Helmut Hille

The Heilbronn Interpretation (Heilbronn - City of Robert Mayer*)

Quantum Physics generally comprehensible

At the same time some Philosophy of Science

(As of mid-July 2023 (final status)

---

Those who only understand physics don't really understand physics either." loosely based on Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799)4

So the phenomena on which I rely cannot be denied.
please refer Old acquaintances

Problem of quantum physics
Reality: Of course there is reasonably an observer-independent reality - but only as long as it is not observed. The observer cannot therefore be ignored, since every evaluation is already an interpretation. Furthermore, because of their tiny size, quanta can only be experienced through measurement, which through interaction is at the same time a disturbance for the observer. Either the instantaneous location of a particle is determined by a strong impulse, or its speed is determined by measuring a distance, but never both at the same time. So our knowledge of the quanta remains "fuzzy". This is inevitable and there is nothing mysterious about it

The blur
The "fuzziness" is not one of the quanta, but first of all one of our knowledge about quanta. Superposition, on the other hand, is a term for not knowing about the state of an object in a closed system - e.g. whether a cat is alive or dead there - as long as you haven't checked. A simple matter of course. People just like to talk mysteriously. Attention! Quantum computers are only possible insofar as the superposition is really something beyond ignorance, above all through definitely more than 2 possible states of particles, which can also be manipulated.

The coincidence
Because a measurement encounters an unknown state of quanta, the measurement result is called "random". Dealing with "chance": you make a relevant number of measurements and then work with the mean, i.e. with "probabilities". There is nothing mysterious about this either. On the contrary!

Target of the theory
Like Newton's dynamics, quantum mechanics is not an invented theory like Einstein's theory of relativity with its freely philosophized objects, but as a pragmatic science an instruction developed from the expertise of its founders, as with the smallest quantifiable units of physics such as electron, photon, field, angular momentum , spin etc. is to be dealt with appropriately and purposefully. It does not try to "explain" the world with unproven assertions and thereby fix thinking, but provides physicists with tried-and-tested rules for dealing with certain phenomena. However, my concern here is to theoretically further develop quantum mechanics into comprehensive quantum physics by including gravitation, since that is the point at which it is still "incomplete",as Einstein himself once strongly felt, namely due to its lack of anchoring in the cosmology.

First of all: Classical physics and quantum physics are not opposites, but are applied to different orders of magnitude of physical research and thus complement each other.

The 'super entanglement'
Quantum mechanics is familiar with the phenomenon of entanglement of particles with a common origin, as a result of which spatially separated particles momentarily react as a whole, regardless of their distance from one another. Likewise, with the so-called "big bang", all matter/energy involved was entangled with one another. To distinguish between the two entanglements, I called the Big Bang "super-entanglement". Since then, everything has been striving to restore this unity, which, however, is opposed by the cosmic centrifugal force, which was also generated during the Big Bang and is driving everything apart. The pace of expansion is the result of both primal forces. I can imagine that the speed also varies locally, which would explain the different measurement results, if only because a look at space is always a look at its history.

The nature of gravity
The force of entanglement was called "centripetal force" by Newton because it makes everything strive towards a center. We call it gravity or gravitation*. Its location is bound to the particles and belongs to their nature as a further captive property. Their work is without time factor, as Newton already saw. otherwise bodies would be drawn to places where no other is, which has never been observed. Evidence of gravity is omnipresent - in heaven as on earth. *To differentiate between the real and the only thought, I say "gravity" when it comes to the real acting force/energy, "gravity" when it comes to their theory.

The particle entanglement
The particles were also already entangled with each other before their joint emission, but were given additional properties in pairs, such as their counter-rotating spin, which is probably something like a particle entanglement that wants to persist - perhaps as far as gravity reaches or depending on their strength. Together, super and particle entanglement are the inner unity of the participants, while the direction towards each other is determined by their respective source.

The realism question
For me it is not decisive whether the promise of the quantum researchers to use a quantum computer to obtain research funds can ever be realised. It is important to me that they have shown that there is an entanglement and that you can work with it. The researchers have thus exposed local realism as a viewing habit that takes what is seen separately as definitely separate, despite the ebb and flow of tides already belying this and how we can conveniently observe the perennial connectedness of bodies in the solar system. If this holistic understanding were to become general, one would have to speak again of a Copernican turn, not only in cosmology. Einstein: "There are no long-distance effects." Right! Things are not far away - we only see them that way!

Old acquaintances
As we have already noted with regard to gravity as an entanglement phenomenon, the general entanglement of matter that I have seen is not new insofar as the phenomenon already exists scientifically under a different name, here that of gravity. Nuclear forces certainly also belong to forms of entanglement, probably everything that one would like to explain with hypothetical gluons (also called glue particles!). So the phenomena on which I rely cannot be denied. Also, what Einstein calls a gravitational wave is just another description of an effect at a distance, but with me, with Newton, without a time factor because of the unity of all through entanglement, as we already know from the particles. It would be more than surprising if bodies behaved differently than their particles as carriers of gravity (Newton), astronomical bodies are just a collection of them due to the cosmic super entanglement of all.

