Determinism vs Probabilism in Physics

The Basic Writings of C. G. Jung: "...for in all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder a secret order, in all caprice a fixed law, for everything that works is grounded on its opposite."

A physical theory is largely dependent on the underlying philosophy used in its formulation. This is evident in the current probabilistic appoach to theoretical physics and in its deterministic precursor, classical mechanics. The tendencies that emerge from probabilism are complexity and uncertainty. Complexity arises quite naturally from the assumed wave basis of matter and an excessively abstract perception of reality, while uncertainty is explicit in Heisenberg’s theory and applied in areas of limited understanding.

In physics, we find an astoundingly "improbable" interpretation of probabilism. For example in quantum mechanics, "barrier penetration" is effected because the probability of surmounting the potential barrier is not zero! This is standing statistical theory on its head! If the probability of an event approaches unity, it confirms the function is deterministic (it will happen). If it approaches zero, it is also deterministic (it will not happen). If it is in between, it is probabilistic. That is to say, you cannot accurately predict it. It is random! As Bertrand Russell states, "probabilism is the antithesis of law"!

Probabilism is strengthened by the tendency to ascribe an almost numinous aura to its ontological precepts which then require no authentication in experience. This results in either an ignorance or a contempt for logic as it applies to theory and a pedantic insistence on it with respect to detail. Black holes, quarks, multi-dimensional strings and relativistic contraditions are vivid examples of this outlook, where improbable concepts are uncritically accepted and "authenticated" through a mathematical formalism of stunning complexity. This, in turn, is represented by an obscure symbolism indecipherable to anyone but an adept.

One of the objectives of probabilism is the obvious need to discredit determinism. This is noticeable in the attempts to ignore the number of physical absolutes and their derivation. Examples of this tendency are given below.

The equivalence of electromagnetic and mechanical phenomena is recognized in Bohr’s theory of atomic structure. In it,

Planck’s constant, (h-bar) is defined as,

If we divide equation (1) by equation (2), [e²/h], we obtain the velocity, v. Since both e and h are invariant, the ratio [e²/h] is invariant by logical extension.

It seems reasonable to assume that if the whole is invariant, then the same applies to its parts. But this has not been proven in this case. Our first indication is that the magnitude of the invariant velocity is equal to that of the electron in the first Bohr orbit. Logic demands that if it is invariant in one aspect, it is invariant in the other. Mass is invariant in classical mechanics, and proven in a previous paper ( http://wbabin.net/babin/guft.htm) to be also invariant in relativity theory. If h is invariant and two of its constituent parts (mass and velocity) are invariant then the third, a radius, is invariant by default.

The limited application of physical constants leads to excessively prolix representations. To give one of the simplest textbook examples; the Rydberg constant at infinity (hydrogen atom) is,

where [n_f], [n_i] are the final and inital orbit numbers, [c] is the speed of light.

Because the permittivity constant ε_o in the MKS system is equal to 1/4πc² and e (MKS) is e/c , they are redundant. If we take into consideration the equivalence of Bohr's mechanics and electromagnetism, transformation of equation (3) from MKS to statcoulombs allows eliminating ε_o and e. Disregarding the orbit numbers, equation (3) reduces to,

Note that the meaning of the constant is immediately apparent in the final representation and indecipherable in the original. This type of obfuscation encourages mathematical manipulation rather than understanding.

If both the speed of light and the velocity in the first Bohr orbit are invariant then their ratio is also. This ratio has the value, [137.036] and its inverse is enshrined in contemporary physics as the “fine structure constant”. To quote R.P. Feynman,

“There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to -0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!“

It appears almost sacrilegious that the meaning of the fine structure constant is derived so simply after such spiritual reverence. Nevertheless, it should be evident to any logical person that the philosophical basis for the material world (as represented by the hydrogen atom) is decidedly deterministic and allows itself to be represented through the use of clear and simple mathematics.

Probabilism states that something is true because it works
Determinism states that something works because it is true

W. Babin