What Mishandling Ontology Of The Quantum Tells Us About The Coronavirus Catastrophe

Coronavirus and Ontology Of The Quantum: what could they possibly have in common? A failure to think deep and correct:

Many tales about the Quantum, most of them putting the cart before the horse. Same with COVID 19, and other biological problems we face: as I pointed out in a preceding essay, so far the COVID 19 mortality rate is 6% (ignoring cases we don’t know about)… And that rate varies dramatically according to states: for instance, Singapore was able to avoid any death and jugulate the disease, so far. Drastic logical failures are a characteristic of today’s governance… while the freedom to err is part of the learning process, i shouldn’t be part of the governing process. New diseases were predicted, and were seen. There was not enough publicly (hence deep) financed research.

Einstein’s fans want us to believe that we are watching the multiverse, when looking at this diffraction pattern from a single slit, as above. How dumb can one be, and still have a PhD? What I see, observing them, those multiversists, is the arrogance of stupidity of clerks whom the establishment bought. Similar arrogance has been in evidence from the idiotic leadership of the planet; it was obvious major pandemics were around the corner. Research in biology (and attending fields serving biology, such as computer science, mathematics, physics, chemistry) had to be massively boosted.

Errance in governance drove the Coronavirus pandemic: one can’t argue that catastrophic pandemic is a big surprise, there were many spooky and very lethal alerts before that: SARS 1, MERS, Ebola, H1N1, Zika, Influenza A subtype H5N1, etc. One of the Ebola epidemics killed around half of those infected, 11,500 people, dead. H5N1 had an even higher death rate. Each of these preceding epidemic was contained with drastic measures. In the case of Zika, containment nearly failed (France, Brazil were affected). In the case of COVID19, containment completely failed. Israel’s decision to put under two weeks observation any newcomer was the right one. 

Thinking is an art which needs to be improved. Thinking about the Quantum has been a laboratory of thought… and the rats have not exercised well, they have been lazy. Hence a general lack of performance in a situation which demands ever more deep and bold, truth-seeking. 

So out there, axiomatics for the Quantum have been rolled out. Generally they assume what one would want to prove from first principles. So what would be a fundamental axiomatics for the Quantum? That Quantum Processes are described by waves. That was actually De Broglie’s axiom of 1924. The other fundamental axiom is that energy is emitted in lumps (aka quanta), Planck established that one, through a tour de force. The logical consequence is that energy should arrive in lumps (quanta). Einstein got that idea, beautiful and obvious… and got the Nobel for it, because it explained the photoelectric effect. Then Einstein made what I view as a mistake: he deduced Quantum Processes were about lumps flying around (I call this Einstein’s Error, all the parrots have repeated that Error since, without any proof except for the presumably harmonious chorus of all parrots) [1]. 

How do we know this, that Quantum Processes are waves? From the one slit experiment: light passes through one slit expands after the slit, and creates a wavy pattern, characteristic of, well, waves…

Pretty obvious, isn’it?

Copenhagen physicists instead claim Quantum Processes just computes like waves… but are not waves but, instead, are lumps, like Einstein said (no objective proof of either of these two affirmations, which are instead founded, unfortunately for them, on a traditional haughtiness of the elite, the sort of mood an age can be pervaded with).

Similarly, it is pretty obvious that some fashionable mass behaviors akin to collective madness had to be terminated: such as flying all over the world like sardines in cans, just because we could go to an exotic beach for ten days. Or going on giant cruise ships which, when they idle in ports, pollute as much as two million cars. Or all these “businessmen”, or academics being busy flying around the globe to meet and greet, furthering their plots… When much of the activities they claimed to be engaging in could be done at a distance. In cases like that, the argument is made:’Oh, this is private!’ No, it’s not private, it’s tax supported, hence public. When the GAFA act private, it’s to pocket the public subsidies they profit from (watch: GAFA pay no significant tax). “Business” jets make 100% of the CO2 of the US, and, as all other planes, but worse, are massively publicly financed (no tax on jet fuel; usage of public air traffic control; tax deduction of the activity, etc.) 

