Quantum Physics and Reality
All modern cosmological theories also rely on quantum mechanics, which describes the behavior of atomic and subatomic particles. Quantum physics is fundamentally different from classical, Newtonian physics. Classical physics describes the behavior of material objects, while quantum physics focuses only on a mathematical description of the processes of observation and measurement. Material material reality disappears from its field of vision. Nobel laureate V. Heisenberg says: “It turned out that we are no longer able to separate the particle’s behavior from the observation process. As a result, we have to put up with the fact that the laws of nature, which quantum mechanics formulates in mathematical form, are not related to the behavior of elementary particles as such, but only to our knowledge of these particles. ” In quantum mechanics, along with the object of study and research tools, an observer becomes an element of the analyzed picture.
However, the application of quantum mechanics to describe the Universe is fraught with serious difficulties. By definition, all observers are part of the universe. In the case of the universe, we are unable to imagine an outsider. In an attempt to formulate a version of quantum mechanics that does not need an outside observer, the famous physicist J. Wheeler proposed a model according to which the Universe is constantly split into an infinite number of copies. Each parallel universe has its own observers who see this particular set of quantum alternatives, and all of these universes are real.
W. Wit writes about his reaction to this theory in the journal Physics Tudey: “I still remember the shock that I experienced when I first became acquainted with the theory of the plurality of worlds. The idea that every moment out of me there are 10 doubles slightly different from each other, and each of them continues to share incessantly until it changes beyond recognition, does not fit into the framework of common sense. This is truly a picture of endlessly progressing schizophrenia. ” This is just one example of the fantastic hypotheses that scientists have to put forward in order to reconcile the Big Bang theory with quantum mechanics.
However, the troubles of scientists who have chosen the path of materialistic reductionism do not end there. Not only that, the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics in themselves when applied to cosmology lead to ridiculous and fantastic models. In order to truly appreciate the precariousness of scientists’ hopes to ever find a clue to the origin of the Universe, you need to know that they place them mainly on the unified theory of a single field (TEP), which will combine the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. They hope that this theory will describe all the forces acting in the universe with one compact mathematical expression. Moreover, the theory of relativity is necessary to describe the general structure of space-time, and quantum mechanics is necessary to explain the behavior of subatomic particles. Unfortunately, both theories are clearly contradictory.
The first step towards the mathematical integration of both theories is quantum field theory. This theory attempts to describe the behavior of electrons by combining quantum mechanics and Einstein’s particular theory of relativity. Such a combination of ideas turned out to be quite successful, but at the same time, the English physicist, Nobel Prize laureate P. Dirac, the author of the quantum field theory, admitted: “It seems that putting this theory on a solid mathematical basis is practically impossible.” The second and much more difficult step should be the integration of the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, but so far no one has the slightest idea of how to do this. Even recognized authorities such as Nobel laureate S. Weinberg recognize that only a century or two will be needed to create the mathematical apparatus of a new theory.
Since the time of Newton and Galileo, physicists have set themselves the task of giving a mathematical description of the phenomenon under study. This mathematical description must be confirmed by observations and then verified experimentally. We have already seen that the big bang theories do not meet these requirements. One of the basic requirements for physical theories was simplicity, but, as we see, the big bang theories do not meet this criterion either. With each new formulation, they take on more and more bizarre forms. These theories are just what Newton and Galileo were so sick of – idle inventions designed to fill the gaping gap in our knowledge.
Thus, the big bang theories cannot claim to be the scientific explanation of the origin of the universe. However, in popular science magazines, television programs and textbooks, scientists deliberately try to create the impression that they were able to explain the origin of the universe. As they say, you can’t deceive – you won’t sell. It is hard to imagine anything farther from the truth.