became his wife. After marriage, she had to decide between two quantum choices: Pursuing a career or staying home and dedicate her effort to home making. After deciding to pursue a career, she had an excellent job offer, which would require her to relocate. Her husband, being less capable, had to go along with her but did not feel comfortable with the fact that his life had been dominated by his wife. After striking a conversation with a timid girl in a social gathering and sensed her come-on gestures, he had to make a quantum choice between staying faithful to his wife and committing adultery. While he was still undecided, his wife heard the rumor that her husband had an affair and had to make a quantum choice between trusting her husband or making a big deal out of it at home, etc.
We can go on and on, but the point should be extremely clear by now: Quantum processes dominate our life, whether or not we choose to pay attention to them (which is, again, another quantum choice.)
The Law of Average and the future of science (page 127)
The ultimate dream of science is the unification of all scientific principles under one roof. Some of us must have heard of “The Grand Unified Theory” of physics (GUT) which is in existence today. As it turns out, GUT is more a promising name than a reality. It is believed that there are four major forces in the universe: The force of gravity that we are all familiar with; the electro-magnetic force that governs the actions of electricity, magnets, and photons; the strong force that explains nuclear reactions; and the weak force that explains nuclear radiation. GUT claims to have unified the last three and is on its way to “bring gravity home”, so to speak. A careful examination, however, reveals that the partial unification claimed by GUT still have many loose ends. In addition, even the most optimistic GUT proponent would agree that the theory might never have a satisfactory solution for gravity.
Superstring, the newest fashion of science at the time of this writing, believes it will beat GUT to the finish line in the unification marathon because gravity is built in with its first principles. At the same time superstring specialists complain that the existing mathematical techniques are not ready to solve the extremely complex equations that arise from the theory. This means it will take a long time before Superstring has any verifiable result of significance to share with the scientific community.
Let’s assume for argument’s sake that some day either GUT or Superstrings, or both, are successful in achieving their goal. Would their success complete the unification of physics? No! Because neither GUT nor Superstring has room for the very important class of so-called random phenomena, which require separate treatments by Chaotic theory, Catastrophe theory, etc.
We have not even mentioned the humanity sciences such as psychology, sociology, and economics where fuzzy logic is waiting for its heyday. It is impossible to see how these sciences would blend in with any theory in physics today.
Facing such enormous difficulties, many have argued that the unification of science would forever be an elusive dream. Specifically, they stress that it is theoretically impossible to ever bring natural sciences and humanity sciences together. The logic goes like this: Natural science is based on logic and mechanical principles, which are predictable; humanity science is based on emotions and reactions, which are unpredictable. The contrasts are simply too big to overcome.
As it turns out, the two branches of sciences do share a very important first principle. There is one old “law” that has been around for as long as anyone can remember. It is the celebrated “Law of Average”. We heard it once in a while in daily conversation (and borrowed its name in an earlier chapter.) It is our consolation when things do not go our way or some bad person has done something wrong to us. We would say “I believe in the law of average. Things will get better,” or would curse “The law of average will take care of him”. We all have moments when we feel the law of average must be an important governing force in life, although we cannot prove it.
But what is the “Law of Average”? The reader can guess the answer from several chapters ago: The Central Limit Theorem averaging process. Thus, with the Central Limit Theorem science has in its hand a powerful tool that is equally applicable to both natural science and humanity science. It just didn’t know how to use this powerful tool for three hundred years.
