This is one of my articles that does not seek to tell us what nature is, but that seeks to reinforce our intuition of what it should be. And I have decided to write it as a follow-up to my previous article on the life and the legacy of Niels Bohr.
In this post, I want to draw the attention of every physicist and scientist to the evident purpose of realism and why we must never accept or ignore a paradox in physics. This is because we once did, especially for quantum mechanics, and it should never become a tradition in physics.
Some of us accepted or ignored the wave-particle paradox and what it could imply, but I want us to know that any paradox in physics only arises because of an incomplete or incorrect understanding of the phenomenon under investigation.
We must always seek for a complete understanding or a better theory whenever we arrive at a paradox. Nature may be subtle but she is not paradoxical. The paradox, however convincing or real it might appear, only exists in our mind and not in nature.
While nature is about synthesis, it is not about the synthesis of obvious paradoxes. In post-modern physics, the twin paradox of relativity and the wave-particle paradox of quantum mechanics are resolved by the complete understanding of nature.
Realism must always be appreciated in physics and should never be ignored or undermined. The capacity of reason to grasp the universe must never be put to doubt. For there is no such thing as the limit of knowledge or knowability.
All it takes is for science to align with the spiritual wisdom of the universe. And in essence, science is more than just the understanding of the universe; it is also about the unity of man and the living cosmos.
Nevertheless, a paradox is one of those things that show that we have arrived at the edge of a tremendous breakthrough in understanding. So, it must never be accepted as final. We must always believe in the unity or the oneness of cosmic states and entities.
The two already mentioned paradoxes of modern physics were the twin paradox of relativity and the wave-particle paradox of quantum mechanics. It seemed as though relativity and quantum mechanics had their respective paradox to present.
These two paradoxes exposed the inadequacy of both theories. This is why both of them have to be replaced by absolute relativity, which though is similar to modern relativity, is a transformed or revolutionary kind of relativity.
In post-modern physics, the twin paradox is resolved by the true understanding of the principle of inertia, which goes further to show us how the state of the Earthbound twin is underlyingly different from the state of the travelling twin in uniform motion.
In post-modern physics, we are forced to move to the more subtle levels of reality in order to understand what would wrongly be referred to as a paradox. This is the approach with which post-modern physics has resolved the twin paradox and also the wave-particle paradox.In post-modern physics, we are forced to move to the more subtle levels of reality in order to understand what would wrongly be referred to as a paradox.Click To Tweet
For the latter, post-modern physics informs us about the new principle of non-inertia and of the true nature of force in the universe. It is with this true and absolute nature of force that we have resolved the wave-particle paradox of quantum mechanics.
We now know the true nature of light and of the atomic entities such as the electron and the proton. This was thought impossible before and we must now learn a lesson from this, all of us who are physicists and scientists, and realize that the universe is not paradoxical.
The paradox only exists in our theories and not in nature. The lesson must continue with us for the next generations of science. We must always uphold realism and objective reality.
I, however, think that these contradictions were a necessary stage in our progress towards understanding the universe. But now we have gone past that stage to the level of oneness.
The oneness I speak of is the universal oneness that is spiritual, scientific and that produces the all-around progressive understanding of all things. Official science must never accept or ignore a paradox no matter the situation as this acceptance or ignorance will really obstruct the progress of science.Official science must never accept or ignore a paradox no matter the situation.Click To Tweet
Also, one thing I have noticed is responsible for the acceptance or ignorance of a paradox in physics and why it appeared that we cannot go beyond it is because of the widespread practice of positivism as it is concerned about what can be observed about nature and not about what exists.
The central role of empirical observation in science has become so much emphasized and pushed such that what cannot be observed becomes what doesn’t exist. This is not supposed to be the case, even if what can be observed is what is incorporated as physics. We must always give room for the subtle, for the underlying, which are how nature true principles are.
We may not want to go beyond what we observe, but we must be careful not to hurriedly deny what is observable. The latter may be what brings us into the domain of metaphysics, but who says that the universe is physical.
This becomes a problem of philosophy which most times is the problem that physicists confront. We must be careful to distinguish between what is observed and what exists. This is because so much about the universe do not fall under physical observation, but are ultimately necessary for our understanding of the universe.
This philosophical problem bedevilled relativity and it was what led to the twin paradox. Also, what cannot be observed today may become what can be observed tomorrow. For this reason, any paradox must never be final, but must be what tarries until a better penetration of the phenomenon is achieved.
We must not disregard this philosophical problem. Physicists must understand the very important role physics must play in order for us to capture the subtle aspects of the universe, which when hidden become why paradox arise in physics.
Also, for the wave-particle paradox, the same applies. Both the twin paradox and the wave-particle paradox are due to existing principles which physical science would always deny are not observable, and therefore do not exist, but which really do.
Physicists must never accept or ignore a paradox. Historically, there were physicists who challenged Einstein’s relativity because of the twin paradox it raised just as Einstein challenged quantum mechanics because of the wave-particle paradox it raised.
Both indicate the same thing: that the two theories are incorrect and that they do not represent nature’s final say. An inescapable paradox in any theory usually indicates that the theory is incomplete or at most wrong.
We must never accept or ignore a paradox in any theory. And I consider it quite surprising that the wave-particle paradox is more emphasized than the twin paradox. Well, I think that this must be because of the historical debates between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr about the wave-particle paradox.
This made the wave-particle paradox more central and important to physics than the twin paradox. But both are equally important if we consider them deeply. This is because the resolution of both paradoxes is bound to expose us to equal deep insights about the universe.
The latter must always be our aim. We must always seek to know what nature is hiding behind an apparent paradox as the focus on this may become the path to the next revolutionary level of understanding the universe.
The whole mysteries that now confront modern physics despite their apparent observation are what calls for a new way of seeing the universe. You can assume this new way to be what refers to the use of the third eye and you won’t be wrong.
Without the use of the third eye, all the mysteries confronting modern physics become apparent observations that we cannot derive understanding from. They have been presenting themselves since the beginning of modern physics but only now have they become more pronounced such that even the foundation of physics is threatened.
The discussed paradoxes of modern physics were the early signs of their arrival and now we have to revisit the foundation of modern physics to really see how it should have established itself rightly after classical physics.
And in this effort, post-modern physics has become established as the new era of physics which in its metaphysical nature becomes what is exactly needed for physics to penetrate the underlying and the supposedly unobservable, to do away with the paradoxes and to also resolve the already risen mysteries of modern physics.
And as a final note, I must once again implore physicists to never accept or ignore a paradox like we did for the twin paradox which was ignored and for the wave-particle paradox which was accepted. A paradox, any paradox, usually indicates that we have an incorrect or an incomplete understanding of the phenomenon in question.
Until next time,
I will be here.
– M. V. Echa