A New Quantum Physics: Rejecting Zeus
May 1, 2011 • 1:55PM

A New Quantum Physics:

Rejecting Zeus


Even as an alarming, increasing density of seismic, economic, and political events buffet us, experts in all fields insist that the world around us cannot be understood! Jason Ross presents the explicitly anti-Promethean outlook of quantum mechanics, as a case study of the attack on the human mind, which declares that the universe we live in is fundamentally incomprehensible. Just as quantum mechanics maintains that statistics trumps reason, so too do anti-human earthquake science deniers insist that earthquakes cannot be predicted.


We are currently offered the historically unique opportunity to make the true role of mankind in nature the defining issue of politics and culture. Even as an alarming, increasing density of seismic, economic, and political events buffet us, experts in all fields insist that the world around us cannot be understood. Economists tell us that the continuing economic collapse could not have been foreseen. Earthquake “scientists” deny responsibility, saying that earthquakes are unpredictable. And the field I’ll treat here in detail, quantum mechanics, says that at its most basic level, the entire physical universe itself is fundamentally random and unknowable.

These problems are best addressed by the famous Greek story of Prometheus, who, despising the gods who ruled men with caprice, stole fire from heaven and gave it to man. For this, he endured the wrath of Zeus, but even under torture refused to regret his action or change his outlook. Today’s followers of Zeus want mankind to renounce fire, and live under the rule of the new gods of Olympus, as in the state that Prometheus found early man:

“Though they had eyes to see, they saw to no avail; they had ears, but understood not; but, like shapes in dreams, throughout their length of days, without purpose they wrought all things in confusion.”

Here, we will explore quantum mechanics, one of the newest and most advanced fields of scientific inquiry. I think you may be shocked at how explicitly anti-Promethean this field is, and how much it resembles the outlook of those who wish to prevent our understanding of earthquakes. In contrast, I’ll present the germ of a fertile scientific outlook.

The Birth of Quanta

Studying the light of the sun as broken into a rainbow by a prism, Joseph Fraunhofer discovered in 1814 that instead of a pure, continuous rainbow, there were dark lines in the solar spectrum. Developing new methods for splitting light, he was able to determine the wavelengths of these spectral lines.

Not only did the sun have distinctive lines, but other materials which emitted light when heated began to display patterns. This type of study, known as spectroscopy, took a tremendous leap forward with the work of Kirchhoff and Bunsen in 1860. They discovered that each chemical element displayed uniquely characteristic types of light when heated. Here you have the spectra for magnesium, calcium, sodium, hydrogen, and iron.

Now, obviously, iron does not ordinarily give off this spectrum, since it doesn’t glow at all at room temperature. Nor does it emit this entire spectrum all at once. Watch what happens as we heat it: it begins to glow red, then orange, yellow, and white. When we look at the spectrum, we find that the different colors come in from red to violet, and that their intensities have an order to them.

Here you have the intensity curves of the different types of light emitted by iron at different temperatures. The particular emission spectrum is unique to iron, but the overall shape of the curves was found to be nearly the same for all materials.

Observations were made and such charts were constructed for many substances. While the particular colors making up the spectrum differed, the chart of intensity was nearly the same for all materials tested. No one could figure out why the temperature curves had the shape they did.

In 1900, Max Planck formulated the principle behind this radiation. His explanation required something he had not expected, however. It seemed that that light or heat (IR) energy at a specific wavelength could only come in discontinuous discrete quantities, which came to be known as quanta. That is, the possible energy at a certain wavelength increased and decreased discontinuously, by jumps. The energy of a single jump, or quantum, depends on the wavelength: as an example, one unit of energy of violet light is twice that of red light.

Einstein used this theory to make sense of the photoelectric effect. This is the principle made use of in solar calculators that you never have to find a battery for, or, if you are an idiot, for rooftop solar panels to prevent firefighters from helping you. Basically, it had been observed that light hitting different kinds of metals would cause them to develop an electric charge – photoelectricity. Einstein was the first to make sense of this phenomenon by hypothesizing that light came not as a continuous wave, but, as Planck hypothesized, in individual packets, now called photons.

Experiments revealed that red light, no matter how bright, could not cause a piece of sodium metal to release electrons, but even dim blue light could. The number of electrons, measured as current, increased with the increasing intensity of the light, while the energy of the electrons, measured as the voltage required to repel them, changed only with the light’s frequency. The electrons were more energetic when violet light was used rather than blue. According to Einstein, bright red light was a series of many photons, each of which was too weak to cause photoelectricity, but even a single violet photon could. A purely wave explanation could not be found for this effect.

Waves and Particles

This is very interesting, but it also presents a huge paradox! While such undeservedly famous pranksters as the author of the most preposterous laws of motion ever developed, Rene Descartes, and the black-magic practitioner Isaac Newton – while these two treated light as made of particles, or corpuscles, centuries of experimental evidence had rejected this theory of light in favor of the wave theory developed by Huygens, Young, and Fresnel. So, we have what has come to be known as the perhaps not-so-aptly-named wave-particle paradox. Optical experiments showed light to act as a wave, but the photoelectric effect requires light to come in discrete units. So, light acts both like a particle, and a wave. I’ll give a few examples. First, let’s take interference.

A simple example of interference can be seen with waves in water. As you can see here, the waves pass right through each other, continuing on their way. At the locations of intersection, the height of the water includes the contributions of both of the waves added together.

Now, let’s align the two wave sources, and synchronize them, by creating a barrier in the water with two slits in it. As you can see, each small slit acts as though it were the source of a new wave of water. The interference of the waves is clearly seen. Note that there are some bands along which the water barely moves at all. The two waves, acting together, are said to destructively interfere at these locations, as though no wave were present at all.

Now let’s look at light. Here, we have an experiment where a source of light passes through two slits, becoming two sources of light. The appearance of the light (as you can see), is completely analogous to the water waves. There are alternating areas of light and dark, just as we saw with the alternating bands of greater and less water motion in the water tank.

Now we’ll add in the quantized nature of light as found by Planck and Einstein. Instead of having continuous waves of light, let’s have two sources of particles.

Here’s more or less the result we’d expect, if light behaved this way:

Clearly, this didn’t happen with light – the light formed bands just like the waves of water.

So, let’s try a new experiment. Researchers have performed the double-slit interference experiment not with a continuous stream of light split in two, but rather by launching individual photons, one at a time towards a plate with two slits in it. What do you think they saw?

At first, the photons come through willy-nilly, but as we count more and more, bands begin to appear and then become quite clear. Even though only one photon is in the apparatus at a time, we still get the exact same pattern as with a stream of light or a wave of water passing through two slits. It seems as though each photon went through both slits, interfered with itself, and then made a single spot on the detector. This is really shocking! How could light both be a particle as regards the photoelectric effect, and yet – when launched individually – act as a wave in this experiment?

Let’s take another example. This one is given by Einstein. We’ll take two pieces of metal. The first is struck by an electron, which then emits an x-ray, which strikes the second plate, which emits an electron with energy equal to the first. If the x-ray was a wave (which it was shown to be by a student of Planck), then how did the wave “collapse” into the one point of the plate that the electron was emitted? Einstein asked: how did the rest of the x-ray wave know to “disappear”?

The Hit-Men Arrive

This newborn field of quantum science was still an infant when neurotic cowards operating as Zeus’s hit-men moved in. Already, by 1927, when the international Solvay Conference met to discuss these and other issues, the prevailing view, as expressed by Bohr, was a purely statistical one. In order to avoid the difficult problem, which demanded research in the broader fields of life and cognition, Bohr and his ilk drew the line, and sought to end the debate, saying, incredibly, that in the very small there is no reality!

No, I’m not kidding here. You see, statistical approaches to these phenomena had some application. When single photons were put through the double-slit apparatus, each one’s position had not yet been explained, but the overall distribution of many of them was explained, as the bands.

Take this “Plinko” board for example. Each ball’s final location might seem to be unknowable, but the overall distribution creates what is known as the “normal” distribution. For Bohr, who used Schrödinger’s work on waves in a way that Schrödinger would later not appreciate, rather than the particle going through both slits, instead the probability of finding it in a certain location passed through both slits. The probability then interfered the way a wave would, and then, upon reaching the photographic plate at the end, the probability wave rolled dice and chose a position based on the various possibilities of where it might have arrived. Now, statistically, this was true for a large number of particles, but what of individual ones? Was it impossible to understand them?

Well, since a whopping twenty years had gone by without a complete explanation that could explain what each photon did, and with such seeming troubles as the so-called Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Bohr gave up, and insisted that everyone else do so as well. Even before any serious attempts had been made to study quantum processes in life, Bohr proclaimed: “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum mechanical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature.” What’s more, Bohr thought that he had already figured out almost everything that {could be said} about the nature of quantum particles! What arrogance!