Although it is still too early, the writer will go ahead and make the prediction that the ultimate unification of science, and this of course means all of sciences, natural as well as humanity, will soon be possible. That is because the missing link has been re-discovered, and it is the celebrated Law of Average disguised under the name of the Central Limit Theorem. The Central Limit Theorem will rise from obscurity, and it will do so in a big way. Not only that it will stand side by side with the great deterministic laws of Newton and Einstein, it should even surpass them. Because while Newton-Einstein laws and the Central Limit Theorem are equals in the world of innate matter and energy, only the Central Limit Theorem holds the key to the ultimate goal of science, which is a clear understanding of the heart and mind of the human race and its destiny in the universe./
Book 2:
The New Meaning of Quantum Physics
The following excerpts give you a glimpse of how my solution to the “probability question” can
bring common sense back to quantum mechanics. The intimate connection between quantum mechanics and
life is shown in the last excerpt.The New Meaning of Quantum Physics
from chapter 2: Wave-Particle Duality & Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Quantum weirdness resolved (page 173)
The Distribution theory states clearly that no existing theory, itself included, can make any statement regarding the probability of a single event in most cases; but the collective distribution can be determined by classical means because the randomness capacity of all converging processes is finite.
Some readers may argue that the Distribution theory is only a rigorous modification of the Probability theory. This is correct, but in science a subtle conceptual mistake is often the difference between breakthroughs and stalemate. In the case of quantum mechanics it has been stalemate. Had the founders of quantum mechanics used the concept of distribution instead of probability, many serious problems of quantum mechanics would have been solved a long, long time ago.
Why do we dare to say this? Because once we give up the idea of probability and focus our attention on distribution only, we could find a new result that will be shown shortly. This result helps open the window to the quantum world. Theoretically, it could have been discovered even with the Probability theory. But the thought of probability must have clouded the mind of serious scientists and we cannot blame them. How could one think clearly when he or she had the tough task of building a new science with the materials of Probability, which had never been rigorously established and could only be classified as a pseudo-theory at best?
The Distribution theory states that there are two kinds of determinism: Classical determinism and distributive determinism. Classical determinism is the determinism of classical processes (i.e., processes that obey the laws of classical physics) and distributive determinism is the determinism of processes that are outside the domain of classical physics. The big clue is this: Distributive processes will converge regardless of the order of time, according to the “time indifference principle”. By “time” we of course mean “classical time”.
Readers who missed or skipped the chapters on Distribution theory may find the “time indifference principle” hard to believe, but it is a rigorous result of scientific deduction and therefore will stand the test of time. In fact, it has passed the test of time, just that no one was aware of its presence.
Since quantum processes have to be distributive processes, they also have to obey the “time indifference principle”. This means distributive determinism will somehow be achieved in quantum processes, regardless of the time order of individual events.
The fact that the distributions of all quantum processes are deterministic means that the solution to the wave function is unique. Thus, there is no “suspended states” and no “collapse of the wave functions”; which are consequence of the invalid and meaningless concept of event probabilities. This also invalidates part of the “Copenhagen Interpretations”, reduces the “Many Worlds Interpretation” into the irrelevant “One World Interpretation”, and resolves the “Schrodinger's cat” paradox into a case with deterministic outcome.
from chapter 4: Successes and Problems of Wave Mechanics
The deterministic nature of the wave equations (page 192)
The fact that wave equations are classical picture of collective behavior of quantum events means that they have nothing to do with individual probabilities. Rather, they are long-term distributions of many quantum events. Thus, the probability interpretation by Max Born is invalid. Max Born has repeated the mistake committed earlier by the Probability theory by erroneously interpreting long-term distributions as individual probabilities.
Just like the collective result of coin tosses can be described quite accurately by the binomial distribution, collective distributions of the wave functions can be described quite accurately by the wave equations, although individual quantum events may violate all of the laws of classical physics. This explains why the time-independent equations have been quite successful in solving quantum problems.
However, just like the failure in predicting event probability with long-term distributions of multiple coin tosses, we can say with certainty that the prediction given by a wave equation for a single point (in space and time) is as meaningless and unverifiable as the probability prediction that a coin has a 50% chance to turn up heads. Thus, the wave equations are expected to yield meaningless result for individual events; and experimental results show that they do.
With probabilities out of the picture, the solutions to the wave equations possess all of the properties associated with distributions. The most important property of long-term distributions is that they are deterministic within certain tolerance. Thus, it finally turns out that Schrodinger was correct. His (and Dirac’s) wave equations are all deterministic!!!
This chapter was written in the year 2001, exactly three quarter century after Max Born made his probability interpretation of Schrodinger equations in 1926, despite the protest from Schrodinger. It took a long time, but finally Schrodinger was vindicated.
from chapter 8: Quantum Dimension and the Unification of Knowledge
The unification of knowledge (page 277)
For a long time, scholars and scientists have tried their best to apply the principles of natural sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology) to the humanity sciences (e.g., psychology, sociology, and economics). By all estimates, these efforts have failed miserably. The case of economics is a notable example. Some praise this branch of knowledge as “the queen of the social sciences” for its analytical methods, which bear close resemblance to those of natural sciences in complexity. However, when it comes to the ultimate test of future prediction, it is no secret that the average economic experts perform no better than an average person not trained in the subject. The writer once heard the following sarcastic definition: “An economist is a specialist who was trained to make wrong predictions sound sophisticated and convincing”. Sadly, this remark is not too far from the truth. The painful fact is that although there are many economic theories, none of them is good.
Everyone knows that until there is a “good theory” for the elusive human factor, the humanity sciences will remain as pseudo-sciences at best. It has been difficult to account for the human factor because, as we have pointed out in the Distribution theory, human behaviors are quantum processes, but human beings must operate in the classical world of cause-and-effect. It has been impossible to reconcile classical and quantum processes, therefore it has been impossible to account for the human factor.
Fortunately, the situation has changed. With the earlier addition of the quantum dimension, we found the unification of physics became possible. Adding quantum rules, which are “arbitrary” in the standard of classical physics, and the reality that quantum events exhibit occasional connections in defiance of Eberhard’s theorem; suddenly we have a picture that is very close to real life. In fact, we have all of the necessary elements to put together a physics-consistent scientific theory for life. For the first time in the history of science, a grand unification of knowledge is within reach. This unification will go beyond the limits of physics. It will be the grand fusion of human knowledge into one single system.
Note that we have said “For the first time in the history of science”, not “For the first time in the history of civilization”. The reason is that there are already many grand unification theories in existence. For example the “Universal Oneness” theory and the “Illusory Existence” theory of the Orient would immediately explain all quantum weirdness in physics and all real life paranormal phenomena such as the diversity of human psychology, human destiny, telepathy, déjà vu, healing power of the mind, the concepts of Ch’i (Chinese) and prana (Indian), future predictions, out of body experience (OBE), near death experience (NDE), etc. Science, however, is different from beliefs. It has to provide a logical foundation for all of its claims. The writer believes that the time is ripe for a rigorous scientific justification for the two theories cited, and is looking forward to the chance to present his reasoning in a future opportunity.
Before leaving this section, we must mention the “Holographic” model proposed by Karl Pribram and David Bohm (the same David Bohm that invented the “pilot wave” model). According to the Holographic model, all of existence is no more than a holographic illusion. To give credit where credit is due, the Holographic model is a modern interpretation of the “Universal Oneness” and “Illusionary Existence” theories, though the founders might not be aware of this fact. As the time of this writing, the Holographic model is still at its speculative stage, and more scientific rigor is needed before it can be considered as a serious theory. The challenge for this model is that there exist alternative explanations for the phenomena in the realm of its application. Nevertheless, the writer believes this model is one step in the right direction toward the final understanding of our universe and our own existence.
Thinh Tran's Home
The END OF PROBABILITY and the NEW MEANING OF QUANTUM PHYSICS
—Foreword
—Summary
—Excerpts
THE MIDDLE-WAY APPROACH TO SCIENCE
—Logic for the End of Probability
—The Space-Time Foundation of Quantum Physics
—The Resolution Limits of Space and Time
—Resolution Limit Interpretation of the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Link to bookseller
