March-throw to the beginning of quantum mechanics

MARCH-THROW TO THE BEGINNING OF QUANTUM MECHANICS.

(Revision of scientific positions and results of a number of past experiments with their new interpretation in the format of the proposed concept based on the fundamental principle of complementarity and its geometric analogue).

Kulak L.A. (Antoniya Ilyinskaya)

Member of the International Public Organization PU IAIT, engineer, independent researcher in the field of Fractal Synthesis and Linguistic Physics of the corresponding sector of the International Institute of Humanitarian and Ecological Projects (IHEP) as part of the International Academy of Information Technologies (PU IAIT). Florida, USA. Toronto, Canada. Minsk, Belarus.
Email: antoniyau@yahoo.com

"Previously, it was believed that physics describes the universe. Now we know that physics describes only what we can say about the universe." Nobel laureate Niels Bohr.
"Quantum physics urgently needs new images and ideas that can only arise from a profound revision of the principles that underlie it." Nobel laureate Louis de Broglie.

ABSTRACT.

The observed crisis and stagnation in the areas of theoretical physics, such as quantum physics and particle physics, as well as theories based on them, is noted by many scientists. There is a lot of criticism, but so far, in the ranks of academic physics, there are no constructive theoretical proposals in terms of a new paradigm that could resolve the crisis. Academic science is steadily moving towards combining the approaches of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics into a general Theory of Everything, but so far it is doing this on the already created foundation and its established views and authorities.
This article voices a constructive proposal that aims to help get out of this crisis. It is proposed to pay attention to the geometric approach in the format of a new self-consistent concept based on the ontology of the fundamental principle of complementarity.
The new approach expresses the need to return to the initial beginning of the creation of Quantum Mechanics and GTR and to reconsider some positions regarding the application of the complementarity principle to the issues of quantum phenomena and the form of a quantum phenomenon. At the dawn of the birth of GTR and Quantum Mechanics, a situation arose when significant and strong discoveries related to the theory of ether were, for a number of reasons, in the shadows, and in their place ideas came to the stage of science, the elements of which, in isolation from the position of the presence of a supporting environment, turned out to be either with a weak philosophy or somewhere erroneous.
As a result, instead of a holistic picture leading to the comprehension of nature, the foundations of the science of physics of the 20th century turned out to be theories that do not fit together and rather generate the illusion of understanding. This became the main reason for the crisis that arose, a break from the realities of Nature and an ever-increasing immersion in virtual theoretical worlds created on the basis of the mathematical apparatus of algebra.
In the format of the announced new approach, a physical and philosophical revision of conceptual positions, as well as the resulting conclusions made on the basis of the experiments conducted at that time by J. Thomson and E. Rutherford (Geiger-Marsden) was proposed.

"We should not allow the degeneration of all other cognitive organs due to the development of one rational analysis." Nobel laureate W. Heisenberg.

In his autobiography, written after winning the Nobel Prize in 1999, theoretical physicist G't Hooft included questions and reflections on the state of the current leading theories in theoretical physics. [1] Quote:
«What about the deep, open problems in the Standard Model? Many of my colleagues agree that supersymmetry, a symmetry relation between particles with different spins, should play an essential role. But what should a supersymmetric “parent theory” be like? How and why should supersymmetry be broken to explain the world as we observe it today?
Do we really have to believe that there are dozens of particle types called “super partners”, none of which have ever been seen? Such questions make me feel uncomfortable with supersymmetric theories.
What about the deep, open problems in the Standard Model? Many of my colleagues agree that supersymmetry, the symmetry relation between particles with different spins, must play a significant role. But what would a supersymmetric "parent theory" be? How and why would supersymmetry have to be broken to explain the world as we see it today?
Should we really believe that there are dozens of types of particles, called "superpartners", none of which have ever been seen? Such questions make me feel uneasy with supersymmetric theories.
The true answers must undoubtedly come from the incorporation of the gravitational force. At first sight it may seem difficult to believe that such an extremely weak force could cause so much havoc in a theoretical construction such as the Standard Model. The point is, however, that if gravity really corresponds to the curvature of space and time, as we must conclude from the successes of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, then Quantum Mechanics predicts quantum fluctuations in this curvature that, at the tiniest distance scales, grow out of control. This means that either gravity theory, or Quantum Mechanics, or both, must be replaced by some superior paradigm... Whatever paradigm this would be, it is likely to entirely reform our understanding of the fundamental interactions, answering all our present questions at one stroke». [1]