Doesn’t he sound exactly like the earthquake-science deniers who say that it is completely impossible to predict earthquakes, while the overall possibility of them occurring is, on maybe a 30-year period? Just as Bohr would say that an overall distribution of photons is predictable, although individuals are not, today’s self-claimed earthquake-experts say that individual earthquakes are unpredictable or “stochastic”. In both cases, the attempt is being made to take a new field of experimental data, offering the possibilities of great breakthroughs, and killing it.

It’s important to note that this isn’t just Bohr’s personality as an individual or Robert Geller’s neurotic problems: it’s the cultural relic of Zeus that Prometheus fought against. Bohr’s reasoning was required by his flawed, neurotic outlook, not by experimental evidence. He put forward a political, moral theory, not a scientific one.

Einstein never submitted to the death of “statistical completeness.” In a 1939 letter to his friend Schrödinger, he wrote: “I am as convinced as ever that the [statistical] wave representation of matter is an incomplete representation of the state of affairs, no matter how practically useful it has proved itself to be.” Later, in 1950, Einstein wrote him: “You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality – if only one is honest. Most of them simply do not see what sort of risky game they are playing with reality – reality as something independent of what is experimentally established... It seems to me that the fundamentally statistical character of the theory is simply a consequence of the incompleteness of the description... It is rather rough to see that we are still in the stage of our swaddling clothes, and it is not surprising that the fellows struggle against admitting it (even to themselves).”

Let’s adopt Einstein’s outlook, and talk about what should have happened in the study of quantum phenomena, and what should happen now with earthquake science, by way of an example from the past.

A Clue from the Past

Johannes Kepler was presented with a problem as difficult in his day as quantum phenomena are in ours: the motion of the planets. His astronomer predecessors seemed to differ in their approaches, but all shared the statistical approach that was later adored by Niels Bohr. Ptolemy moved the planets around the earth. Copernicus said the planets moved around the center of the Earth’s orbit (which is near the sun). Brahe based everything on the earth, around which the sun moved, encircled by the other planets. Kepler created a totally new astronomy, but rather than present his results as formulas or conclusions, he took the approach of Plato’s Socrates, and made his fellows realize for themselves the error of their ways.

Just as Socrates would rarely personally disagree himself with his interlocutors, instead showing that their own thoughts were inconsistent and they disagreed with themselves, similarly, Kepler created a model using the techniques of his predecessors. He did so with the most extreme precision, the best possible data, new forms of error correction, using the actual sun at the center, years of calculation to get the best possible parameters, and he did it all while keeping the statistical-mathematical approach of his predecessors: he took their geometric approach and based everything on circular motion.

Kepler called his model the Vicarious Hypothesis – he called it “vicarious” because he didn’t consider circles to be the real cause for the motion of the planets. It worked wonderfully, however. To measure its accuracy, let’s note that there are two ways of measuring a planet’s position, just like there are two ways of measuring position on the earth. There is its longitude along the zodiac ecliptic, and there’s also its latitude, above or below it, just like longitude and latitude on the earth. Kepler’s vicarious hypothesis model gave the longitude exactly to within the limits of observation of his day. But, the distances of the planets did not agree with observed latitudes.

Correcting for the latitude-based measurements, the longitudes were then off by up to eight minutes (which is 0.13 degrees), a tiny amount, comparable to holding a pencil lead at arm’s length. But, these eight minutes were enough: the best possible statistical model had failed to work. And since the data were of the highest possible quality, it meant that statistics itself had failed. The planets could not be understood by modeling their perceived positions. Abandoning statistics and mathematics altogether, Kepler became the first physical astronomer, detailing how the power of the sun caused the motions and orbits of the planets. Later, in his Harmonies of the World, Kepler developed the principle of universal gravitation, as a harmonic intention giving rise to the relationships between the orbits. This principle of gravitation is not a point-to-point force: it is a principle of ordered development.

Bohr’s approach repudiates the breakthroughs that Kepler made for science, and sets scientific method back centuries.

Quantum Cracks

While Kepler relied on eight minutes of arc, the cracks in statistical quantum theory are more like gaping chasms! I’ll give two examples, and then we’ll return to earthquake science and cosmic radiation.

The first of these examples is seen in the work of Russian researcher Simon Shnoll. His investigations counter the quantum mechanics explanation of nuclear decay, according to which decay occurs when the randomly fluctuating energy of a nucleus reaches a great enough level, and the nucleotide decays. By the quantum mechanics interpretation, the overall decay rates are knowable, but individual decay events are completely random, because they are driven by a random process.

Now here’s our example of balls falling down a pegboard. If we release lots of balls, we get a nice distribution curve, matching the normal distribution curve. But what if we only use a few balls? Then the shape of the distribution is irregular. Simon Shnoll created such shapes by counting the decay of radioactive nuclides. They had an overall decay rate that was regular, but had a different “texture” of decay from one moment to the next. To get this texture, he would count the number of decays per minute for an hour, and then he’d make a table.

Then, he’d look at how many of the minutes had a certain number of decay events.

After putting these numbers into charts known as histograms, he compared them. He noted similarities for hours that followed each other, but also for histograms that were exactly 24 hours apart! He also found that two histograms exactly one month apart, or one year apart, were much more likely to be similar than those separated by, say, 50 days.

Thus, Shnoll demonstrated that radioactive decay, which is supposedly statistically random at its base, according to quantum mechanics, has periodicities in its fine-structure. While Kepler had only eight minutes of arc to prove the failure of completeness through statistics, look at the clear evidence that Shnoll has afforded us! There must be a cause for these periods. If decay were truly random, we wouldn’t find any patterns at all!

Life, and Beyond

Numerous living processes defy explanation by mere chemistry. A recent LPACTV report discussed the quantum spin-selectivity of DNA. The “spin” of an electron is a quantum property analogous to the polarization of light. When DNA strands were deposited onto a plate of gold, the electrons emitted when UV light was shined upon the plate had a shockingly high level of spin-alignment, one that would require magnetic fields hundreds of times stronger than an MRI machine if it were to be created abiotically. Yet, it occurs in the context of life at normal room temperature. Does this mean that DNA has intense magnetic fields within it? No, not necessarily – it just shows that physics cannot explain life!

Another paradox concerns the efficiency of photosynthesis. While human progress as a whole defies the second law of thermodynamics, no single mechanical process we use is ever 100% efficient. For example, automobile engines convert only about 20% of the chemical energy released during combustion into mechanical motion. Even a well-made power plant is only about 50% efficient at converting heat into electricity. Yet, the transfer of energy from chlorophyll to the reaction center where the molecular work is performed, is nearly 100% efficient! Outside of life, such near-perfect efficiency has only been seen in the extreme cold required for superconductors and superfluids.

How happy Einstein would be to see the biological dimensions of quantum phenomena investigated! And that’s not even mentioning cognition! Are the quantum processes in our brains as “random” as radioactive decays are claimed to be?

A Promethean Future

In both quantum mechanics and earthquake science, we see the devotees of Zeus attacking the very nature of human beings. In both cases, a new field of study is proscribed to looking at isolated phenomena (rock motions alone in one case, abiotic particles in the other). And in both cases, the reigning priests explicitly say that the phenomena they are discussing and supposedly studying are fundamentally unknowable anyway! Take the idiot Robert Geller, who writes that: “No satisfactory theory of the earthquake source process exists at present. Further work should be encouraged, but it will probably lead to a better understanding of why prediction is effectively impossible, rather than to effective methods for prediction.” Such fools aren’t scientists: they’re political operatives!

As we have shown in numerous videos here at LaRouchePAC, earthquake prediction is already a very real science, and can make great strides when pursued in earnest with the support of governments. Overall, we have to invert the sciences, to start from universal creativity, as seen in Man, from which we can then approach life, and finally chemistry. This will put quantum phenomena in the right context, and prevent more people from wasting their lives trying to arrive at the complete Theory of Everything without even looking at life or humanity! Pursued creatively, real breakthroughs on the quantum level could prove invaluable for broadening our understanding of cosmic radiation and earthquakes. Likewise, earthquakes must be understood not as rock-shaking events, but as part of an entire earth process with cosmic radiation influences.

Fundamentally, these aren’t scientific questions; they are political ones. With the pride of Promethean, and contempt and scorn for Zeus, we can pursue the happiness of increasingly exerting our mastery of the forces around us, as we continue the process of developing that expanding portion of the universe accessible to us, for the better.