The expansion of the cosmos
The gravity of a particle is distributed evenly in space, so the sum of its gravity is always the same in any radius around it (conservation of energy). However, their dilution with increasing radius and thus their range is limited by Planck's constant, which contributes to the ever faster expansion of the cosmos, because at the same time the attraction of the stable star groups among themselves decreases more and more due to their generally increasing distances as a whole. The initial impulse of the big bang prevails more and more until its maximum speed is reached. Just by considering the conservation of energy, the observations of the expansion of the cosmos become sufficiently understandable. The assumption of dark matter and energy is superfluous.

The definition of the cosmos
Where the two primal forces - gravity and cosmic centrifugal force - are in balance, permanent celestial bodies with exactly such orbits have formed. (Of course, light particles also move on such paths, only much faster.) We know the bodies as suns. Planetary systems, globular star clusters, galaxies and galaxy clusters - our cosmos. Definition: A cosmos is a whole ordered by a common event that reacts together. Seeing things separately is just a useful terrestrial habit of seeing that proves nothing in cosmology and so hinders the understanding of particle entanglement.

A rational cosmology
The new order created by the joint event 'Big Bang', better known as the original leap - because nothing comes from nothing - is a cosmos in the universe, as part of the universe, which itself is without limits in space and time. In the universe as the All-One there can be innumerable cosms, even if we can never know. But think. For a rational cosmology it is also necessary to think: the cosms come and go, but the universe/the energy remains. Universe and cosmos are not synonyms. As with the observance of the law of conservation of energy, the necessary basic understanding of a rational cosmology arises automatically through the correct use of language - the distinction between universe and cosmos. But of course one is in the cosmos at the same time in the universe.

The dynamic universe
The parts of our cosm that are drifting apart can meet parts of other cosms in the depths of the universe and unite with them to form a new cosm through renewed super entanglement. In a big bang, as a result of the highest energy level that can be reached through compression, all existing formatting is deleted, but the energy remains! (base state). Because the universe is dynamic throughout, I have called it "Dynamic Universe". We know nothing about things, we only know the result of interaction with them.

* Conservation of energy
In order for physics to be and remain a science, the basic principle of the conservation of energy must always be observed, which was first formulated by the Heilbronn doctor Robert Mayer, against fierce resistance from physicists would like. In Heilbronn he is present in many ways, not only with a magnificent monument next to the town hall and a high school of that name. - Preservation is the basic condition of the world, causality is its consequence.

Another conservation law
Mathematics as the study of quantities is also subject to the conservation law. An equation is solved correctly when the entered values are retained in all arithmetic operations. This includes the fact that numbers and numerical quantities cannot be interpreted. 1 is always 1 and nothing else. Precisely because of this it is so useful for science, which for its part must comply with the conservation law if it wants to remain a science. Where e.g.the speeds of light must not be added, the ground of science is already deserted and incomprehensibility is the result.

The limits of what can be known - from the original leap to the quantum leap
Just as Newton did not want to speculate about the "centripetal force" (gravity) in order to preserve the scientific nature - his motto was: "hypotheses non fingo" (I do not think up hypotheses) - quantum physicists do not allow themselves to speculate about things that cannot be tested in principle, e.g. about the orbit of a particle between measurements. We know nothing about things, we only know the result of interaction with them. For them, the quantum leap is the lower limit of what can be known, the primal leap would be the upper one. Then reason has to help, e.g. with the law of conservation of energy, with logic anyway. But intellect is always necessary, which I am promoting here.

Universal comprehensibility against hermeticism
Every special field of science is involuntarily or intentionally set apart from the other sciences by the terms it has developed and the way it is used. This also applies to quantum mechanics, which would also like to appear as mysterious as Einstein's theory of relativity. In order to demystify quantum mechanics, it would be necessary, for example, to omit the statement that a particle is in two places at the same time, because we can only know the position of a particle by measuring. Viewed soberly, the enigmatic superposition as an overlay of states is just the banal statement that the current state is not known until it is measured, apart from the fact that the respective state only becomes apparent through the interaction of the measurement and thus ultimately through the unavoidable intervention by the observer. Any particular state is determined by the observer. This insight was the trigger of quantum mechanics and thus the way to more objectivity in physics by considering the measurement problems that resulted from the refinement of the measuring equipment. Heisenberg wrote that measurements always left an "inexplicable remainder" until one realized with relief that it was one's own trace. In this way, it was recognized that there is also a role for the observer in physics. And the so dangerous-sounding "collapse of the wave function" is, viewed soberly, just the transition from not knowing a state to knowing through measurement. Seen in this way, quantum mechanics is already fundamentally quite rational, and quantum physics wants to be even more so.

Unity of physics
The laws of the quanta control the world both in the smallest and in the largest. We don't need a second theory for matter and the cosmos. Quantum physics is sufficient, but its application to space, for example, is only just being developed by the DLR (German Aerospace Center). In this way the unity of physics - here the unity of matter and cosmos - can be restored. All activities in physics should be subordinate to this goal. Today, however, it is far too often about defending achieved positions with a lot of money with questionable "evidence", above all to be r ight. However, any proof is only worth as much as the spirit in which it is conducted. In the absence of integrity, science is always in jeopardy. I don't know if I've presented you with "a new physics" here - but certainly a physics of a piece that cannot be surpassed in this respect.

© Helmut Hille 2023, Heilbronn/Germany  (translation by Google)
Member of Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft (DPG), Work Group Philosophy of Physics

The German text /I/A12) is binding