Let us try to answer the question of what this higher paradigm must include in order to change our understanding of the fundamental interactions. Obviously, it is necessary to rewind philosophical logic back to some starting point of reasoning in order to understand which paradigm can be considered higher. In essence, the fundamental nature of its theoretical proposals should be determined “not by the bulkiness of the mathematical apparatus, but by the degree of connection with materialistic philosophy and proximity to the boundaries of the knowable.” [17]
Let's start with the fact that in the current period four types of fundamental interactions are known (electromagnetic, gravitational, weak and strong), which are described by the apparatus of algebra through the forces acting in them.
Descriptions of interactions through forces are represented by laws (Newton, Coulomb, Lorentz, Ampere, etc.). Conclusion: forces manifest themselves in interactions and are described by the laws of interaction.
Let's ask ourselves: what determines the laws of interaction? The laws of interaction are determined by principles or, if we mean the construction of a monistic theory, in other words, a unified Theory of Everything, then we must talk about a single initial principle from which all other principles, as well as laws, originate, and which determines the uniform nature of motion. All other types of motion are a modification of the universal type of motion or its special case.
The initial fundamental principle is a pre-establishment, a precondition. Principles are not proven. Principles are revealed as a generalization of experimental facts and empirical observations. They are universal in nature and are defining. Principles allow for a uniform explanation of the totality of phenomena under consideration, which may belong to different scaling levels. A law is a development of a principle, and laws have a particular manifestation of principles at each scaling level or in a specific existential sphere.
What is determined by a principle? A principle mediates the structure of interrelations. It is the structure of interrelations that determines the nature of interactions and then the forces in them. Consequently, the highest paradigm will be an approach based on an empirically revealed initial ontological principle, which has a comprehensive nature regardless of the scaling level and the sphere of existence. And a theory built on the initial principle will be monistic and will represent a generalizing Theory of Everything.
The initial principle has long been known to modern science, and it has also been known since ancient times – this is the principle of complementarity. For quantum physics, it was formulated by Niels Bohr. In turn, from ancient times it was transmitted in the form of a pictorial symbol of Yin-Yang and is present in philosophical views.
According to etymology, the word "complementary" means opposite, but complementary to a complete whole. Complementary components are part of one complete whole, in which they complement each other's differences. This semantic content is revealed from the etymology of the word "complementary":

complementary (adj.)
1620s, "ceremonious" (a sense now obsolete in this spelling of the word), from complement (n.) + -ary. Sense of "forming a complement, mutually completing each other's deficiencies". [19]

As demonstrated by the geometry of the Yin-Yang symbol, complementary components are not separate entities, they are the result of an internal dual breakdown, a partition of one whole into two components, divided by a conditional partition, displayed by a wave (sinusoidal) function, which visualizes the relationship of the components – they are in antiphase, mutually balanced and synchronized.
Understanding the essential content of the concept of "complementary" determines the correctness of the result of its application to issues of the structure of the world order. And since the principle of complementarity is the original and comprehensive, it mediates the original dual interrelation, the original proportion, the original equation and the original geometry of movement. The geometry of the original dual interrelation, reflected in the ancient symbol "Yin-Yang" is a mirror-asymmetric interrelation of two complementary components of one whole, which are in antiphase. Such antiphase breakdown of one whole determines the uniform nature of the rotational movement, which is the simultaneous execution of a two-cycle revolution – around its internal axis and around the external center, as evidenced by the entire cosmos.
Such a two-cycle nature of movement is geometrically displayed by the Mobius strip. (The illustration is taken from the source [18] exclusively for the visualization of the nature of the two-cycle movement).
THE FULL VERSION OF ARTICLE READ https://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016/001k/00165966.htm