But mostly what has to cease is under-financing research. Under-financing research, especially in fundamental biology, creates a lost opportunity in improving the human condition, that’s one thing. But the other thing which has developed is that we have altered the biosphere, and so doing, made it hostile to us more than it used to. So fundamental research in all fundamental aspects of all fields where we have altered the status quo, like the viral and bacteriological, or parasitic environment, but also the chemical environment, or the atmospheric or oceanic environment, has to be tremendously boosted… just to maintain the status quo ante… 

Quantum ontology is the logic of existence of the Quantum. The most fundamental, because most obvious, observation of the Quantum is that it makes waves, and waves direct where it tends to appear. By learning to focus on what is the most important, we learn to think.

A completely unrelated example: today Obama was all over the waves, crowing about “Obamacare”. All the Obama fans were probably ecstatic: they have been trained that way. However the fundamentals of Obamacare are clear: US spending on health has augmented relative to GDP, profits of the privates have augmented, and US life expectancy has gone down more years in a row than ever before. All of these were established trends before Trump came to power… and “Obamacare” is still the law of the land. But Obama can talk with that arrogance, because he knows those he addresses have been trained to think tribally, not critically, those his audience cannot focus on the biggest features of the big picture.

The faster we make the flow of history, the more we have to run to just stay where we used to be. And the run is mental. And if we want to run away mentally the right way, we have to learn to think right, and pondering that single slit will help.

Civilizations perish, when they can’t think at the speed of their environment.

Patrice Ayme  



[1] Technical aside: My Einstein Error is serious. It is not the usual Einstein Error, which is frivolous. Einstein, in a crafty self-serving way, called his “biggest blunder”, something which was neither here nor there. Einstein had invented the Cosmological Constant (CC), to make the universe of local spacetimes described by gravity static (otherwise it would expand or collapse). Then a few years latter, when it was discovered that, for sure, the universe expanded, Einstein called that CC his worst error… Because not having invented CC would have led him to predict expansion (he self-servingly said; instead Lemaitre and Friedman did it…) But actually, this “biggest blunder” is all pretty asinine, as all this was pretty obvious in classical gravitation (which is the first order of the modern, present, gravitation theory, traditionally attributed to Einstein, although many others contributed, from Riemann, to Poincare, Hilbert, and all the inventors of differential geometry…). A classical universe would either expand or collapse, under gravitation, no? (MOND theories, which I don’t believe in would throw the entire Einsteinian gravitation threw the window, of course…)

Tags: , ,

6 Responses to “What Mishandling Ontology Of The Quantum Tells Us About The Coronavirus Catastrophe”

  1. ianmillerblog Says:

    The reason w think in terms of photons is that whenever we fire single photons at a detector we detect tiny spots, no matter how far away the detector is. The waves do no spread out, s to think of light as photons is not unreasonable. I happen to think there is a particle and a wave, after all you can do the two-slit experiment with C60 molecules and they are particles, but I guess that is just me being perverse and pot accepting the standard doctrine.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Ian:
      A serious, much longer answer is coming, I have been a bit coronavirus disrupted (I don’t have it, but spent some time asking local authorities to close down schools)
      Diversity of mentality is no perversity.
      The fact we get dots, independently of distance is probably indeed the greatest justification for particles in flight. As you point out, considering the C60 molecule makes my spreading out theory weird and unlikely, at first sight.
      However, take the example of the simplest atom, hydrogen. It’s actually made of two particles (ignoring the hypothetical quarks). According to Matter Wave theory, it interferes with the two slit (or the one slit, for that matter). To simplify, look at the one slit. In SQPR, the electron has its matter wave, so does the proton, and they are both spreading out, hence the piloting effect through the slit. The point is both the electronic wave and the protonic wave make one big wave, all entangled, and…


  2. ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

    Could quantum entanglement really be as simple as standing waves in the aether? Affect one (standing) wave, and effect them all, just like (quantum) entanglement. So, we might call it aether wave entanglement rather than “quantum” entanglement?


  3. ronaldscheckelhoff Says:

    The standing wave idea popped into my head when I was watching the Fractal Woman’s YouTube video about a spring-mass system relating to an aether of plank sized “granules” and the associated standing waves in that system. She has a collaboration with Jeff Yee on this. They spoke of standing waves at the level of atomic interactions, but then it occurred to me that quantum entanglement could be the macro sized version of this idea.

    She has another interesting video explaining how Maxwell’s equations were all re-written as Newtonian force equations.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: