Reality of Physics?
1.Reality of Matter?
seems apparently very simple! There are the laws of
with the only one possibility: they lead to the
With the only one difficulty: all physical
are a result of the thinking activity!
namely the puzzle:
the physical truth and the mental truth the same?
problematic from the fact
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!
different interpretations of the physical ''truth''
between physicists! My attempt to understand this fact
follows the reasoning of d'Abro!
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
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 matter
is nothing but a curvature of space-time.
How they affect our senses is the mystery of our reality.
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:
link between knowledge of physics (=in
mind) and physics (=out
of mind) is possible without the third
reality between them!
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!
was once resolute in Florenz
''an sich'' does
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
from the identity between mentality in the mind and
essence in the ratio!
the other side, the current knowledge of the human
no interest for the problems in the transcendence
In spite of the fact:
matter from our experience could be created only from its ontological
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
the mind (=there
are Kantian categories of understanding
needs the new physical concepts
for the secret of their physical simulation.
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:
mass is the essence of matter and the energy is the form of matter.
obvious convertibility of such matter (=it
is involved as the generalized object of the classical physics in the
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
So is in the framework of physics something nevertheless evident. The
of the general
relativity has been failed:
non-covariance of the gravitational
energy-momentum tensor is the defeat of
for understanding: the generalized physics must be
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?
it is in the darkness
mathematics of no kind
be at disposal to the understanding of physics.
if no, then we are free to search in order to answer: why is just so?
2. Reality of Geometry?
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
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:
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:
far as the theorems of mathematics are about reality, they are not
certain, and so far as they are certain, they are not about
Enough for the conclusion
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
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 generalized physics be considered as the limited part of the
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
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
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.
such reality d'Abro
is asking the help by a super-observer
as umpire. He would say:
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
Sufficiently for understanding
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
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
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
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:
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
does act the necessary reality of the necessary condition of
knowledge between mental incertainties and physical indeterminations
This question sounds in the sense:
to establisch a relation of the identity between mathematical
geometry (=a priori) and
physical geometry (=synthetic)?
3. Reality of the transcendental knowledge?
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
It is easy to understand: each particle is impossible without its
antiparticle. All for the spectacular thesis
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
am what I am not and I am not what I am.
It is a result of an inevitability
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
am) arises from my subconsciousness (=I
from the natural demand:
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
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:
physical quantity without its physical measure is no physical
This fact is implied, for instance, by the pure triviality
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.
is together with space only the Kantian category of mind as the
subtle deception of nature-
in agreement with the information from its
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
Enough for the thesis:
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
structure of space and time is of no kind the frame of physical
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)
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.
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
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
-the real existence of somebody
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
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
The physical non-existence
of the substance
for the ''space-time''
and the mental existence
for the ''space-time''
confirm the truth
whole complex of the physical changeabilities, interpreted by
the mind as ''space'' and ''time'',
is deception of the nature-
is consequently the pure illusion of the mind-
without knowledge from the necessity about the information in the
eternal relationship with the necessary being
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:
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
not as a ''product of
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
So is clear
am not able to fix any logical connection between the words of mind
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:
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!
so indeed? No! Because religion itself
asserts: knowledge is dangerous!
For the question in the
mystery of knowledge: whence religion knows for this verifiable
Nobody knows! For the final judgement: religion is