Where I Draw The Line, And Why:

           “I think it is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics.  Do not 

            keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "but how can it be like that?”

            because you will go “down the drain” into a blind alley from which nobody has

            yet escaped.  Nobody knows how it can be like that.”

                                                                                    -Richard Feynman

            It is hard for me to state and defend where I draw the line in the New Physics.  My beliefs are not solid and immovable.  There are only a few overall ideas that I have that tend not to change for me, but alter slightly.  One theory that has always caught my imagination, whether it is true or not, is the Many Worlds Theory that was postulated by Everett, Wheeler and Graham.

            In this theory when an event happens the universe splits and all the possible outcomes occur, although we only see one (different versions of ourselves see the other outcomes).  A more detailed accounting for what happens can be found on page 108 (large print) in Zukav’s, The Dancing Wu Li Masters.  This interpretation, while seemingly solving some problems, like the collapse of the wave function, leads us to larger problems like “meaning”.  Although this seems irrelevant to physics, this seems to cause problems for some of them.  I don’t remember a law of science though, that says the world has to have meaning.

            But since I have to take a stand on something and then say where I disagree with the generally held belief, I will take the stance of Quantum Theory being incomplete.  This may seem like an overly ambitious task as I am not a physicist.  I will use some physicist to help my points.  The most famous adversary of Quantum Theory is Einstein.  “Einstien argued that no physical theory is complete unless every element in the real world has a definite counterpart in the theory.” (Kuzack,p. 276)  Quantum theory does not contain this correlation that Einstein insisted it should have to be complete.  Quantum theory can only predict the probabilities of certain events that it considers chance happenings.

            I would think, probably using unsound logic, that everything must have a counterpart. (I like using the vice versa)  If micro-systems are only probabilities then then macro-systems must also be, and vice versa for non-probabilitistic.  Since this is not so, as Newton’s laws work in the macro-system.  Then something like them should work in the micro-system.  The greatest adversary to this line of thought is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.  We have to find out how this is wrong, if it truly is, in order to prove my train of thought

.

            We could use Osccam’s Razor to determine the correct theory, yet I know of no possible challengers to Quantum theory.  To me Quantum theory feels like how it would have been if the classical scholars of the day had defeated Galileo.  They had these wonderfully complex systems to show how everything went around the earth.  They could predict everything Galileo could with their own model, yet they were wrong.  And, every time something new would come along that seemed to threaten their model, they just drew another elliptic until it worked. 

            We cannot see inside the “watch” as it were like we have been able to do to confirm Gallileo.  It is just that to me it seems like Quantum theory is too complex. Maybe one day we will have a discoverer that will show us a new paradigm.