Reality of Physics?

1.Reality of Matter?

The logic of physics seems apparently very simple! There are the laws of nature with the only one possibility: they lead to the physical truth! With the only one difficulty: all physical laws are a result of the thinking activity! There is namely the puzzle:

-are the physical truth and the mental truth the same?

Very problematic from the fact

-the logical truth (=in the reality of contingency) is categorically impossible: the mental mind (=as the source of knowledge in the thinking process) and the ontological reason (=as the condition of knowledge in the thinking process) are not the same!

Enough for different interpretations of the physical ''truth'' between physicists! My attempt to understand this fact follows the reasoning of d'Abro!

The theory of relativity allows to think about the ground of physical reality. So is indisputable: it is the matter! It tells to the space-time how to curve and space-time tells to matter how to behave. This idea led Einstein to represent gravitation as a direct consequence of the curvature of space-time. It is usual to assume that the curvatures are produced by mass, momentum, energy … more than enough for the thesis of a duality of nature: matter and metrical field of space-time are the two realities of our world. But, when Einstein attempted to remove this duality, his decision was to give the priority to the presence of matter. His demand was clear: the whole structure of the space-time must be reduced to the presence of matter. This attempt led him in such a way to put matter over the metrical field of the space-time. On the other hand, Eddington's statement was just the reverse. He was thinking that the equations of gravitation are the identities! This means: they tell us only how our senses recognize the curvatures by interpreting them as matter, motion … etc. In other words, there is no matterthere is nothing but a curvature of space-time. How they affect our senses is the mystery of our reality.

What is now a human being between the two different realities according to Einstein? There are the external reality of matter (=curvature) and the internal reality of his thoughts! Can he find a relation between them? If no, then his presence in the world is the nonsense of the existence. If yes, then an understanding of a link between them lies deeply in him as a part of his thoughts. It seems in this case that Eddington's idea is dominating! Why? Tempora mutantur! Today has the quantum theory to decide. According to this view the necessary request arises from the new understanding of the problem:

-no link between knowledge of physics (=in mind) and physics (=out of mind) is possible without the third reality between them!

Where is it? There is only one possibility: the link is intrinsically a part of the quantum theory! It is neither a part of physics nor a part of mind: it is a part of their interference in the miracle of the third reality!

Max Planck was once resolute in Florenz

-matter ''an sich'' does not exist!

Something between intuition and knowledge? Nobody knows! In spite of his explanation! So it remains to ask: are mental and physical ''truths'' at all possible without the real existence of the necessary truth? This question is unavoidable: no our knowledge is possible without the condition of this knowledge in the neccesary existence of the notion ''truth'' from the identity between mentality in the mind and essence in the ratio! On the other side, the current knowledge of the human science has no interest for the problems in the transcendence of physics. In spite of the fact:

-the matter from our experience could be created only from its ontological ground.

Without such thesis we are enforced to live in the prison of knowledge. On the other hand, with such thesis, we are free to live in the perspective of hope: if the physical substance for space and time does not exist, then their mental substance in the mind (=there are Kantian categories of understanding) needs the new physical concepts for the secret of their physical simulation. It is yet something to be seen! The property ''mass'' of matter is the carrier of its property ''energy''. There are obviously still more the two realities of matter:

-the mass is the essence of matter and the energy is the form of matter.

The obvious convertibility of such matter (=it is involved as the generalized object of the classical physics in the relativity theory) is telling us something else and not in agreement with the state of human knowledge: we prefer the essence, not the form. This is very possible the error! Since the actual identity lies in the background of our knowledge. Mass is free of cost! Accordingly, energy is also gratis! This is clear. Not yet in the background of knowledge with a power ''change of view''. So is in the framework of physics something nevertheless evident. The ideal ''covariance'' of the general relativity has been failed:

-the non-covariance of the gravitational energy-momentum tensor is the defeat of this theory.

Enough for understanding: the generalized physics must be something else! Why? Quite simple: matter without antimatter (=and vice versa) is impossible. Where and how are these realities divorced between them? All consequences of such knowledge involve certainly a necessary part of the human knowledge about the exit from the secret of the nature: how to know what and where is the frame of physics? If it is in the darkness of transcendence, then mathematics of no kind can be at disposal to the understanding of physics. But, if no, then we are free to search in order to answer: why is just so?

2. Reality of Geometry?

All analytic statements are clearly a priori. For the problem: does the boundary between a priori and a posteriori (=empirical) coincide with the boundary between analytic and synthetic? Or: is there an interstice (=a priori synthetic) possible? This was Kant's idea. Clear: synthetic tells something about the world and a priori tells something without justification of experience. Geometry provided Kant with one of his chief examples of synthetic a priori knowledge. His reasoning was clear: if the axioms of geometry are considered, it is not possible to imagine the axioms as not true. But his point of view has been totally changed after the discovery of the non-Euclideanism. Kant's error is obvious: it is easy to see the source of his error! There are obviously two essentially different kinds of geometry: one mathematical, the other physical. I follow strictly an understanding of Rudolf Carnap:

-the distinction between the two kinds of geometry is fundamental and is now universally recognized: mathematical geometry is a priori and physical geometry is synthetic!

The mathematical geometry says nothing about the physical reality of the world. It is only a theory of logical structure. It has nothing to do with the human experience. One of the clearest, most precise statements of this distinction was made by Einstein:

-''so far as the theorems of mathematics are about reality, they are not certain, and so far as they are certain, they are not about reality!''

Enough for the conclusion

-physics is impotent without the frame of its existence and without power to change its status!

So is clear: any step forward depends upon the last help from the quantum theory. The reality of matter and antimatter needs the mathematical geometry with the power to establish the new frame for the physical geometry in attempt to connect the two opposite physical realities. In the sense of the last question for the epistemology:

-can the generalized physics be considered as the limited part of the necessary reality?

The answer depends on the way in our understanding of the structure in the ontological reality as required by the physical structure in the framework of the quantum theory. There is certainly the realm of the third reality. Our indisputable ignorance about the capacity of this reality is enough for the curiosity about the content of such knowledge. So is clear: if yes, then physics is able to enlarge our knowledge through the removal of the quantum incertainties, but if not, then there is a challenge! We are enforced therefore to go in the past and to learn all about the week points in our understanding.

We are the victims of the mysterious decay in the totality of knowledge and without any access to the condition for the conservation of knowledge, not of the existence. There is acting the rule: after light always explodes darkness. The best example is reasonning of d'Abro! He was occupied by the understanding of mathematical machinary. If we idealise the problem of congruence, we cannot avoid the problem of rigidity: is physical body changing its shape during displacement through space? In the Euclidean geometry are congruent lengths at different places exemplified by the lengths spanned by a material rod transported from one place to another. If so, then we may say that perfectly rigid bodies are those whose measurements would yield Euclidean results with absolute precision. But though the mathematician has a possible definition of congruent bodies, it remains to be seen whether other types of congruence would not also be rationally possible. In other words, the mathematician is obliged to define congruence, without appealing to experience. In such a way, although the various presentations are equivalent, it may be of advantage to make the definition of congruence fundamental rather than that of the straight line. This step has been done by Riemann!

Suppose, then, that material bodies, including our own human body, were to behave differently when displaced. If corresponding adjustments were to affect the paths of light rays, we should be led to credit rigidity to bodies which from the Euclidean point of view would be squirming when set in motion. As a result, our straight line, that is, the line defined by a stretched rope, our line of sight, the shortest path between two points, would no longer coincide with the Euclidean straight line. From the Euclidean standpoint our straight line would be curved, but from our own point of view it would be the reverse … the Euclidean straight line would manifest curvature both visually and as a result of measurement.

In such reality d'Abro is asking the help by a super-observer as umpire. He would say:

-You are both of you justified in regarding as straight that which appears to you visually as such and that which measures out accordingly. It will be to your advantage, therefore, to reserve your definitions of straightness for lines which satisfy these conditions. But you are both of you wrong when you atribute any absolute significance to the concept, for you must realise that your opinions will always be contingent on the nature of the physical condition which surround you.

Sufficiently for understanding

-''If we select Euclidean congruence for the purpose of measuring space, non-Euclidean bodies will appear to squirm as they move … if we select non-Euclidean congruence, it will be the Euclidean bodies which appear to vary in form when displaced''.

In other words

-''The non-Euclidean bodies are merely distorted when contrasted with Euclidean bodies taken as standards … but it would be equally true to state that Euclidean bodies likewise would squirm when displaced if we were to contrast them with non-Euclidean bodies taken as standards''.

OK! Perfect? Yes! But! The public opinion in the framework of physics wipes all

-''Non-Euclideanism may or may not exist in real space, but this is a point for physical measurement and not for philosophy or mathematics to decide … ''

instead to try to insist

-how philosophy and mathematics can to help the physics to find a way for an understanding of the third reality?

This joke of mind has then, prior to all, to explain:

-how a relation between mental incertainties and physical indeterminations is able to achieve the purpose of natural activity?

This step of knowledge seeks the ontological structure with the power to answer:

-how does act the necessary reality of the necessary condition of knowledge between mental incertainties and physical indeterminations ?

This question sounds in the sense:

-how to establisch a relation of the identity between mathematical geometry (=a priori) and physical geometry (=synthetic)?

3. Reality of the transcendental knowledge?

Are the previous questions a part of the human dream or human reality? The secret hides the human ego in its condition of the contingent nature. Both have something to do with the existence of the universe. If so, then as quite trivially sounds: the beginning of the universe is unthinkable without the knowledge about the origin of the relation for the presence of matter and antimatter! It is easy to understand: each particle is impossible without its antiparticle. All for the spectacular thesis

-the human ego in each man is impossible without the proper anti-ego in the proper anti-man!-

in the complete agreement with the thesis of Jean-Paul Sartre

-I am what I am not and I am not what I am.

It is a result of an inevitability

-the knowledge in my consciousness (=I am not) arises from the subconsciousness of my anti-I (=I am) and vice versa: the knowledge in the consciousness of my anti-I (=I am) arises from my subconsciousness (=I am not)-

from the natural demand:

-the world of matter is impossible without the world of anti-matter!

Of course, for the understanding of their interconnection and their escape from the paradox of Epimenides. But! After an alleviation (=the problem of the self-knowledge is conceivable in such reality) comes the well known difficulty of the unification of the physical fields:

-how to conquer the unification of the physical fields in the quantum theory (=they are in the space-time) with the general relativity (=which is the space-time itself)?

How to understand this unreasonable request? We have at once the clear evidence of impossibility:

-each physical quantity without its physical measure is no physical quantity!

This fact is implied, for instance, by the pure triviality

-the notion for time is trivialy impossible in the absence of the physical measure for time-

as a consequence of the fact: the astronomical time and the atomic time are incongruent. For the conclusion

-time is together with space only the Kantian category of mind as the subtle deception of nature-

in agreement with the information from its structure

-the elementary particles (=they ignore the structure of the space-time) talk categorically in favour of the third reality (=between contingency and necessity) through their problem of non-locality for the quantum logic.

Enough for the thesis:

-the physical space-time is the deception of nature and the mental space-time is only a game of the mind (=Kant is saved).

So is clear: the absence of the notions for space and time implies

-the structure of space and time is of no kind the frame of physical world-


-the general relativity is necessarily something else!

It leads us in the world of the fancy in the interstice between the worlds of matter and spirit! It remains still clearly to answer: what has something else actually to be? So far as I can to see, it is the necessary condition of knowledge

-Something else must contain in itself a power of presentation how the mind does understand a link between the generalized interpretation (=without the notions for space and time) of the physical geometry and the mental (=mathematical) geometry (=without uncertainties which are a heart of the quantum reality).

The story of the physics ends so in the reality of the transcendental knowledge. I have there as an ignorant nothing to do. My dream is fulfilled … I understand the frame of some knowledge without the content of this knowledge. Such step of knowledge is objectively unreachable! Quite clear why: in the background of the contingency lies the necessity. It is unattainable in the reality of our world.

4. Summary!

We know never something about the principle of knowledge without the preceding principles in the process of derivation of this knowledge! Is therefore knowledge of this something possible if our knowledge has nothing to do with the strange process of its derivation? Such uncertainty does not exist only in the case of the necessary knowledge: somebody is existing with the totality of knowledge beyond this process! Of course, if not, then the whole knowledge should be the nonsense! Enough for the understanding of our difficulty:

-the real existence of somebody (=God), who knows something about a way of our possible knowledge, is necessary (=without our succes to understand his talk).

The ontological existence of such being is the necessary being for the necessary thought (=God)! Without any knowledge of him from our side! From the scientific point of view! Without a precise knowledge: what is at all our science? It does not belong to the universe of our life. It does belong originally to its cause and it has to explain all circumstancies of the tragic events up to the birth of contingency. Here is the dramatic process of the battle for the condition of knowledge (=it is in the completeness a part of the divine knowledge in the absence of freedom, not in the incompletness of knowledge in the presence of human freedom). In this understanding of reality happened the original sin as a cause of the birth of the universe. Or: the extemporal presence of the human being is indisputable. So only his free act of decision could provoke the birth of contingency. In such a way is easily to see: the presence of human being (=in the freedom) and the presence of the necessary being (=without the freedom in human understanding) are the two realities of the transcendental knowledge!

The physical non-existence of the substance for the ''space-time'' and the mental existence of the presentation for the ''space-time'' confirm the truth

-the whole complex of the physical changeabilities, interpreted by the mind as ''space'' and ''time'', is deception of the nature-


-the phenomenon ''death'' is consequently the pure illusion of the mind-

without knowledge from the necessity about the information in the eternal relationship with the necessary being

-the person and the anti-person take their way towards the timeless Proto Man ''Adam'' or Proto Women ''Eva''.

I have no idea about the source of this idea in myself. I followed only a way of rational knowledge … and I ended in the framework of theological knowledge … enough for my pure embarrassment.

Our come back to the necessity happens certainly very painfully through the decay of connection between man and anti-man. The absence of interrelation between their subconscious ceases mental activity in order to prepare the new state of affaires in the necessity. All mental uncertainties disappear there and only the one-value logic begins with its activity in the state of the complete knowledge in the freedom without the condition of knowledge in the necessary being:

-this condition remains exclusively in the privilege of ''ens habens in se rationem existentiae'' (=God).

I feel cold at the end of this writing. Why? The whole content was rational (=mathematics, logic, physics, philosophy … ) in the sense ''all written was expressed as a product of mind'', not as a ''product of soul''! Yes! A theological consideration was absent! But, it overgrows now my understanding! Why? Very ''logical'' explanation without some logical explanation is possible: for me remains unknown neither how I understand something what I am feeling nor how I feel something what I am understanding. So is clear categorically:

-I am not able to fix any logical connection between the words of mind and soul.

The end of life is so the defeat of the knowledge in contingency and the success of the necessary knowledge beyond the possible knowledge in the reality of our limitation. Only such exit from this limitation permits the answer on the last question:

-why is contingency a valley of tears, a valley of wars, a valley of human degradation … ?

None religion of this world is able to give a plain answer on this question. Why? The contingency is unable to accept the informations from the necessity in terms of logic. What remains her to disposal is only the phenomenon ''wonder''. Its language is however full of uncertainties and known only as the communication of emotions, not of knowledge. Enough for the judgement: religion is wrong! Is it so indeed? No! Because religion itself asserts: knowledge is dangerous! For the question in the mystery of knowledge: whence religion knows for this verifiable fact? Nobody knows! For the final judgement: religion is right!


Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional