1

Quantum Mechanics

versus

Epistemologically
Different Worlds

2023
2
Content
Introduction
Chapter 1 The epistemologically different worlds” (EDWs) versus the unicorn world
(universe/world)
Chapter 2 The pre-historical context of quantum mechanics: Newton’s „light as
particles” (18th Century) and thermodynamics (19th Century)
Chapter 3 Light as electromagnetic wave versus the EDWs perspective: Young’s
double-slit experiment (1800-3) and Maxwell’s field equations for light (1861/2)
Chapter 4 The discovery of “microparticles” (Thomson’s electrons 1897) and a great
problem, the black body radiation, related to light as “packets of energy” (Planck’s
“quanta”, 1900) versus microparticles (Einstein and the photoelectric effect, 1905)
Chapter 5 Rutherford’s „microparticles-model” (1909-1911) versus Bohr’s bright line
spectra (1913)
Chapter 6 Three interpretations of quantum mechanics: de Broglie’s “matter-wave
duality” (1924), Schrödinger’s wave function (1925/6), and Heisenberg’s “matrix”
(1926)
Chapter 7 Four mysteries of quantum mechanics: „entanglement”, „nonlocality”,
“electron spin”, and “superposition”
Chapter 8 “Probability” and “uncertainty”: ontological or epistemological principles in
the “quantum world”? Born’s “probability of wave function” (1926) and
Heisenberg’s „uncertainty principle” (1927) versus Dirac’s combination of
quantum mechanics and special relativity (1927)
Chapter 9 Two very famous thoughts experiments in quantum mechanics,
Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment (1935) and Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen’s
thought experiment (1935), related to the strange notion of “decoherence” (never
„observed”)
Chapter 10 Other four interpretations of quantum mechanics: Bohr’s
„complementarity” (1927), Feynman’s “sum over histories” (1948), Bohm’s
“hidden variables theory” (1952), and Everett’s “many worlds” (“parallel worlds”
and “multiverse”) (1957)
Chapter 11 Bell’s inequality (1964) and the strange Wheeler’s “delayed-
choice experiment” (1980) (related to Young’s experiment)
Chapter 12 A few details about some phenomena of quantum mechanics: quantum
tunneling, laser and bulb light, the electromagnetic field (the field-EW), from
“micro” to “macro”, the brain and quantum mechanics, Einstein’s special relativity
and EDWs, Penrose’s reductionism, other approaches in quantum mechanics
Conclusion “Vacariu’s mind thought experiment”: all theories/approaches/concepts of
quantum mechanics have been constructed within the unicorn world
1
Bibliography

1
The cover is realized by Filip Iacob - there are three EDWs: micro, wave (Young experiment), macro…

3
“It seems clear that the present quantum mechanics is not in its final form. Some further changes will
be needed, just about as drastic as the changes made in passing from Bohr's orbit theory to quantum
mechanics. Some day a new quantum mechanics, a relativistic one, will be discovered, in which we
will not have these infinities occurring at all. It might very well be that the new quantum mechanics
will have determinism in the way that Einstein wanted.”
(Paul Dirac)

“I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actual philosophy“.

(Max Born)

“If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.”
(Richard Feynman)

4
Introduction
In the middle of 2022, after writing around 15 books (and many articles), and have
solving all the great problems of philosophy and some particular sciences (cognitive
neuroscience, physics and biology), I was wondering if I could write anymore, in the
future. I was wondering about any more topic on which I had to work on. Nevertheless,
until September 2023, I have been already writing four new books (each book covering
totally different topics/domain than the other three works):
(1) Metaphysics: Metaphysics [Big Bang, nothing, EDWs], Amazon
(2) Art: Dedublarea Fiintei si Eterna Reintoarcere: Constantin Brancusi, Cristi Puiu,
Wong Kar-Wai, Andrei Tarkovski, Revista Timpul [four artists: three directors of movies
and one sculptor]
(3) Literature (a novel): Mr. G. riding the Dragon - a story about shit [the dragon/shit
being SS], Amazon
1
(4) Quantum Mechanics: Quantum Mechanics versus EDWs. (this book)
In this work, I will introduce more details about quantum mechanics versus
“epistemologically different worlds” perspective. In the title, I use “versus” because, as
I have indicated in my previous works and here, all theories, interpretations, and
important concepts have been created in a wrong framework, the “Universe”/world or,
as I called, the unicorn world. Therefore, as I will show in this work (furnishing more
details than in my previous works), all the interpretations (not all concepts) and many
2
“principles” have been quite wrong. I try to grasp a very short history referring to the
main concepts, principles and interpretations in quantum mechanics in relationship to
my EDWs perspective, that is, I have tried, at least partially, to follow the historical
appearances of these concepts/principles/interpretations. I am neither a physicist, nor
a “historian of physics”, therefore, I am sure there are some mistakes in my work and,
inevitable, I have avoided (not intentionally) the accomplishments of some important
physicists, i.e. some essential concepts, theories, interpretations, etc. Therefore, the
reader has to pay attention that this work is not an “historical analysis” of quantum
mechanics realized by a “specialist”; on the contrary, it is my interpretation of some
works realized by some (very important or less important) physicists in relationship to
my EDWs perspective, no more. I “interpret” some notions, principles, and
interpretations of quantum mechanics just to indicate how “quantum mechanics” has to
be re-written by physicists (working in this area) under my EDWs perspective.

1
In 2007, the staff of UNSW (Sydney, Australia) posted my Phd thesis on their official site. Working in
each day from morning utill night, after 16 years (6 years as student and ten years as assistent-professor),
I have published my first book in 2008. In 2014, I have already published five books. Until now, I have
writing/publishing 19 books: philosophy, cognitive (neuro)science, physics, art, and three novels. (If I
add the manuscript (very, very long!) about those who have published “unbelievable similar” ideas to
my ideas, there would be 20 books (and many articles/chapters) in 15 years.) Obviously, there are not
completely different works (some chapters appear, more or less modified, in different works), but there
are, nevertheless, different books. In the history of human thinking, I do not know any other thinker who
has created such a “monumental oeuvre” which represents a completely new philosophical “paradigm of
thinking” and its applications to the main topics from cognitive neuroscience, physics and biology.
2
As I will show during the entire book, many of these essential principles/concepts can be considered
just epistemological, but NOT ontological principles, as many great physicists (mainly, but not the only
ones, those from Copenhagen interpretation) have thought until the appearance of my EDWs perspective.

5
 I start with a short chapter about my EDWs perspective (for more details, see my
previous works). Next chapter is about the “pre-historical context” (the classical
physics with (Newton, Maxwell and thermodynamics – in which “the Age of Reason
1
has became the age of certainty!” , McEvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 4). Chapter 3 is about
light as “wave”: Young experiment and Maxwell’s field equations for “light”. Chapter
4 is about light as “particle”: the discovery of microparticles (Thomson’s electron 1897)
the great problem of “blackbody radiation” and light as Planck’s “quanta”/“packets of
energy” (1900) versus Einstein’s interpretation of photoelectric effect (1905) (light is
composed of “microparticles”). In Chapter 5, I investigate Rutherford’s model of atom
(1909-11) versus Bohr’s bright light spectra (1913). In Chapter 6 and Chapter 10, I
investigate several essential “interpretations” of quantum phenomena: de Broglie’s
“matter-wave duality” (1926), Schrödinger’s wave function (1924), Heisenberg’s
“matrix” (1925/6), Bohr’s „complementarity” (1927), Feynman’s “sum over histories”
(1948), Bohm’s “hidden variables theory” (1952), Everett’s “many worlds” (“parallel
worlds” and “multiverse”) (1957). In Chapter 7 and 8, I analyse certain mysteries of
quantum mechanics. In Chapter 9, I discuss two very famous thought experiments in
relationship to a very strange notion, “decoherence”. In Chapter 11, I relate Bell’s
inequality to the correspondence between the wave and two microparticles which had
interact before to be placed to a long distance. Also, I reject Wheeler’s “delayed-choice
experiment” (related to Young’s experiment). In Chapter 12, I furnish, very shortly,
some details about quantum tunneling, laser and bulb light, some details about
electromagnetic field (the field-EW), from “micro” to “macro”, the brain and quantum
mechanics, Einstein’s special relativity and EDWs, Penrose’s reductionism, other
approaches in quantum mechanics. In Conclusion of this work, I introduce a thought
experiment in which I indicate that all theories/approaches/concepts of quantum
mechanics have been constructed within a wrong framework of thinking: the
2
Universe/world, or, as I called it in my previous works, the “unicorn world”.
This investigation would be available for all other approaches/
concepts/experiments of quantum mechanics which have been published/realized in the
3
last 20-25 years. Again, I believe some historians of physics will write much better
works regarding the evolution of quantum mechanics (all great physicists working
within the wrong framework, the unicorn world) in relationship to my EDWs

1
The classical physics: Archimedes, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell. (McEvoy and Zarate
2013, p. 10) As the reader will notice, in this work, I show that the scientists and philosophers have to
return to this classical view: the “uncertainty” of quantum mechanics is just an epistemological, not
ontological principle. The quantum laws, as the classical laws, are certain but the human being is not
able to grasp these laws exactly… Just an “epistemological gap”, not ontological…
2
In this footnote, I mention an important aspect of this book. In my carreer, I had been simultaneously
working on topics from different particular sciences and philosophy. In general, in each of my book, I
have investigated, under my EDWs perspective, topics from different particular sciences and philosophy.
On the contrary, for the first time, in this book, I have been working only on quantum mechanics. At the
beginning of this manuscript, I introduced some paragraphs (partially re-written) referring to my EDWs
perspective from my previous works (mainly, from Vacariu and Vacariu 2019).
3
I mention, because my English is not my native language, in this book (as in all my books) I have
introduced quite many quotations. I have also done this to same time… Moreover, any italics from a
quoted paragraph is realized by the author(s). Therefore, I will not mention “his/their italics” anymore.

6
perspective in the next decades… Just few paragraphs (re-written, anyway) of this book
are from my previous works, the majority of paragraphs are new. So, this book is a
totally new book the topic being only “quantum mechanics versus my EDWs”.
For Einstein, 1905 was an incredible year: he graduated his PhD and published four
articles: Brownian motion, two about special relativity, E = mc2. Trying to show, in last
decades of his life, that quantum mechanics was “incomplete”, Einstein was partially
(not completely) right. However, Einstein did not have my courage to think quantum
mechanics is wrong. For me, 2023 has been an incredible year since I have been
writing/publishing four books on very different topics. In my previous works, I have
showed that all the interpretations of quantum mechanics were not “incomplete” but
totally wrong. Anyway, in my work 2016, I indicated “spacetime” could not have any
ontology, therefore, I re-wrote both the special and the general relativity without
spacetime (using only motions and physical entities in EDWs). Discovering the
existence of EDWs (existences of ED entities/processes), I have changed completely
the entire framework of human thinking (the wrong framework one was “unicorn
world”, i.e, the “universe/world”). In this way, I have demolished (partially or totally)
all the great scientific theories and philosophical approaches. I have changed everything
in human knowledge and this has been the main reason thousands and thousands of
“academic professors” (US, Germany, Canada, etc.) have plagiarized my ideas. (see
my “dark list” on the Internet) For the next 200 years (probabilistically speaking), the
scientists and philosophers would do nothing new, only realizing certain experiments
1
which confirm my EDWs. Nevertheless, there are thousands of experiments (physics,
cognitive neuroscience, biology) who have already confirmed my EDWs perspective.

1
Recall the persons who received Nobel for physics in 2022: three physicists (their teams) working on
certain empirical experiments which proved “entanglement/nonlocality” (one of the greatest mystery) of
quantum phenomena. However, nobody explained correctly “entanglement” and nonlocality just because
everybody had been working within the unicorn world until 2006 when the first professors (in my dark
list there have been tens, but I am sure there would be, at least, hundreds) plagiarized my ideas. I
explained entanglemet with the EDWs. The confirmation of my approach? So many “academic
professors” (scientists from physics, cognitive neuroscience and biology and philosophers from
philosophy) have plagiarized my ideas. Since 2014, I have been continuously fighting with those who
have plagarized my ideas even if I have discovered many of them in the last six years. “Victory is always
possible for the person who refuses to stop fighting.” (Napoleon Hill) I have never stoped fighting, I
would never stop fighting for my ideas. Only one person in at least five centuries could change
completely the largest framework of human thinking (the unicorn world, i.e., the universe/world, in my
case). Obviously, „we are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” (Aristotle)

7
Chapter 1

The epistemologically different worlds” (EDWs)

versus the unicorn world (universe/world)1

In this chapter, I will introduce some principles of the EDWs perspective which refer
to the existences of objects/entities and their interactions. These principles are valid for
any set of non-living objects (natural and artificial, or man-made). We will see that the
physical (non-living) objects (processes) do not exist, as it has been assumed so far, in
the same “world” or “Universe” (namely the unicorn world), but they exist in the EDWs
(epistemologically different worlds).
Like all old approaches, the physical theories elaborated in the 20th century had
referred to the universe/world (the unicorn world): after many “Big Bangs” (from my
viewpoint, see my previous works), there was “quantum plasma” (made of quarks and
gluons), which had an extremely high temperature. As the plasma became less and less
hot, the first microparticles (photons) escaped from that plasma. Later, the planets
appeared in the “universe” and much later, life emerged on the surface of at least one
planet, the Earth. This view is constructed within the paradigm of the
“universe”/unicorn world. As we will see in this work (as in previous works), the notion
of “universe/world” is completely wrong. Let me indicate how these sets of ED
(epistemologically different) objects and therefore these EDWs appeared. There were
the electromagnetic fields/waves which appeared after many Big Bangs, then, in the
same place where these electromagnetic fields were placed, but corresponding to them,
the microparticles (the micro-EW) appeared, and later the macro-entities (the planets,
etc.) (the macro-EW) appeared. Around 4.5 billion years ago, Earth appeared and, later
life (the life/mind-EW) appeared on this planet. I introduce five principles concerning
physical objects and their interactions.2
(1) Epistemologically different interactions constitute epistemologically different
objects, and epistemologically different objects determine epistemologically different
interactions.
(2) Any object exists only at “the surface”, due to the interactions which constitute it.
(3) Any object exists in a single EW and interacts only with the objects from the same
EW.
(4) Any EW (a set of objects and their interactions) appears from and disappears into
nothing.
(5) Any EW is, therefore all EDWs share the same objective reality, even if one EW
does not exist for any other EDW.
The existence of a (physical) object generally requires a “spatio-temporal”
framework. However, in our book 2016b (or next chapter of this book), we indicated
that the space and time (or spacetime) cannot even exist, i.e., space and time (spacetime)
cannot have any ontological status. The ontological status of space and time (spacetime)
would produce strong ontological contradictions in both paradigms: the EDWs
framework or the wrong unicorn world (the Universe/world). Every object exists in one
single epistemological world (EW), which means that the object exists and interacts
only with the entities from the same EW. The main notions of the EDWs perspective
(existence and interaction/perception) are strongly interrelated. (See our previous

1 Large parts of this chapter can be found in our previous works (2002-2008-2016-2017).
2 These principles appeared in Gabriel Vacariu’s previous works 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, etc.

8
works) The great English philosopher Berkeley said that “to exist means to be
perceived”. From our perspective, the “interaction” is a kind of “perception”, therefore,
these two notions are quite equivalent in our framework. The proposition (1) or
Berkeley’s slogan can be rephrased in the following way: “To exist means to interact”.
The planets existed and had existed long before man appeared on Earth and they w i l l
exist even if human beings disappear i n t h e f u t u r e . The planets (like all the
macroscopic objects) exist one for the others within the macro-EW. This statement is
also valid for the microparticles which exist within the micro-EW. The human body is
not the only entity who “ perceives”/“ interacts” with different macro-objects/entities.
There are micro-entities, for instance, which interact within the micro-EW in the same
place, at the same “time”/period.
If an object is constituted by certain interactions with other entities/objects, what
does constitution mean? The interactions constitute the “surface” of an object (i.e., the
object itself since there is no “inside object” – emergence, any kind, being a wrong
notion). When a human being perceives an object with the help of her eyes, she actually
sees only the surface of the object. For example, a man looks at an apple on a table in
front of her. She simply sees that apple (the apple as a “whole”), but she does not see
anything “inside” the apple. In order to see the inside of that apple, the apple needs to
be cut. If she cuts the apple in two parts, that apple no longer exists as an object/entity,
but only two parts of that apple would exist.
I will make a very important observation: the apple is perceived not just by men,
but also by other animals; also, the apple interacts with other objects (it can interact
with other apples, for instance). Let us suppose that the apple is on a plate placed on a
table. As we have written above, we know that the man interacts with (perceives) the
plate which, in its turn, interacts with the table. In the EDWs perspective, since the
apple, the plate and the table interact (the entities “perceive” each other), these objects
are in the same EW. Of course, an apple does not interact only with the plate and the
table, but it can interact with other objects, as well (e.g. with other apples in a fruit
basket). The essential thing is that these actions are precisely the ones that constitute
the apple, the plate and the table. In other words, these interactions furnish for the
ontological status of these macro-objects. Without these interactions, the apple (like all
entities/objects) would simply not exist. In other works, if only the micro-EW (i.e., only
the micro-entities) existed, that apple (the only macro-entity in the “universe”) would
not exist. Instead, only the microparticles would exist in the micro-EW. I emphasize
again that any apple (like any macro-object) does not exist for an electron (for any
microparticle) since there ED set of entities which belong to EDWs.
We can use the same reasoning in the case of planets. If there were a single planet
in the “Universe”, without anything else existing outside of it, that planet would not
exist just because it would not interact with anything else. A planet exists only because
it interacts with other planets, in other words, those interactions constitute that planet.
It is therefore absurd to claim that the planet would exist “by itself” or “it would exist
1
for God”. Instead, there would be the microparticles corresponding to the planet, since
they would interact with each other.
Another question is: “How did natural objects, such as planets, appear?” According
to the current physical theories, after the Big Bang, the first entities which appeared in
the “Universe” were the electromagnetic waves and than the microparticles appeared
but, according to the EDWs, these microparticles (which correspond to the micro-EW)

1 As we indicated in our Metaphysics (2019), last chapter, “God” cannot even exist!” (it does not matter
religion)…

9
correspond to the electromagnetic waves (which belong to the field/wave-EW). Later,
the planets (macro-entities) were formed when a huge amalgam of microparticles were
unified. Within the unicorn world, it was believed that the “microparticles
form/compose a planet”. It was accepted a kind of “identity” between the planet and
that huge amalgam of microparticles. Moreover, one of the elementary rules indicates
that two objects (or sets of objects) cannot exist in the same place, at the same time. It
means that, within the “universe” (unicorn world), the planet cannot even exist, only
the microparticles exist (a planet would be identical to an amalgam of microparticles).
From my viewpoint, this statement is completely wrong: the planet does not exist
for the microparticles, the microparticles do not exist for the planet since these ED
entities belong to EDWs. The apple exists only for other macro-objects like other apples,
for the plate, for the table, for the planet Earth. The microparticles “by themselves”
exist, too, but only for other microparticles and not for the macro-objects like planets
and tables. So, it would be totally wrong to believe (as many philosophers and
physicists had believed until 2005 when I published my article at “Synthese journal”,
US) that the microparticles “form” or “compose” a table or a planet (i.e., the identity
theory). Composition, emergence, supervenience and identity are all wrong notions
which have produced many other pseudo-notions in various branches of science (for
instance, cognitive (neuro)science, physics, biology) and philosophy. Such notions are
simply inventions (illusions) of the human minds. That is why we can say that a planet
appeared spontaneously “out of nothing”. The planet Earth, for instance (which belongs
to the macro-EW), appeared out of nothing, but it corresponds to the EW of
microparticles. Of course, without the existence of microparticles, we would be unable
to speak of the existence of planets, but it does not mean that the microparticles exist
for the macroparticles. The macro-EW does not exist for the micro-EW and only the
human being, changing her observation conditions, can observe (indirectly, through
correspondences) the ED entities which belong to EDWs, but essentially, one EW does
not exist for any EDW. The microparticles do not exist for the planets, the planets do
not exist for the microparticles. Moreover, because of certain interactions, only the
surface of an object exists, therefore notions like “internal existence”, “internal
determination” or “essence” of an object are meaningless notions, when it comes to
characterize an object. An object exists only as a whole, i.e. the surface/whole has no
parts.
I will provide another example: in front of us, there is a table. The components of
that table (for example, its legs) are not separate from its surface, so they do not exist
independently of it. In other words, the “legs” of a table do not exist as “objects”. They
exist only as “parts of the table” in the mind of the person who perceives that table, i.e.,
from the viewpoint of that person, but the legs do not have any ontological status. Only
the table as a whole has an ontological status. If we completely separate the legs of a
table from the tabletop, the table would cease to exist. However, the legs and the
tabletop would exist as macro-entities in the same EW as the table, namely the
macroscopic-EW. (for more details, see my previous works) In other words, the whole
does not exist for the parts, the parts do not exist for the whole. In some cases, like the
table and the legs, the whole and the parts exist in the same EW. In other cases, the
whole and the parts can exist in EDWs: for instance, the table and the amalgam of the
microparticles exist in EDWs.
Certain particular traits are an object and these “characteristics” (the object) can be
perceived, always indirectly, by a human being, others cannot. Moreover, the human
eyesight adds certain characteristics to the perceived objects which do not actually exist.
As we well know, “colors” do not exist in the objects themselves; color is a perception

10
of the light which is reflected with a certain frequency and wavelenght from the surface
of the object and it is received by the human eyes. The human being does not perceive
the thing-in-itself (which does not even exist!), but, in this case, she has a “mental
representation” of certain macro-objects (the table, stones, planets, etc. which really
exist in the macro-EW). A planet can “perceive” (i.e., interacts with) another planet
even though we cannot say that a planet “ observes” the same “ characteristics” that a
human being does. Still, some traits/characteristics remain the same (what the English
17th century philosopher Locke called the “first-order” traits), while other traits are
“different” (the “second-order” traits). Moreover, a bat perceives objects from the
macro-EW as having very different traits from those we perceive. For example, colors
do not exist for the bats. And yet the walls of the cave, for instance, exist both for bats
and humans, even if the “second-order features” greatly differ. Because the EDWs exist
(more precisely, are), the question “Which world truly exists?” makes no sense, because
all the EDWs have the same objective reality and the world/universe does not exist (the
“universe” was just a human mind creation; I discovered the EDWs in 2001 and
published my first ideas about them in 2002).
One of the main problems in the history of human thinking have been the
relationship between different “entities”. “Causality” is one of these very problematic
relationships. Obviously, the notion of “relationships” is strongly related to the notion
of “levels”. Used under an ontological framework, “levels” entail different “kinds of
causalities” (which really exist only in some cases). Used under an epistemological
framework or working within the unicorn world, famous notions like “levels”,
“emergence”, “different entities”, etc. become empty notions, since such
levels/entities/strong emergence cannot exist in the same EW. For instance, throughout
the last centuries, there have been strong debates regarding different pairs of “levels”:
the mental level and the neuronal level, (i.e., the mind-brain problem), the micro-level
(with microparticles like electrons and protons) or the macro-level (with macro-objects
such as planets or tables). If we accept that, in such cases, both “levels” exist, we have
to fight against strong ontological contradictions: two entities/objects exist in the same
place, at the same time. Therefore, it is not possible for a table and its microparticles to
exist in the same place, at the same time. The acceptance of different types of “levels”
has been a quite incredible Ptolemaic epicycle (wrong notions with wrong arguments)
in the history of human thinking. For instance,
- the “levels of analysis” used by many contemporary philosophers is just a “linguistic
game” which used to dominate analytical philosophy;
- the “levels of organization” used by some scientists and philosophers led to
contradictions regarding the identity of certain entities; and
- the “ontological levels”, introduced by Descartes but still used today, produces
ontological contradictions within the unicorn world.
Therefore, from my viewpoint, I have to replace “levels” with EDWs:
- the micro-EW and the macro-EW are, but one E W does not exist for any EDW;
- the electromagnetic field-EW and the micro-EW are, but one EW does not exist for
an EDW
- the mind-EW does not exist for the macro-EW (where the brain/body really exist).
I will draw the reader’s attention again upon the fact that if we reject the EDWs
perspective, strong contradictions and anomalies will continue to dominate philosophy
and sciences. In this context, we introduce an essential postulate, the “postulate of
correspondence”:

11
Since an EW does not exist for any EDW, the “correspondences” (no ontology) between the
entities/processes which belong to the EDWs cannot have any ontological status. Therefore, the notion
of “causalities” (or any ontological relationship) between the ED entities which belong to the EDWs (or
causality between any two EDWs) is a completely wrong/meaningless concept.

The notion of “correspondence” has produced many illusions (“pseudo-notions”) in

particular sciences and philosophy during the last centuries (mainly in the last century).
As we will see in this book (as well as in my previous books), the notion of “causality”
between ED entities which belong to EDWs has always been used in the human
thinking, but this “causality” has been a completely wrong notion created and used
within the unicorn world. From my perspective, related to “causality”, I emphasize
again that one EW does not exist for any EDW. Therefore, how can we attribute a
causality (a “law” or something similar) between the ED entities which belong to the
EDWs since these ED entities do not exist one for another? The scientific or
philosophical explanations of some causalities between the entities which belong to the
same EW seem to be quite correct. However, many other “causalities” investigated by
the scientists and the philosophers have produced strong “anomalies” which created
certain strong Ptolemaic epicycles. Such Ptolemaic epicycles had been created over
centuries, when a scientist or philosopher believed (incorrectly) that there were certain
“causalities” between objects placed (according to that old framework, the unicorn
world) w i t h i n the “same world” (as I called, the “unicorn-world”). T h e h uman
beings have thought that certain objects have been placed in the same “spatio-temporal
framework” when, in fact, some of them didn’t even exist for others (since the ED
entities belong to the EDWs), and moreover, the “spacetime” has no ontology (or both
“space” and “time” have no ontologies).
Let me return to the quite problematic parts-whole relationship1 by analyzing some
examples. Surprisingly, perceiving two objects which appear to be different, people
think that those objects are placed in the same illusory “spatial-temporal” framework
(the unicorn world) and thus they seek the relationship (“causality”) between them.
However, those objects do not even exist for each other, so there cannot be any
relationship (causality, emergence, etc.) between them, not even one of “identity”.
Obviously, the causalities between the entities which belong to the EDWs cannot be
explained through generally accepted scientific theories. Why? Because these
“causalities” do not exist. Again, such anomalies were created because of the wrong
single-viewer perspective of human beings: “one observer, one world”. Within the
EDWs perspective, when we try to grasp the relationship between the ED entities which
belong to the EDWs, in some cases, we have to replace causality, identity and other
linguistic wrong notions with “correspondences” (with no ontology at all!). Below, I
will give some examples.
(1) The example concerning the microparticles and a table (or a planet). As we know,
the table (or the planet) and the microparticles exist in the EDWs, but the table does not
exist for the microparticles, nor the other way round. However, with the EDWs
framework, we can say that the table corresponds to that set of microparticles. As we
have seen above, we cannot claim that the microparticles “form/ compose” the table
because the table does not exist for the microparticles, nor the other way round, so the
notion of “forming/composing” makes no sense. I would like to emphasize, again, that
the identity of an object is given neither by its essence, nor by what it has “inside” (its
“composition” or other related metaphysical concepts, which are all just “empty”

1 For more details, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016.

12
notions), nor by the perceptual-constitutive mechanisms of human beings (as Kant and
some people working in quantum mechanics believed).
Let me investigate in more details, a very simple “thought experiment”: a
researcher “sends an electron towards a table”. The question is the following: “What
does the electron perceive”? A microparticle (the electron for instance) does not
“perceive”, but “to perceive” would be equivalent, in this case, with “to interact”. So,
the question would be: “What does the electron interact with?” Most people would
answer: “The electron will interact with the table”. But this answer is completely wrong
because it given from the “human being’s viewpoint” within the unicorn world. The
correct answer relies on the “point of view” of the electron (not on that of any human
observer): the electron interacts with (“perceives”) a huge conglomerate of
microparticles which, for the human observer (and other macro-entities), represents the
“table”. If we replace the table with a planet, we get the same question and the same
answer: the planet, and therefore its gravity, does not exist for an electron or any other
microparticle (there is no “quantum gravity” because no “graviton” has been discovered
yet, but I believe, from the EDWs perspective, the “gravitons” cannot even exist). I
repeat, the electron “perceives”/interacts only a huge conglomerate of microparticles
which, for humans, represents a planet. Moreover, I emphasize again that a planet does
not exist for an electron, no matter how long the electron travels through the whole
“universe”. In the entire “ u niverse”, the electron (and any other microparticle)
encounters only huge conglomerates of microparticles which human being considers as
being “planets”. However any planet (a macro-entity) exists for other planets within the
same macro-EW. The microparticles and the macroparticles (among which planets) are
certain ED objects/entities which belong the EDWs, no more or less.
(2) An automobile and its components: the same rules are true for the relationship
between the car and the microparticles, which are also components, but microscopic
ones: if we consider that both exist (in the same EW), we break the ontological rule of
whole-parts. However, in this case, the “whole” (the car or the table) and the “parts”
1
(the microparticles and their micro-forces) are in the EDWs, not in the same EW. For
the relationships between a macroscopic object and a set of microparticles (and also for
the parts-whole relationship), we have to replace the notion of “composition” with that
of “correspondence”: in this case, an automobile is not “composed of its parts”, because
the automobile (the macro-entity) does not exist for its parts (the micro-entities) and
vice-verse. “A table is not composed of microparticles”, just because the table only
“corresponds” (ontologically) to a set of microparticles (and their micro-forces), since
the table (and other macro-objects and their force, gravity) and the microparticles (and
their micro-forces) belong to the EDWs.
The “parts-whole” distinction is a philosophical distinction, which has led to many
“metaphysical” (more exactly, linguistic) games that have almost nothing in common
with “nature” (the EDWs). What really exists in the EDWs and what all scientists and
philosophers have believed that exist (within the unicorn world) are very “different
things”. Again, the human language/thought has have quite a dictatorial status in
establishing the dominance of the “unicorn world” (until I discovered the being of
EDWs)…

1
Essentially, the car and its macroscopic components are in the same EW and the identity theory is
correct for this case: the car is “its” macroscopic parts. So, this distinction is an epistemological one, a
kind of “weak emergence” (wrong notion, anyway)…

13
 The conclusion of investigating all these examples is that the parts and the whole
exist (a) in some cases in the EDWs: for instance, the microparticles and the
macroparticles; (b) in other cases, in the same EW, but not at the same time: in the same
EW, the whole does not exist for its components and vice-verse (there would be strong
ontological contradictions!); the whole is “its” parts. In one principle, I claim that “all
the EDWs have the same objective reality”: I use the Kantian expression of “objective
reality” with almost the same meaning. The “conditions of observation” are replaced
by “conditions of interaction” and thus the Kantian epistemological notion of
“constitution” (even if “ontologically loaded”) becomes a true ontological-
epistemological concept available for the ED entities which belong to the EDWs. Some
EDWs do not really exist (like the macro-EW, the micro-EW and the field-EW which
are just labels, no more), but only the macro-entities, the micro-entities and the waves-
entities really exist but in these EDWs. Therefore, some EDWs do not really “exist”
(i.e. it does not exist in relationships to EDWs (or ED entities), but it “is”. Only certain
epistemologically different objects/entities (and their interactions) really “exist” within
their “spatio-temporal frameworks” (no ontological status). So, according to my
principles, “an EW is”, “an object exists” within a “place” for a period of “time”
(“spacetime” could not have any ontology, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016). Using
different conditions of observation (our eyes or an electronic microscope, for instance),
we see that the macroparticles and the microparticles exist in “nothings” (that illusory
“spacetime”) which represent EDWs. All the ED entities and their epistemologically
1
different interactions (all “the EDWs”) have the same objective reality.
The Hyperverse is an abstract notion, ontologically-epistemologically speaking,
and it represents the sum of all the EDWs. Ontologically, independently of our
existence/ observation, the entities of a particular EW do not exist for those which
belong to an EDW; each entity exists only for (possible) interactions between the
entities which belong to the same EW. Epistemologically, using no more than one set
of conditions of observation, the human beings are unable to observe (indirectly,
through correspondence) the entities from more than one EW at any one moment; this
fact is due to the nature of attention/consciousness (a serial process). We have to keep
in mind that in order to observe the entities which belong to a new EW, we have to
construct new conditions of observation which will allow us, indirectly to observe these
entities. Following the ideas of Bohr (see Vacariu 2005, 2008), any new apparatus of
observation is a macro-tool constructed and manipulated by our hands/ body (including
the brain) which correspond to the mind. In Kantian terms, within the EDWs
perspective, the conditions of possibility for our tools of observation should reflect, at
least in part (in certain determinations), the conditions of possibility for the interactions
of a set of entities which belong to an EW. (see Vacariu 2008) We can become aware of
some EDWs only through the “hyperontologization of epistemology”. The ontologies
of EDWs have become epistemologies and vice-verse. Again, the distinction between
ontology and epistemology does not exist for an electron or for a planet; therefore, it
has been the worst distinction in the entire philosophy, creating many pseudo-problems
and Ptolemaic epicycles. The “ontologies” are not “different ontologies” (see below),
but epistemologically different ontologies which represent the hyperontology of the
Hyperverse (this is an abstract expression since one EW does not exist for any EDW).

1
In this section/book, I avoid to introduce the principles of EDWs perspective referring to the mind-
brain and life-organism “dualities”/problems. (see my previous works)

14
 The EDWs perspective is really a new framework of thinking that requires a new
language. As an abstract notion, the Hyperverse (all the EDWs) creates the semantic
framework necessary for the understanding that the EDWs “are” but not “exist” (only
the “objects”/entities exist). Each set of interactions constitutes the “surfaces” of the
entities which belong to an EW. Thus, the “surfaces” somehow mirror the EDWs: the
ED interactions constitute ED entities/objects.
What does the expression “epistemologically different” actually mean? Obviously,
it does not mean the same thing as “ontologically different”, which refers to the
ontologically different substances or different types of matter; there is no ontological
meaning for this expression. The difference is neither ontological (as Descartes believed
was the case for the mind and the body/ brain), nor linguistic (as Carnap - a famous
philosopher who belonged to “Vienna circle” - believed it). The notion of
“epistemological difference” imposes certain hyperontological limits related to the
limits of each entity in any EW. “To exist” or “to be” means to have certain limits which
entail “determinations” or interactions. The living being/the I as an “indeterminate
individuality” has certain limits (the self is not “infinite” in anyway) or, more precisely,
it has certain epistemological-ontological limits. The notion of “epistemological
difference” assigns to each class of entities the same epistemological abilities that
human being has, i.e. observation/ interaction (within the EDWs perspective, these are
epistemological-ontological abilities).
It has to be very clear that the expression “epistemologically different” eliminates
many of the speculations (the Ptolemaic epicycles) that philosophers and scientists have
developed over centuries. It eliminates the ontological-epistemological contradictions
typically available within the “unicorn world”. The human organism needs to change
its conditions of observation in order for a human being to observe (indirectly, through
correspondences) certain epistemologically different entities that belong to the EDWs.
Now we can clearly understand the expression “epistemological-ontological”.
Changing certain conditions of observation (the difference between them being an
“epistemological-ontological threshold”), the self/I observes (indirectly, through
correspondences) certain ED entities/process which belong to the EDWs. In other
words, the threshold is an “epistemological-ontological” one between the ED entities
which belong to the EDWs. In the position of the dictator-observer, the human being
has imposed the tyranny of the unicorn world! Until I discovered the being of EDWs,
the human beings had no idea about them, all human beings believed they were living
within the unicorn world. From the point of view of the human being, it seems that all
the entities belong to the same “framework”. From the point of view of another “entity”,
an object can observe only the other objects/entities which interact with it. In general,
the interactions between certain objects take place in a “spatio-temporal framework”
(no ontology, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016). The framework of an object (for instance,
that of a microparticle) is not the same as the “spatio-temporal” framework of a
biological human organism, since spacetime could not have any ontology (see Vacariu
and Vacariu 2016/2019, etc.), the microparticle does not observe/interact with the
macroparticle. Therefore, the microparticles and the macroparticles are in
“epistemologically different spatio-temporal frameworks” (spacetime could not have
any ontological status, these ED entities are, in reality, in “nothing” without any
ontological status). This is the main reason why we have to reject the idea that all the
entities are within the “same spatio-temporal framework”, i.e. the unicorn world.
Obviously, assuming that everything exists in the same “spatio-temporal framework”
can be just a pragmatic/helpful position in our daily life. However, in science (and in

15
philosophy), the previous and actual “fundamental” problems (including the existence
of spacetime) are dissolved by the EDWs paradigm!
From the human point of view, it would seem that the number of the types of EDWs
is not too large. If we extend the conditions of observation/ interaction to all the ED
entities, however, the number of EDWs considerably increases. If we accept that “being
is” and that it corresponds to an organism, we have to reject the notions of levels,
attributes, supervenience, composition and elementary particles. A “being” (or the
mind-EW) corresponds to an organism, therefore we have to hyperontologize all the
classes of entities that do not interact or emerge or are identical (those that have an
epistemological difference). An entity needs to have a unity that represents its identity,
even in the case of an indeterminate individuality such as the self/ mind/ life. In this
context, based on SP, I will introduce the next proposition, the principle of
hyperontologization:

The I is, therefore all the EDWs are, while the Hypernothing hyperis.

The unity of the I/ self/ life and the unity of a planet have an ontological character: both
are/ exist. If we were just decomposable organisms, or if the “I” lacked unity, we would
be unable to acknowledge the existence (being) of EDWs and the “I” would not be an
entity. Only the “I” (the self with its unity) is able to discover the being (existence) of
EDWs. The relationships between mind and brain (between life and an organism, or
between whole and its parts), such as “identity” or “emergence” or any other type of
relationship, are all rejected just because are totally wrong constructed within the
unicorn world. As a whole, the I is an indeterminate individuality (the implicit
knowledge), but the spontaneous appearance of an explicit/conscious representation
determines the I to be in a certain state. Thus, we have to make another distinction for
the I, between the explicit and the implicit states. Spontaneity is indeed “a determination
of my existence” (see the footnote below) but this determination has to be explicit, since
“the I is” and might or might not have determinations. More precisely, these
determinations are the I/living being. Spontaneity explains explicit/conscious
knowledge. Thoughts could not appear out of nothing, they are parts of the implicit/
unconscious knowledge (memory, etc.) which become explicit/conscious thoughts.
Only an EW (including the living being) appears out of nothing. Conscious/explicit
thoughts appear spontaneously from the unconscious/ implicit knowledge (that is the I).
The indeterminate individuality (of the living being) would be the condition of
possibility for this type of spontaneity. (for more details about self/life, conscious-
unconscious states, explicit-implicit knowledge, see my previous works)
I introduce an essential principle of my EDWs perspective: the principle regarding
the difference between “correspondence-law” (EDWs-law) and “causal law” (EW-law
for one EW) in physics/science.

In a science, there are correspondence-law (or EDWs-law) which refer to the correspondences between
certain ED entities (which belong to EDWs, therefore no causality between them) and causal law (or
EW-law which refer to entities and their causalities which belong to the same EW). For instance, E =
mc2 is a correspondence-law since it refers to the ED entities/processes which belong to the EDWs:
energy/wave and micro/macro-particles. Also, λ = h/p is a correspondence-laws: λ is the wavelength of
an electromagnetic wave (field-EW), while p is the impulse of a microparticle (micro-EW).

So, we have to be aware about the great difference between the correspondence-laws
and the causal-laws in sciences. Anyway, in general, any law is something abstract.
Firstly, when a person sees a car in front of her, there is an image of that car in her mind-

16
EW, so she perceives indirectly that object in motion. Secondly, all the laws (the EDWs-
laws or the EW-laws) always involves abstract notions. Spacetime cannot have an
ontological status, but this concept appears almost in all laws. For instance, F = ma; a
= v/t, v = x/t, then a = x/t2, but x and t are abstract notions since “spacetime” could not
have any ontological status. (see my previous works)

17
Chapter 2

The pre-historical context of quantum mechanics:

Newton’s „light as particles” (18th Century)
and thermodynamics (19th Century)
All professors (scientists and philosophers) and researchers working on quantum
mechanics the unicorn world have been thinking in a wrong framework, the unicorn
world, i.e., the universe/world. There is one exception: Everett’s “many worlds”, a
framework even much worse than the “universe” since, in reality, these “many worlds”
is a bad SF story, no more. (see below) Therefore, all main notions/concepts, empirical
results and interpretation have been wrong until I discovered the EDWs. In my PhD
thesis, previous books/articles, I have investigated quantum mechanics versus my
EDWs. However, in this book, I furnish more details about quantum mechanics (its
empirical results and interpretations). I emphasize here that the philosophical
distinction between the empirical and the theoretical elements of a theory/approach is
quite wrong. All notions (theoretical concepts, empirical observations, etc.) are words,
concepts and images created by our mind. (see Kant’s idealism) Contrary to Kant, there
some mental representations/states that fit/correspond (more or less) with the existences
of certain physical entities. Scientists have to be aware about the difference between
correspondence-laws (entities belonging to EDWs) and causal laws (entities belonging
to the same EW). We will see which notions/concepts/images fit with reality and which
are quite wrong in quantum mechanics.
At the end of his book, Friedman speculates about the application of his approach
to quantum mechanics (Friedman 2001, pp. 120–4). He suggests, as a constitutive
principle, Bohr’s correspondence principle which is strongly related his idea of
“complementarity”. Friedman’s suggestion is that a better understanding of this
principle would guide us to a better comprehension of how a mathematical framework
(a noncommutative algebra of Hermetian operators on a Hilbert space) represents a
system of physical entities. We will see that the relationship between Bohr’s
correspondence principle (the relation between micro- and the macro-particles) and the
idea of complementarity (the relation between wave and particle) is indeed the key
element in quantum mechanics but not in the framework of thinking (unicorn world) in
which Bohr, Einstein, and all the physicists/scientists/philosophers. Again, all the
scientists and philosophers had been working within the unicorn world (as I called the
„universe”/world which does not even exist).
In this work, among other things, I will show that nonlocaltiy/entanglement, the
“superposition” of wave and particle, the relationship between micro- and macro-
objects, and Hilbert space which represents the superposition of several positions of a
particle before measurement are the main interrelated problems (involving wrong
concepts/principles) imposed by the unicorn-world in quantum mechanics. Other
related features give the conundrum of quantum mechanics. Again, all the (un)famous
problems of quantum mechanics had been constructed within a wrong framework of
thinking, the unicorn world. For instance, even if notions like complementarity and
non-locality or certain empirical notions like “matter” and “energy” are only
theoretically characterized, quantum mechanics has had great empirical application
since 1930’s until today. The main problem consists in the unification of the conceptual
framework of quantum mechanics with the “best contemporary space-time theories
(both the special and general theories of relativity)”. (Friedman 2001, p. 120) In a

18
speculative manner, Friedman considers von Neumann’s idea of classical logic’s
revision for understanding Bohr’s complementarity as a viewpoint from a philosophical
or meta-scientific level. However, he concludes that this idea has to be verified in the
futher. (Friedman 2001, pp. 122–3) Again, the main problem is that all these notions
and interpreatations have been constructed within the unicorn world. (see below) The
constitutive a priori principles “secure the empirical content of each theory”. What does
“empirical content” mean for the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics?
The classical answer is that these theories refer to different “local empirical aspects” of
the “same world” or different “levels” of reality. What does “different aspects of the
world” or “levels of reality” mean? In general, following Spinoza and Kant’s
approaches, the scientists/philosophers (mainly Copenhagen’s group but also many
others) believe that these aspects or levels are just epistemological aspects of the thing-
in-itself. (about Copenhagen Interpreation, below) From an EDWs perspective, these
questions are pseudo-questions because they involve the wrong unicorn-world. Notions
like “aspects of the world” or “levels of reality” pose no problems to the scientific
theoreticians because their theories are “local”. Friedman remains a prisoner of this
scientific framework. In fact these notions are empty concepts, in Kantian sense.
Friedman is missing one more step to achieve the right approach, the EDWs
perspective. He applies these conceptual frameworks to the same unicorn-world, even
if each scientific theory has certain relative a priori principles, a constitutive framework
that “secures the empirical content of the theory”. (Friedman 2001, p. 83) For Friedman
there is only one world, or more precisely one “external space with empirical
possibilities”. (Friedman 2001, p. 84) Obviously, working within the unicorn world
these “external space with empirical possibilities” can produce strong ontological
contradictions. Regarding „light duality”, I want to emphasize some essential details.
In 18th Century Newton’s „light as particles”, Newton introduced the hypothesis
1
that light was an amalgam of „unknow particles”. The Newtonian framework of
thinking (the „classical physics”) is based on certain assumptions:
- The universe is a machine within an absolute space and time
- All motion has a cause, so there is a cause-effect relationship without any doubt
- If we know the state of motion at one point, we can predict this „deterministic“
motion in the future
- Light is an electromagnetic wave (Maxwell’s equations based on Young’s double-
slit experiment)
- There are two „mutually exclusive“ „physical models“ for energy in motion:
particle and wave (light cannot be both)
- We can measure the properties of a system at very high degree. (McEnvoy and

1
We have to recall those two Greek philosophers (Leucipp and Democritus) who introduced, more than
2,000 years ago, the idea that macro-objects are “composed” of microparticles. I emphasize, this
“composition” involves the identity theory: a macro-object is identical with an amalgam of
microparticles. From my viewpoint, such identities involves either an epistemological-ontological
threshold (the whole and the parts are in EDWs) or just an epistemological threshold (the whole and the
parts are in the same EW). (see my previous works)

19
 1
Zarate 2013, p. 8)
In my work, I will relate this view to the standard (and others) quantum
mechanics’s view and my EDWs perspective.
McEnvoy and Zarate present “thermodynamics” before “quantum mechanics”.
Among other things, they write about the “principle of conservation energy”.
(McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 17) Within the EDWs perspective, we have to be aware
that the principle of conservation energy has to be somehow changed. In a particular
EW, a system can loose some energy in that EW, but this energy can correspond (in
other format) to certain entities/processes which belong to EDWs. Also, the essential
notion of “entropy” (a particular case being about heat: heat transferred from a hot body
to a cold one) (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 18) has to be explained within the EDWs
perspective (see our work from 2017).
The entropy of an isolated system always increases, reaching a maximum at thermal equilibrium, i.e.
2
when all bodies in the system are at the same temperature. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 18)

This famous law has to be re-interpreted within the EDWs perspective. We can consider
just a particular case a system formed by the macroscopic bodies. The second
thermodynamic law (“the heat flows from the hot body to the cold body”) has to be
translated within the EDWs perspective. We explain the “entropy” for the
electromagnetic waves (the field-EW): the electromagnetic waves (speed c, always)
tend to become straighter and straighter because a straight electromagnetic wave is
natural, while a curved electromagnetic wave needed a cause to become “curved”;
entropy, from my viewpoint, is the tendency of electromagnetic waves toward “order”
and only the macroscopic objects tend toward “disorder”. (see our book Vacariu and
Vacariu 2017) Maybe, the tendency of light toward “straight line” is a phenomenon
which corresponds to something the pre-Big-Bang. Between these EDWs, there is also
the micro-EW. The behaviors of the microparticles just correspond to the behaviors of
- electromagnetic waves (the field-EW) and
- macro-bodies (the macro-EW).
Thus, the correspondences have to be equivalent to some previous scientific laws
constructed within the unicorn world. About J. C. Maxwell (an atomist) referring to his
atomistic view about “kinetic theory of gases”, we have these two statements:
- “But Maxwell’s analysis, based on Newton’s mechanics, showed that temperature is
a measured of the microscopic mean squared velocity of the molecules.”
- “Heat is thus caused by the ceaseless random motion of atoms.” (McEnvoy and Zarate
2013, p. 22)
From my viewpoint, the temperature is a feature of the macroscopic bodies (human
body has a temperature.), while the motions of microparticles (for instance, “atoms”)
belong to the micro-EW.3 The “fire” and the body belong to the macro-EW, but in the

1
Few pages later, McEnvoy and Zarate indicates the dispute between Einstein’s view (light is composed
of particles - close to the classical view) and Bohr’s view (the probability of quantum theory).
2
About “entropy”, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016, Vacariu 2022, Vacariu 2023.
3 Using “probabilities”, we describe “Maxwell distribution” which furnishes us information about
billions of molecules: in this diagram, x is the velocity of the molecules, y is the number of molecules.
Based on Maxwell’s work, Boltzmann (the creator of “statistical mechanics”, i.e., “the properties of
macroscopic bodies are predicted by the statistical behaviour of their constituents parts”) gives a new

20
same “place”, at the same “time”, there are the microparticles (the micro-EW) and the
radiations (the electromagnetic field-EW).1
The authors introduce the section regarding “The Thirty years war (1900-30) –
Quantum Physics versus Classical Physics”, with three steps which we would like to
investigate them below. Introducing three points (Planck, Einstein, and Bohr
contributions – the “Old Quantum Theory”, see below), this chapter starts with a very
problematic sentence: “Each involved the interaction of radiation and matter as reported
by reliable, experimental scientists. The measurements were accurate and reproducible,
yet paradoxical…” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 26) Obviously, we have to strongly
emphasize that “radiation” and “matter” belong to the EDWs, and even “matter” in
general belongs to the EDWs. With this wrong sentence (constructed within the unicorn
world), we can understand the wrong “route” of quantum mechanics, even from the
beginning.

interpretation of the Second Law of thermodynamics: “When energy in a system is degraded, (as Clausius
said in 1850), the atoms in the system become more disordered and the entropy increases.” (McEnvoy
and Zarate 2013, p. 24) The entropy, S = L log W (k = Boltzmann’s constant, W = the probability that a
particular arrangement of atoms will occur). (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 24) “These new ideas – using
probabilities and statistics of microscopic systems to predict the macroscopic properties which can be
measured in the laboratory (like temperature, pressure, etc.) – underlie all of what was to come in
quantum mechanics.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 25) From my viewpoint, probabilities and statistics
are just epistemological tools for grasping, somehow, the correspondences between the macroscopic and
microscopic entities. (about thermodynamics (entropy, heat, etc.), see our work 2017)
1 I emphasize (also, in other places) that the EDWs are neither “worldviews” (epistemological worlds),
nor ontological different worlds (like the multiverse), but a completely new notion, the EDWs which are
neither “epistemological worlds”, nor “ontological worlds”. The EDWs have nothing to do with
“property dualism” and any kind of “emergentism” or “reductionism” (wrong notions constructed within
the unicorn world, anyway).

21
Chapter 3

Light as electromagnetic wave versus the EDWs perspective:

Young’s double-slit experiment (1800-3) and Maxwell’s field
equations for light (1861/2)

If you think you understand quantum physics you don’t understand quantum physics.
1
(Richard Feynman)

Very shortly, in the next chapters, I will introduce some essential notions regarding the
2
(un)famous “particle-wave duality”. Again, I emphasize that everybody who have
offered an alternative to particle-wave duality has been working within the wrong
framework, the unicorn world (except Everett with his many worlds, the worst SF story).
Everybody knows that quantum mechanics describes both particles and
(electromagnetic, etc.) waves/fields. Following certain books/articles (see
bibliography), let me present, in this chapter, the first stepts in the history of quantum
mechanics under the umbrella of my EDWs. In 18th Century, Newton considered that
light is particles. But, with his mathematical formula, Newton introduced the
“gravitational force” (even if he could not explain what this force is!). Few years later,
in the same century (1783), Laplace considered gravity as “gravitational potential field”
(a field quite similar to electromagnetic field). After 20 years, Dalton introduced the
idea of “atoms” (microparticles), but not “indivisible” (as Greek philosophers believed).
Dalton believed that different chemical elements are associated with different atoms
3
(composed of certain microparticles).

1
Some authors consider that this statement is not correct understood because quantum mechanics have
had many different practical applications in technology. However, Feynman was right: as he emphasized,
it was the “Young’s experiment” very troubled. This experiment had received different interpretations
(= different interpretations of quantum mechanics), but all of them failed because of their wrong
framework of thinking, the unicorn world. The correct interpretation of Young’s experiment is my EDWs
perspective. (see below and some of my previous works)
2
Among other approaches/notions, this “duality” strongly involves Maxwell’s electromagnetic field,
Planck’s “quanta” and Einstein’s microparticles (different notions, see below), Bohr’s “orbits”,
Heisenberg rejection of these “orbits”, the role of measurement apparatus (Copenhagen interpretation,
Bohr and Heisenberg included), Schrӧdinger’s equation of wave function, Born’s probability and other
approaches/notions.
3
Rosenblum and Kuttner believe that the classical/Newtonian physics furnishes an explanation for the
“world” quite easy, but there are some missing details (as I emphasized above, Newton did not have any
definition for gravitational force). On the contrary quantum physics furnishes details very well, but it
cannot explain the world. For Rosenblum and Kuttner, it seems that the classical physics (approximative
explanation for the macro-objects) is a special case of quantum physics (explanations for both
electromagnetic waves and particles-components of macro-objects). (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p.
51) From my viewpoint, the classical physics (both Newton and Einstein) is not just an approximative
approach in explaining certain “approximative macro-objects”. The macro-objects really exist in the
macro-EW, otherwise, each mind (an EW which corresponds to the brain/body, a macro-entity in the
macro-EW) would not exist. Following the Copenhagen interpretation, Rosenblum and Kuttner accept
the role of human observer in “creating reality”: this interpretation indicates us that the “reality of the
physical world” depends on our measurement apparatus, but this idea is “almost impossible to be

22
1800-3 Young, double-slit experiment
In the first years of the 19th century, Young’s experiment indicated light is an
electromagnetic wave. I will describe this experiment through a clip about it: „Dr.
1
Quantum – Double slit experiment” , the „grand-daddy of quantum weirdeness” (a
modern version of Young’s experiment). We shout certain entities toward those two
slits of a macro-plate:
(1) macro-balls („little marbles”): if we shout some little but macro-balls toward a
screen detector through
- one slit of a macro-plate: some balls will pass through that slit and the screen will
record a pattern of points-line (following the geometrical form of that slit, just a vertical
line having a size similar to the slit) hitting the screen;
- two slits: there would be two points-lines recorded by the screen.
(2) macro-waves (water, for instance): we send a water-wave through
- one slit: the screen indicates waves having the most intensity in line to the slit (a line
similar to that line recorded by macro-balls sent through one slit).
- two slits: two waves will be formed by those two slits, these waves will interact each
other: in some points (where the tops of these waves meet – „constructive waves”) the
screen records vertical lines with stronger intensity in the center of the screen; in some
points (where a top of a wave meet the bottom of the other wave – „destructive waves”),
the waves cancelled. Therefore, the screen indicates the „interference pattern” (possible
only for the interactions between waves).
Now we move to quantum: using a special instrument, we send
(3) microparticles/electrons toward:
- one slit: the screen records a vertical points-line (similar to that of macro-balls).
- two slits: we expect, two points-lines on the screen. The screen will show us the
greatest „quantum mystery”: the screen indicates different points-lines which follow an
interference pattern! „We fired electrons, tiny bits of matter” (through those two slits),
but on the screen „we get pattern like waves” (interference pattern), not like little
macro-balls. „How can pieces of matter created an interference pattern like a wave? It
doesn’t make sense.” Dr. Quatum informs us that maybe the experimentator believes
that those electrons „bounced each other creating that pattern”.
So, the experimenter decides to send toward the plate with two slits
(4) electrons in a serial order (one after the other), so there would be no electrons
„bouncing each other”. However, after one hour, the screen indicates the interference
2
pattern!
Dr. Quantum: „The conclusion is inescapable: the single electron leaves as a
particle, becomes a wave of potential goes through both slits and interference with

accepted”: “Niels Bohr, a founder of quantum theory, claimed that unless you’re shocked by quantum
mechanics, you have not understood it.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 52) From my viewpoint, this
idea is an absurd SF story, no more. (see below)
1
Certain physicists will laugh at me for introducing “Dr. Quantum” here. I recall Einstein’s slogan: if
you cannot explain a theory to a child six years old, you do not understand it… (My message for
“specialists” in quantum mechanics: see my “dark list” on Internet, it contains a lot of “specialists” in
quantum mechanics.)
2
Figures 9.13 and 9.14 in Presura (2014, p. 225). See also the cover of this book.

23
itself.” The particle follow the trajectories not only toward both slits but all possible
trajectories being in „superposition with each other”. (my observation: Feynman’s
interpretation – see below) In this situation, Dr. Quantum decides to install a measuring
device by one slit to see the electron passes through which slit.

But the quantum world is far more mysterious than they could have imagine: when they observe, the
electron went back to behaving like a little marble, it produce the pattern of two bands, not an interference
patttern of many. The very act of measuring or observing which slits it went to meant it only went through
one [slit] not both. The electron decided to act differently as it was aware of beingh watch.... The observer
collapsed the wave function simply by observing. (Dr. Quantum)

Dr. Quantum explains the greatest of quantum mysteries under Copenhagen/Feynman

interpretation: “reality is created by our measurements”. However, as I will emphasize
many times in this work, Bohr (the Copenhagen interpretation) and many other great
(or less great) physicists had worked, somehow, within Spinoza’s “dual aspects”
approach and Kant’s noumena-phenomena distinction (both these approaches having
only epistemological aspects, not ontological features). (see below)
I wrote about the great mysteries of quantum mechanics in relationship to my
EDWs perspective in many of my previous works (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, etc.). I
emphasized that these great mysteries of quantum mechanics and physics in general
(like other mysteries as general relativity versus quantum mechanics, emergence,
spacetime, etc.) or great problems of other sciences (like the mind-brain problem
cognitive neuroscience and philosophy of mind) have been pseudo-problems created
within a wrong framework, the unicorn world.1 My discovery of EDWs in 2002 has
changed completely the view on quantum mechanics and all actual or previous
scientific and philosophical problems. In fact, the EDWs perspective is a new
framework of thinking for all great problems in all sciences and philosophy. Therefore,
my EDWs perspective is a new framework for explaining all “strange”quantum
phenomena like entanglement, nonlocality, wave-particle duality, etc. Also, my EDWs
rejects all the interpretations of quantum mechanics, the main problems becoming
2
pseudo-problems. (see below) So, the EDWs perspective indicates that, constructed

1 Born was correct specifying that the main problems of quantum mechanics would be philosophical
problems and not scientific ones: “I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actual philosophy.”
(Max Born) “As Einstein realized, when the foundations of science become problematic, the man of
science becomes a philosopher [Einstein 1936, § 1].” (Weinert 2009, p. 17)
2
Rosenblum and Kuttner: Newton indicated that there are the same physical laws for „both earthly and
heavenly realms”. (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 32) Indeed, Newton related these two realms;
however, Newton refered to planets and macro-objects on Earth like an apple (which means these two
realms) which belong all to the macro-EW. Nevertheless, the microparticles or the electromagnetic field
(for instance) did not belong the macro-EW but to the micro-EW and the field-EW, respectively. R&K
ask about the meaming of „theory”: there is quantum theory, but there are Newton’s laws. In 20th century,
there had been different theories and different laws. Rosenblum and Kuttner believe that quantum theory
is correct (as far as we know), and Newton’s laws are just „approximation”. (Rosenblum and Kuttner
2006, pp. 27-8) Only working within the unicorn world, a scientist could claim that Newton’s laws are
just approximation: they believe Newton’s law of gravity is just an approximation because they prefer
Einstein’s general relativity and they were searching for “gravitions: (in this way, quantum mechanics
would explain gravity and Einstein’s approach would become just an approximation). However, neither
Newtwon nor Einstein (with his general relativity) was correct. Nor the graviton (“quantum gravity”) is
a correct alternative. From the EDWs perspective, it could even exist the graviton. Newton had a
problem: he did not explain the gravitational force (“a force transmitted through empty space”).

24
within the unicorn world, all the alternatives and even the explanations of certain
experiments regarding “quantum realm” have been totally wrong. 1 The “great
problems” have been created within the unicorn world, therefore, changing this wrong
paradigm of thinking (“unicorn world”) with the EDWs perspective, I have dissolved
all these and many other problems from particular sciences and philosophy. Even if
such change is, historically, the task of a philosopher, it can be done by a scientist only
if that scientist possesses philosophical thinking (Einstein being a particular case). A
2
“philosophical thinking” means the ability to change a (sub)paradigm of thinking . I
strongly emphasize that the change from the unicorn world (the Universe/world) to the
EDWs framework has been the greatest challenge in the history of human thinking until
now. In fact, the EDWs perspective is the greatest Copernican revolution in the history
of human thinking.
Since Galileo Galilei and Newton, a combination between a theory and certain
experiments have furnished the best view of modern science. Again, McEvoy and
Zarate introduce six assumptions about modern science: (1) the classical image of the
Universe-machine within an absolute space and time (2) all motions have a cause (cause
and effect relationship) (3) determinism for motion (4) light is described by Maxwell
electromagnetic wave theory confirmed by Young’s double slit experiment (1802) (5)
energy is described either as particle or as wave (mutually exclusive alternatives) (6)
the properties of the system could be measured. (McEnvoy and Zarate 20133, pp. 8-9)
From my viewpoint, there are ED phenomena which belong to EDWs. Moreover,
within a particular EW, the behaviors of certain phenomena can be explain only through
correspondence to the phenomena which belong to an EDW. Within the EDWs
perspective, “determinism” and “causality” are available only for certain phenomena
which belong to the same EW.

Amazing, Newton introduced a “principle” perfectly available for the Copenhagen interpretation:
“Hypotheses non fingo” (“I make no hypotheses”). In this sense, he believed a theory has to be consistent
with correct predictions, no more. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 36) The same situation has been with
Copenhagen and other interpretations. From my viewpoint, Newton, Einstein and all physicists had been
working within the wronkg framework, the unicorn world. Even if Einstein replaced the gravitational
force with „curved spacetime”, in our work 2016, we indicated that neither „spacetime” could have any
ontology, therefore, it does not even exist. Gravity is not „curved spacetime”, but „nothing” (no ontology)
which corresponds to the „curved electromagnetic field”. (see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016 or Vacariu 2023)
We have to be aware that Rosenblum and Kuttner accepted the „Copenhagen interpretation”.
1 This is the main reason so many physicists have been published, after I published my article 2005,
UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas to my ideas. The reader has not to forget that my PhD thesis has been
posted in 2007 by the staff of the University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia) and I have posted
my first five books (all English) immediately after publishing them FREE on different webpages of
Internet.
2
Obviously, there are “small” or “large” frameworks of thinking. The EDWs perspective is the largest
framework of thinking until now which explains, without any doubt, all the most important phenomena
of main particular sciences: physics, cognitive science, biology.

3 I mainly analyse the works of Presura (2014), Rosenblum and Kuttner (2006) and McEnvoy and Zarate
(2013) about quantum mechanics from my EDWs perspective just because these (more or less) popular
books introduce the main theories and concepts of quantum theory for “philosophers”. I am a
philosopher... Many physicists (mainly from US) who have worked their entire carrerr on mathematics
(super-string theory, etc.) applied to certain physical “phenomena” “have worked in vain” (Kepler’s
expression, in his last days of his life, he said: “I hope I have not lived in vain”). (against (super)string
theory, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2010)

25
 Light is both an electromagnetic wave and some particles (photons), but these ED
set of entities belong to EDWs. (more details, below) “Energy” (like “light” and many
other phenomena, i.e., entities and processes) is also a “label” for entities/processes
which belong to the EDWs. Anyway, I strongly emphasize that there are no “cause-
effect” relationships between the ED entities which belong to the EDWs. Again, for
explaining certain phenomena from a particular EW, we have to introduce the idea of
“correspondences” between the ED entities/phenomena belonging to the EDWs.
Nevertheless, such correspondences do not have any ontological status; these notions
are creations of human mind, no more. The EDWs perspective furnishes neither a
classical view, nor a quantum view about quantum processes (both constructed within
the “unicorn-world”), but a completely new perspective which dissolves many eternal
problems of quantum mechanics and other scientific and/or philosophical problems
from other sciences and philosophy.

1861/2 Maxwell, field equations for “light”

Following the (un)famous Young’s “double-slit experiment”, Faraday worked on
electric and magnetic fields. Maxwell accomplished the unification of these fields in
one single field: the electromagnetic field. We have to notice that any field has a
continuous property (extension in all “spacetime”), while any particle is a discrete entity.
As we will see below, in quantum mechanics, the “discretness” of any microparticle
became a great problem. As we have already know, from the EDWs perspective, there
are two EDWs: the micro-EW and the field-EW. So, Maxwell’s equations which unifies
the electric and magnetic field in the “electromagnetic field”.

These equations are about:

1. The electric charge generates an electric field.
2. There are no magnetic charges associated with the magnetic field (there are no magnetic monopoles).
3. A variable magnetic field generates an electric field. (Faraday’s electromagnetic induction law).
4. A magnetic field is produced either by the electric charges in motion or by the variations of electric
field. (Presura 2014, p. 69)1

Again, within the EDWs perspective, there is no problem in interpreting Maxwell’s

equations. For instance, referring to the first equation, we have to consider that the
electric charge (a microparticle) does not “generate” an electric field since these entities
belong to the EDWs. It is about the “coiled up/wrapped” electromagnetic wave (which
corresponds, in the micro-EDW, to a microparticle) which it is part of the
electromagnetic “field”. Regarding the third law, the magnetic field and the electric
field are two faces of the same phenomena which belongs to an EDW, the
electromagnetic field-EW. 2 The same observation is available for the fourth laws.

1 Maxwell’s equations are the same in any inertial system of reference. That is, the electromagnetic laws
are the same in all inertial systems of reference. (Presura 2014, p. 95) In this context, recall the postulate
of Einstein’s special relativity: light has the same speed, c, in any referential system. Moreover, the speed
does not dilate “time” and contract “space” since spacetime could not have any ontology: as we wrote in
2016, 2017, etc., it is about motion, i.e., greater speed, means longer motion. Even Einstein worked
within the unicorn world…
2 “… the magnetic field exists only because the speed of light is finite, and it can be seen as a
manifestation of electric field in a different system of reference.” (Presura, p. 98) The “manifestation of
the electric field in a different system of reference” does not mean an EW since the entire electromagnetic
field/wave is an entity which belongs to the field-EW. My interpretation is better: the magnetic and the
electric fields are two faces of the same phenomena which belongs to the field-EW (If the magnetic and
the electric fields are two faces of the same phenomena, maybe the magnetic field and the electric field

26
Interestingly, if the electric charges generates the electric field which generates the
magnetic field which generates the electric field (and so on), this process continues
even if the electric charges disappear.1 (Presura 2014, p. 70)

belong to the EDWs. Working within the EDWs perspective, based on experiments, the physicists have
to furnish the solution to this problem.)
1 “If there is an electric change which initial position changes, this process would produce a variable
electric field which, in its turn, would produce a variable magnetic field.” (Presura 2014, p. 71) These
are the electromagnetic waves with the speed c. Maxwell predicted the existence of electromagnetic
waves (who predicted that light is an electromagnetic wave) and Hertz came with the first prove.
(Presura, p. 73). According to Maxwell, an electromagnetic wave oscillates because the electric and the
magnetic fields oscillate. (Presura 2014, p. 75)

27
Chapter 4

The discovery of “microparticles” (Thomson’s electrons 1897) and a

great problem, the black body radiation, related to light as “packets
of energy” (Planck’s “quanta”, 1900) versus microparticles (Einstein
and the photoelectric effect, 1905)
1897 Thomson, electrons
In 1897 (the last years of 19th century), Thomson discovered the electrons indicating
1
that the electron had a “distinct charge-mass ratio and was thus a particle , not a cathode
2
ray”. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 70) I emphasize that, at the end of this century,
the physicists believed that light is a wave. Just few years later (1905), in his article
about the “photoelectric effect”, Einstein indicated that light was made also from
particles. Anyway, the works of very famous physicists of quantum mechanics in the
first four decades of 20th century refer to microparticles, electromagnetic waves and
their “complicated” relationships. Nevertheless, until I discovered the existence of
EDWs, nobody could explain correctly the relationship between microparticles and
electromagnetic waves, since everybody has been working within the unicorn world
(the “universe/world” in which all entities/processees had been placed).
Based on Young’s experiment, each great physicist from that period was trying to
explain the microparticles-electromagnetic waves “duality”. Working within the
unicorn world, none of them furnished the correct solution. In this work, I will
investigate, quite shortly, the development of quantum mechanics in these decades.

Black body radiation

In the end of 19th century and beginning of 20th century, there was a great problem,
the “black body radiation”: any object had a temperature, therefore it emitted radiation
3
because of the vibrations of electrons. This radiation was available for the low-level
frequencies, but not for the high-level frequencies: if this radiation was available for
4
the high-level frequencies, there would produce “ultraviolet catastrophe” (an infinite

1
In 1906 J. J. Thomson received Noble prize for discovering the electron was a particle; in 1937, his
son, George Thomson received the same prize for discovering the electron was a wave. Nevertheless,
even this family had no idea about the EDWs…
2
In the last few years of 19th century, certain experiments indicated that alpha and beta rays behaved as
particles. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 70)
3
In 1900, Lummer and Pringsheim measured the spectrum of light in its relationship to temperature.
This spectrum has a maximum of radiation for a certain color of light which depends on temperature. For
low temperature, the maximum of this radiation is in infrared; for high temperature, it is red. (Presura,
2014, p. 213)
4
Based on Maxwell’s kinetic theory of gases, the “equation of Rayleight and Jeans agreed well at low
frequencies but they got a real shock at the high frequency region. The classical theory predicted an
infinite intensity for the ultraviolet region and beyond… This was dibbed the ultraviolet catastrophy.”
(McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 30)

28
 1
amount of radiation as the wavelength decreases). In Rutherford atomic model,
moving in circles/elipses, the electrons have accelarations surrounding the nucleus, i.e.,
the electrons do not move in stright lines with constant speed. If a microparticle
(electron) has acceleration (or „shakes”) (that is, its motion is not in stright line), it
emitts light. Moving in circles/elipses, the electrons emit light; therefore, they lose
energy because they emit radiation. Losing energy, the electrons should interact with
the nucleus. So, according to the classical mechanics, the orbits of electrons should not
2
be stable, but the researchers knew that the motions of electrons were stable. “When
an object is heated, it emits radiation consisting of electromagnetic waves, i.e., light
with a broad range of frequencies.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 27). We have again,
the wave-EW (the field-EW), the object (the macro-EW) and the correspondences
between different phenomena which belong to these EDWs.3 Importantly, it is Planck’s
discover according to which an entity (“oscillator”, the atoms were just presupossed)
absorbs and emits energy not in a continuous but “in a discontinuously way” (in small
indivisible units of e = hf, which Planck called “energy quanta”) (McEnvoy and Zarate
2013, p. 40):

The classical approach of Rayleigh-Jeans works fine at low frequencies, where all, the available
vibrational modes can be excited. At high frequencies, even though plenty of modes of vibration are
possible,…, not many are excited because it costs too much energy to make a quantum at a high frequency,
since e = hf. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 41)

As a whole, the electromagnetic field (the field-EW) is a continuous field and not
“composed of entities”. This field just corresponds to all microparticles (the micro-
EW); however, if two particles (the micro-EW) interact, a corresponding
electromagnetic wave (field-EW) appears; this wave is a more activated part of the
entire electromagnetic field. (see Vacariu 2023)

1900 Planck, “quanta”

1
“An object hotter than the sun emits more light at all frequencies, and its maximum intensity is at a
higher frequency. But the intensity always drops at very high frequencies. The dashed line is the problem
— it is the intensity calculated with the laws of physics accepted in 1900. It worked well in the infrared.
But at higher frequencies, classical physics not only gave a wrong answer, it gave a ridiculous answer: It
predicted a forever increasing light intensity at frequencies beyond the ultraviolet. Were this true, every
object would instantaneously lose its heat by radiating a burst of energy at frequencies beyond the
ultraviolet. This embarrassing deduction was derided as the ‘ultraviolet catastrophe’. But no one could
say where the seemingly sound reasoning went wrong.” (Rosenbulm and Kuttner 2006, p. 55) Rayleight
and James Jeans indicated this “ultraviolet catastrophe” in 1905. (Presura, p. 216)
2
“There was a problem with Rutherford’s planetary model: instability. Since an electron is charged, it
should radiate as it races around its orbit. Calculations showed that an electron should give off its energy
as light and spiral down to crash into the nucleus in less than a millionth of a second.” (Rosenblum and
Kuttner, p. 63)
3 “These radiation curves – one of the central problems of theoretical physics in the late 1890s – were
shown to be very similar to those calculated by Maxwell for the velocity (i.e., energy) distribution of
heated gas molecules in a closed container.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 29) From my viewpoint, this
similarity is given by the correspondences between the phenomena which belong to the field-EW and
the micro-EW. “Could this black-body radiation problem be studied in the same way as Maxwell’s ideal
gas… electromagnetic waves (instead of gas molecules) bouncing around in equilibrum with the walls
of a closed container?” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 30) Only from the EDWs perspective...

29
 1
For Planck, light was formed by “packages of energy”, E = hf. Essentialy for him,
2
these packages were not microparticles. He was under Maxwell’s electromagnetic
3
waves “dictature” of thinking. Each electron receives only a single package of
energy/light (a single cuanta of energy, i.e, a single photon), not more. So, the kinetic
energy of each emitted electron does not pass the energy received (indifferent of the

1
Rosenblum and Kuttner: Planck presuposses that an electron emits could energy in “chunks” or
“quanta” (plural of quantum); E = hf (energy = Planck constant x frequency of vibration of electron) that
means an electron has a frequency (it vibrates without transforming its energy in radiation. The electron
without any cause/force loses a quantum of energy (radiation of light). However, the electron gets energy
from hot atoms and gets those “quantum jumps” (which violates the laws of electromagnetism and
Newton’s equation of motion). (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 56) In 1905, Einstein indicated that quanta
were microparticles (later called “photons”). However, from my viewpoint, there are microparticles and
electromagnetic waves but in EDWs. Indeed, in the micro-EW, there are processes “without causes”, but
these processes correspond to certain changes of the electromagnetic waves (the field-EW). Until me,
everybody had been working within the unicorn world: Rosenblum and Kuttner indicate that for the
macro-objects, h is a very small quantity. The number of quanta for the macro-objects (a child in motion)
is much greater than the number referring to the motion of an electron. So, we cannot “perceive” a
“quantum jump” (the change in energy by a single quantum) for the macro-objects. (Rosenblum and
Kuttner, p. 57) Only working within the unicorn world, these physicists could wrote the above paragraph:
it would mean, when you move your body, you move it in jumps! It would mean the electromagnetic
field is realized in “jumps” since everything moves in jumps... In reality, the body of the child (any
macro-object in the macro-EW) moves continuously and it does not exist either for the electron (discrete
microparticle in the micro-EW) or for the wave (continuous electromagnetic field in the field-EW).
2
“[Planck] ‘I started it all in 1900 by postulating that matter can be absorb and admit electromagnetic
radiation (i.e., light) only in energy bundles called quanta whose size is proportional to the frequency of
the radiation’.” (McEnvoy and Zarate’s 2013, p. 11) Obviously, this notion “bundles of energy or quanta”
is just an incomplete notion… Einstein completed it through generalizing it (idem, p. 12), but there was
a problem for these great scientists: they were both working within the unicorn world…
3
The discrete values of energy of an armonic oscillator are at equal distances, the differences ∆E
between levels of energy being proportional to h (Planck constant) and frequency of oscillator: ∆E = hf.
“Light is emitted or absorbed through transations between the levels of energy of atoms. In these
processes, photons are emitted having frequency f and energy ∆E = hf, where ∆E is the difference
between levels of energy of atoms. (Presura, p. 220) Therefore, if light is emitted, the microparticle loses
energy and moves to a lower level of energy; if the light is absorbed by a microparticle, it moves from a
lower level of energy to a higher one. Because the total energy is conserved, the package of energy
emitted or absorbed has an energy ∆E = hf equal to the difference between those two levels of energy.
(Presura, 220) Planck’s presupposition was something totally different than the classical mechanics (an
oscillator with certain frequency could have any energy (not only discrete values) because it could have
any amplitude of oscilation). (Presura, p. 214) As we will see below, Planck did not understand his
“quanta” as “microparticle”; more than this, he even did not accept, in the first years, Einstein’s idea that
light is “composed” of microparticles. Presura introduces the analogy between a string of a quitar and
phenomena in quantum mechanics. (p. 215) For our bodies, we have the sensation that the string of a
quitar moves continuously, i.e., it amplitudes takes continuous values (the amplitudes of oscilations
passes through all levels of energy). However, this is not possible in quantum mechanics. Presura: the
atoms are “compused elements from melectrons, protons and neutrons”, that is the oscilation of the entire
system is quantified; “any motion of a composed object is quantified in quantum mechanics, even those
of atoms, stones…” (p. 25) Presura continues: the difference between the levels of energy is very small.
For humans, “in our macroscopic world, the levels of energy seem to be continue and not discrete”.
Therefore, in the classical mechanics, the energy of a body evolves continuously. However, in “reality”
this evolution takes places through “jumps” from one elvel to another, and because the difference
between these discrete levels of energy is very small, we cannot perceive this evolution in jumpings.
Again, Presura works within the unicorn world…

30
amplitude of electric field). It means, we can increase as much as we want the amplitude
of electric field, but the electrons would receive only a single package of energy (hf),
1
no more. (Presura, p. 217) If we increase the intensity of light, we increase the density
of these packages (photons), but each electron absorbes only a single package. This is
the reason, not the speed of emitted electrons will increase, but only their numbers (i.e.,
2
the electric field formed by these emitted electrons ). (idem)
We have to notice again the framework in which all great (or not) physicist worked
within the unicorn world in this period (the end of 19th Century and the first four
decades of 20th Century). At the end of 19th Century, this framework was determined
by Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism field (which involves electromagnetic
waves). In the context dominated by „fields”, Thomson discovered electrons, Planck
3
elaborated his “quanta theory”.

1905 Einstein and the photoelectric effect: light as microparticles

I do not investigate in detail the framework in which Einstein developed his “heuristic
approach” about the existence of “photons” (based on Boltzmann’s second law and

1
Working on Boltzmann’s entropy and his method of “dividing the energy of the oscillators into
arbitrarly small but finite chunks”. In order to avoid the chunks of energy to become infinitesimally small
as the chunks became infinite in number, Planck undersands that “if I did not require the energy of h to
to zero, I obtained my own exact radiation formula…” So, the energy has to be discontinuous. “He was
thus force to postulate that the quantity e = hf must be a finite amount and h is not zero. Thus, if this is
correct, it must be concluded that it is not possible for an oscillator to absorb and emit energy in a
continuous range. It must gain and lose energy discontinuously, in small indivisible units of e = hf, which
Planck called ‘enegy quanta’. ‘Now you can see why the classical theory failed in the high frequency
region of the black-body curve, in the region the quanta are so large (e = hf) that only a few vibration
modes are excited. With decreasing number of modes to excite, the oscillators are suppressed and the
radiation drops off to zero at the high frequency end. The ultraviolet catastrophe does not occur’.”
(McEnvoy and Zarate’s 2013, pp. 39-40)
2
“… the intensity of fthe radiation varies very strongly with the frequency of the radiation. The
dominant frequency shifts to a higher value as the temperature is increased…” (McEnvoy and Zarate, p.
25), for the low frequencies (equation of Rayleight and Jeans), but it does not fit with the high frequency:
classical theory predicts an “infinite intensity for the ultraviolet region and beyond”, i.e, the catastrophe
ultraviolet. (p. 30) “The ultraviolet catastrophe became a serious paradox for classical physics.” (p. 31)
3
“Surprinsingly, in spite of the important and revolutionary aspects of the black-body formula, it did
not draw much attention in the early years of the 20 th century. Even more surprinsingly, Planck himself
was not convinced of its validity.” (McEnvoy and Zarate’s 2013, p. 43)

31
 1
Wien’s law - high frequency) , but I introduce the conclusion from McEnvoy and
2
Zarate’s book :
With the validity of the Wien law (i.e., high frequency), radiation behaves thermodynamically as if
consists of mutually independent energy quanta of magnitude k β f. in other works, like light particles…
(p. 51) All light and electromagnetic radiation travels in bundles of energy equal to hf.” (McEnvoy and
Zarate 2013, p. 52)

So, the ejection of the electrons by “light” is possible because

the energy quanta penetrate the surface layer of the metal of the target electrode, their energy is
transferred, at least in part, into the kinetic energy of the electrons and some are ejected. (McEnvoy and
3
Zarate 2013, p. 54)

1
In 1899, Lenard made certain experiments in which he used the monochromatic light (a single
frequency) (instead of electrons beam) which “interacted” with a metal. “The light ejectes electrons from
the metal!” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 44) “Classical interpretation: A straightforward interpretation
would conclude that the emitted electrons must acquire their kinetic energy from the light beam shining
of the metal surface. The classical viewpoint would assume that the light waves beat on the metal surface
like ocean waves and the electrons are disturbed like pebbles on a beach. Clearly, more intense
illumination (i.e., brighter) would deliver more energy to the electrons. ‘This is not what I found. In 1902,
I discovered that the electron energies – as measured by the retading potentials – were entirely
independent of the light intensity. Further experiments showed another unexplained seffect. There was a
threshold frequency below which no photoelectrons were ejected, no matter how bright the light beam.”
(idem, p. 46) Einstein knew about the experiments realized by Lenard and other physicists about the
behavior of electrons ejected from a “metallic surface” when it is illuminated with light. The physicists
who realized these experiments observed a strange thing: the “maximum kinetic energy of emitted
electrons does not depend on the amplitude of incidental radiation”. (Presura, p. 216) If we increase the
intensity of light the electric field/electric force also increases, but the speeds of electrons which are
emitted do not pass a threeshold. (p. 216) If the intensity of light increases, the density of photons
increases, but each microparticle preserves its energy. An electron receives energy only from one photon
(which absorbed it), this this is the reason, the emitted electron has a maximum speed given by this
energy (independent of the intensity of light). Experimentally, it was showed that the speed of any
electron emitted by that metallic surface did not depend on the intensity of light, but on its frequency.
(Presura, p. 217)
2
In 1909, Jean Perrin “published his research on the Brownian motin of particles in aqueous solution,
indicating that said motion was a consequence of the incessant bombardment of the particles by water
molecules and offering estimates of their size and the valuew of Avogardo’s Number (number of
molecues contained in a molre of gas under normal conditions) more exact than those that existed up to
that time. The results of his experiments were accepted as proof of the existence of molecules.”
(https://rinconeducativo.org/en/recursos-educativos/jean-baptiste-perrin-sus-descubrimientos-
resolvieron-una-disputa-que-habia/)
3
Rosenblum and Kuttner: Einstein presupposes that light is composed of microparticles (later called
photons). For each photon, E = hf. Esentially, photons are created/dissapear when electrons
emit/absorbed light. The waves could not kick electron out of the metal plate since the electrons are
tightly bound. It is necessary a strong electric field to pull the electrons out of a metal plate. On the
contrary, a very “dim light” can still ejects some electrons. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 59) Rosenblum
and Kuttner mentioned one Einstein’s biographer who considered that almost two decades (1905 to
1923), German physicist was almost the only one who believed in light as being composed of
microparticles (as I mentioned above, even Planck did not believe Einstien’s idea…) since Maxwell’s
doctrine (light was a wave because it had the property of interference) was dominating the physicists’
framework of thinking (the interference pattern being a property of a wave, not a particle). We know that
passing through the both slits, the screen register an interference pattern. Einstein’s explanation for the

32
 1
The “ejection of electrons” is possible because of their interactions with photons. “The
energy quanta penetrate the surface layer of metal of the target electrode” is a statement
constructed within the unicorn world: “energy quanta” is, in reality, the electromagnetic
wave, surface layer of the metal (electrode) is a macro-entity, the “energy that is
transferred” is the electromagnetic field and this is “transformed into the kinetic energy”
of the electrons (the micro-EW). These microparticles are “ejected” from where? From
a huge amalgam of microparticles which corresponds to
- the macroscopic electrode (the macro-EW)2
- the electromagnetic wave (the field-EW).
At the end of XIX century, J. J. Thomson discovered the existence of “electron”3 and
Rutherford introduced the idea of “nuclear atom”.

photoelectric effect indicates light is composed of microparticles. Therefore, the mystery appeared: light
was wave or particle or both? If both, there would be an ontological contradiction: a physical entity could
not be both wave and microparticle in the same place, at the same time! The question was “how could
these tiny bullets produce the interference patterns seen with light?” (idem, p. 60-1) “If one assume that
the incident light consists of energy quanta (photons) of magnitude hf, it is possible to conceive of the
ejection of electrons by light as follows. Energy quanta penetrate the surface layer of the metal of the
target electrode, their energy is transferred, at least in part, into the kinetic energy of the electrons and
some are ejected.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 54)
1
“So my hypothesis is this… Within the validity of the Wien law (i.e., high frequency), radiation
behaves thermodynamically as if it consist of mutually independent energy of quantum of magnitude k
β f. In other words, like light particles.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 51) R&K: In 1923, throught the
“Compton effect”, Compton discovered that the frequency of light was changed when it bounced off
electrons. This process indicated that light could not be only electromagnetic wave since the frequency
of the wave does not change when it is reflected by a stationary macro-entity. Compton accepted
Einstein’s approach that light was amalgam of microparticles, each particle having energy indicated by
Einstein. It was the moment when physicists started to accept light is made by photons. (Rosenblum and
Kuttner, pp. 65-6) Nevertheles, the mystery was not solved: was light wave or amalgam of particles?
Again, I strongly emphasize, within the unicorn world, the acceptance of both alternatives
(electromagnetic wave and amalgam of microparticle exist in the same place, at the same time) would
produce strong ontological contradictions. However, we can accept both alternatives only working within
the EDWs perspective.
2 An essential footnote: “… the observation that the electron energies do not respond to changes in light
intensity… The intensity affects the number of photons and therefore the magnitude of the electron
current, but does not affect the cut-off voltage V0 which is determined by frequency.” (McEnvoy and
Zarate 2013, p. 56) The “electron energies” means, in this case, the electromagnetic waves/field which
does not “interact” with the microparticles (photons) since there are EDWs. On page 58, about Millikan’s
work: “… the energy of an ejected electron is independent of the intensity of light… but depends on the
frequency.” (idem, p. 58) The experiments realized by Millikan confirmed the energy is quantified as
microparticles, as Einstein presupposed. (Presura, p. 218) “Such presupposition radically changes the
viewpoint over the nature of light, which it has seen until now as an electromagnetic wave, even if it is
not a return to corpuscular model of light.” (Presura, p. 218) From my viewpoint, light is both photons
and electromagnetic waves but in EDWs. An electron cannot reach the speed of light (it would reach
infinite mass, and therefore, it would be necessary an infinit energy to accelerate it). The human brain
“does not transmit information if only a single photon falls on retina, only if at least ten photons reach
retina.” (Presura, p. 219) Light and dark exist for the mind, not for the brain; photons do not interact with
our “retina”, they interact with an amalgam of microparticles which corresponds to a retina which is just
a part of the body, a macro-organism). The photons do not exist for the mind (not even for the brain, in
general, since photons interact with retina not with the brain).
3 I underlie again this essential case: in 1906, J. J. Thomson got Nobel Prize for showing the electrons
were particles; in 1937, his son George Thomson got Noble prize for showing that the electrons were
waves. Obviously, the electrons are both particles and waves but in EDWs, exactly as light is both the
photons and the electromagnetic waves but in EDWs.

33
 It is a clear difference between Planck’s „quanta” and Einstein’s „microparticles”
(named „photons” by Gilbert Lewis in 1926): Planck did not consider light as being
1
composed of microparticles; he believed that energy is „emitted in quanta”. This view
rejected the idea that light was composed of microparticles. In fact, after Einstein
published his article in 1905, Planck (the chief-editor of that journal) did not accept
completely Einstein’s view. This remnant step was the consequence of the fact that even
Planck’s mind was dominated by Maxwell’s framework (light was an electromagnetic
wave/field). In this context, he could not consider his „quanta” as being a „real particle”.
Energy was “quantized” by Planck, but he did not consider this quantization as being a
“particle”. Such “quantization of energy” (a “package of energy”) was, somehow, “part”
2 3
of the electromagnetic wave/field. However, with Einstein’s photoelectric effect , the
4
„wave-particle duality” had become the greatest problem of quantum physics.

1
Rosenblum and Kuttner: Just in the final week of 19th century, Planck indicated something that
violated the classical/Newtonian laws of physics. It was the beginning of the first quantum revolution.
(Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 53)
2
“Planck had intentionally created an atomic theory of the black body, but had unintentionally generated
an atomic theory of light, where the black body never generates quanta of light at a given frequency with
an energy less than hf. However, once realizing that he had quantized the electromagnetic field, he
denounced particles of light as a limitation of his approximation, not a property of reality.”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality) Only working within the unicorn
world, Planck was able to think about our limitations…
3
“Einstein explained this enigma by postulating that electrons can receive energy from an
electromagnetic field only in discrete units (quanta or photons): an amount of energy E that was related
to the frequency f of the light by where h is Planck's constant (6.626 × 10−34 Js). Only photons of a high
enough frequency (above a certain threshold value) could knock an electron free. For example, photons
of blue light had sufficient energy to free an electron from the metal, but photons of red light did not.
One photon of light above the threshold frequency could release only one electron; the higher the
frequency of a photon, the higher the kinetic energy of the emitted electron, but no amount of light below
the threshold frequency could release an electron.”
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality) So, Planck believes that „energy“ is
emitted in quanta, discrete quantities: E = hf. It means that if energy oscillates faster, there are greater
frequencies. E = hc/λ… h = E/f (h is Planck constant) Planck length: 10–33 cm; time: 10-43 seconds.
Apparently (but wrong framework given by the classical physics), energy depends on the intensity
(luminosity) and not on its color/frequency. On the contrary, Planck’s formula indicates color and not
intensity.
4
Regarding Maxwell’s equations (for electromagnetic field) versus Einstein’s s photoelectric effect
(microparticle), we have to recall Newton’s view that light is particles. Anyway, “the quantum first
appears in Max Planck’s explanations of the glow of hot bodies with his ‘desperate assumption’ that
violates the most basic notions of classical physics. Albert Einstein, taking Planck’s assumption seriously,
soon suggested that light is a stream of discrete particles. Since physicists could demonstrate the opposite,
that light is a spread-out wave, Einstein’s work was dismissed as ‘reckless.’ The plot thickened as this
wave-particle duality was applied not just to light, but to everything. Quantum theory emerged in its
modern form in the 1920s with the Schrödinger equation as the new universal law of motion. The
quantum enigma surfaced as the theory was seen to involve the act of observation— even conscious
observation. Since this made quantum theory look like speculative philosophy, we emphasize the theory’s
down-to-earth practicality by seeing how one-third of our nation’s economy depends on devices based
on quantum mechanics. In an imagined dialog, a physicist then displays the quantum enigma – physics’
encounter with consciousness – to a ‘group of reasonable and open-minded people.’ They confront
physics’ ‘skeleton in the closet’.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 6) Obviously, this statement refers

34
Anyway, in 1905, for Einstein, light was also particles/“photons” (again, Gilbert Lewis’
label, 1926).
Again, there was a great difference between Planck and Einstein: energy was not
emitted in quanta (as Planck thought), but it was “composed” of microparticles (as
Einstein believed). While Planck was still working within Maxwell’s paradigm of
thinking (light was a wave), Einstien introduced a new view about light (totally against
the old view, light is wave): light is composed of microparticles. Anway, in that year,
Einstein published four articles (and accomplished his PhD thesis) about Brownian
motion of atoms, special relativity and E = mc2, photoelectric effect (following Planck’s
formula E = hf, energy of photons is proportionally to their frequency). So, the sparks
of light have to be related to the colors (not intensity) of light. Therefore, only the
electrons which receive enough energy can emit photons; light with high frequency
produces sparks. The consequence is that light is composed of particles: if light is only
electromagnetifc wave, the increase of intensity of light (a property of wave) would
emit the number of emitted photons. But experimentally, this idea was rejected. The
emission of photons was related to frequency, but frequency is related to microparticles.
Young’s double-slit experiment strongly indicated that light is an electromagnetic
wave: the wave was emitted and the screen showed the interference pattern. The main
problem of this experiment was that even when many electrons are emitted, in a serial
order, the screen indicated interference patttern, (waves). This was the famous paradox
of double-slit experiment. If only one electron is emitted, the screen indicates a point;
if many electrons are emitted in serial order, the screen indicated many points under the
1
umbrella of interference pattern of a wave. It seeemed that the electron was passing
through both slits and interfered as a wave producing, only in this way, the interference
pattern. So, Planck believes that light of a specific frequency is emitted in fixed amounts
energy, while Einstein indicates that the photoelectric effect show that light is particle
(light is composed of discrete particles/photons). Again, at the beginning, even Planck
could not accept completely Einstein’s revolution. Why not? Because the framework of
thinking about light in that period was dominated by Maxwell’s equations which
explained light as wave.

to the Copenhagen interpretation (accepted by the authors of this book) “Deriding quantum theory,
Einstein once asked a fellow physicist, only half-jokingly, if he believed the moon is there only when
you look at it. Our book focuses on quantum theory’s ostensible denial of a real world independent of its
observation. But for years after that evening with Einstein I hardly thought about this weirdness, which
physicists call the ‘measurement problem.’ As a graduate student I puzzled about the related ‘wave-
particle duality.’ It’s the paradox that, in one experiment, an atom could be shown to be a compact,
concentrated thing; but with a different experiment, you could have shown that atom to be something
spread out over a wide region.” (p. 10) Following the Copenhagen interpretation, the authors have the
skeleton in the closet… From my viewpoint, Einstein’s position was better than the Copenhagen
interpretation, even if everybody had been working within the unicorn world.
1
“… we will describe interference, which demonstrates something to be a wave. We will need the
concept of electric field — light is a rapidly varying electric field, and it is with light that the quantum
enigma first arose.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 39) We have to recall the notion of interference
later since it explain that light is an electromagnetic wave.

35
Chapter 5

Rutherford’s „microparticles-model” (1909-1911) versus

Bohr’s bright line spectra (1913)

1909-1911 Rutherford, microparticles-model

Rutherford introduced a new model for atom: the nucleus surrounded by electrons. With
his experiment (1911) with „alpha radiation”, he realized that some particles emitted
1
toward a golden foil returned back. Rutherfords’s model was similar to our solar
system: a nucleus in the center, while the electrons motions surround the nucleus. Later,
the nucleus was discovered as being composed of protons and neutrons; the nucleus
was surrounded by the motions of electrons. The electrons and protons have the same
masses, but different electrical charges, while neutrons have neutral charges.
The main problem of this model is the following one: if the electrons moves in
circles/ellipses around the nucleus, than their speed change and therefore emitt/absorb
energy (photons or electromagnetic radiation); in this way, the electrons would lose
their energy and they should move toward the nucleus. But, in reality, the electrons does
not interact with nucleus but the emit energy. How much? In Rutherford’s model, the
electrons could occupy any place between the nucleus and the border of atom and they
could emit any kind of light (having any color). But the experiments indicated that the
electrons did not emit any kind of color. It means the electrons emit only a particular
kind of light with specific frequencies/colors. For instance, the hydrogen emits only a
discrete spectrum having only four colors (not any color!).

2
1913 Bohr, bright line spectra
In 1913, in order to avoid the problem of Rutherford’s model, but based on Balmer’s
formula, Bohr introduced “fixed orbits” for electrons (an ad hoc hypothesis!): an
electron “jumps” from one orbit to another but it cannot be placed between any two
3
orbits. Each orbit has a different and fixed “energy” and, when an electron changes its
orbit, certain amount of “package energy” (photon) is emitted/absorbed. If the electron

1
Thomson’s model (a piece of cheese having small fruits in different parts) could not explain this
process.
2
There were three experiments classical physicists could not explain: black-body radiation (explained
by Planck), the photoelectric effect (Einstein), bright line spectra (Bohr). (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p.
60)
3
“On Bohr’s model, if an electron is excited from its initial energy state, it can only ‘jump’ to an orbit
where its angular momentum wil change – increase or decrease – by some whole number times h/2π.”
(McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 84) “An atom can exist in any of several special orbits with no emission
of radiation, contrary to the expectations of classical physics. These orbits are called stationary states and
are characterized by values of orbital angular momentum…” (idem, p. 85) “A sudden transition of the
electron between two stationary states will produce an emission or absorption of radiation, with a
frequency given by the Plank/Einstein relation… hf = Ei–Ef.” (idem, p. 88) “Even if Bohr correctly
identified the rule of construction of special orbits of electrons, he did not indicate the physical origin of
these selections, i.e., what it would be the process which determine the kinetic orbital momentum of
electron to be quantified.” (Presura, p. 222) Bohr was followed by de Broglie who furnished his physical
model (“pilot wave”) for explaining these empirical results. (idem)

36
moves, for instance, from second orbit to first orbit, it emits equivalent energy. If the
electron is on the first orbit, it cannot emit any energy. Otherwise, if it emitted energy,
it would collapse on the nucleus. Because of these orbits, hydrogen gases, for instance,
1
emit fixed four colors (not any color). Why? I strongly emphasize again, Bohr did not
have any answer. Clearly, working within the unicorn world, Bohr could not get the
correct answer. In fact, none of the great physicist from those four decades was able to
explain correctly the existence of these orbits. How an electron jumps from one orbit to
another, nobody could have explained within the unicorn world just because almost
nobody (for instance, de Broglie and Bohm exceptions – see below) could accept the
existence of both waves and microparticles in the same place, at the same time. Only
the change of this paradigm of thinking (the unicorn world) with the EDWs paradigm
solves this problem (and many other problems from quantum mechanics, physics in
general, and other particular science and philosophy): microparticles (electrons,
protons, neutrons) correspond to electromagnetic field. Therefore, the orbits of
microparticles correspond to „peaks” and „valleys” of the electromagnetic waves. The
strange „jump” of an electron from one orbit to another (in the micro-EW) means the
change of activation of corresponding electromagnetic wave: this wave is continuous
but its parts have different activations (there is a continuous peaks and valleys, i.e., an
electromagnetic field). The electron does not „physically jump” from one orbit to
another: more exactly, it disappears from one orbit and appears on the other orbit. This
physical process is possible just because of the correspondence between the electron (a
microparticle in one place at one moment) and an electromagnetic wave (a continuously
electromagnetic field which changes its values - each point has a value at one moment).
In Plancks’s terms, “energy quantization” means that the energy is emitted in
certain quanta/packages. In Einstein’s term, the energy is emitted in microparticles
(photons). Related to this process is the “atomic spectrum”: atoms emit light with
particular discrete energies: the wave of the electron inside the atom is constrained to
certain wavelengths, short wavelengths have high energy, long wavelengths have lower
energy. This is the reason, when light is emitted by an atom, it has certain code-bar:
each “bar” corresponds to an electron jumping from a wave with high frequency to one
with a lower energy and, in this way, the electron emits a photon. The light is quantified
in discrete packages of energy for Planck or microparticles for Einstein. Until I
discovered the EDWs, it was believed that, in motion, any electron “created” an electric
field in “space”. The electromagnetic field synchronizes with this motion and produces
ripples spread from the electron in motion; this is the electromagnetic radiation (light).
However, in all the explanations (constructed within the unicorn world) of these
quantum process, there had been mixtures of ED processes which belonged to EDWs.
From the EDWs perspective, we explain all these processes knowing exactly that each
microparticle corresponds to an electromagnetic wave (part of the electromagnetic field

1
Rosenblum and Kuttner: For Bohr, the rotational motion of an entity (its “angular momentum”) could
exist only in quantum units. Therefore, the electrons moves only on certain orbits, but Bohr’s ad hoc
formula indicates that the first orbit is the smalles possible one, so the electron could not interact with
nucleus; the atom (its nucleus and orbits of electrons) was in a stable state. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p.
64) (or Presura, p. 221) Moreover, there was another problem for classical model: it could not explain
the “discreteness of levels of energy of atoms”. (Presura, p. 221) From my viewpoint, Bohr’s “orbits”
correspond to the peaks of certain electromagnetic waves. So, the explanation of “orbits” throught the
EDWs perspective replaces Bohr’s ad hoc explanation of these orbits. (I emphasize here, the reader has
not to confuse my EDWs perspective with de Broglie’s “association” between wave and particle or
Bohm’s approach. Both de Broglie and Bohm worked within the unicorn world. (see below)

37
which covers the entire “universe”; all the microparticles correspond to the
electromagnetic field of the entire “universe”). When an electron moves, it produces
the corresponding electromagnetic wave (part of an already existing electromagnetic
field which it has existed in the “universe” from the “Big Bang”).
Working within the unicorn world, in the first two decades, the physicists still had
1
enquired about the „nature of light”: electromagnetic wave (Maxwell and even
Planck) or particles (Einstein). All were aware that the wave and the microparticles
would not exist in the same place, at the same moment. Different experiments indicated
either wave or particles but not both at the same time. In fact, even in our days, there
2
have not been any experiment indicating precisely this „duality”.
Let me follow the development of quantum mechanics within a very short historical
view. Based on the works of Fraunhoffer’s lines (1814, spectroscope) Melvill,
Kirchhoff’s „dark lines”, Ånsgstrom (1862 spectra of hydrogen), Balmer (1855,
3
frequencies of four lines of visible hydrogen spectrum ), Thomson, Geiger-Marsden’s
4
experiments + Rutherford „goil foil experiment” (1908-13) , J. W. Nicholson,
Planck/Einstein relationship between the energy of a light photon and its frequency (E
= hf) and others, Bohr introduced his ad hoc “stable orbits” for revolving electrons
5
around “nuclear atom”. In reality, the “quantum orbital states” of atoms (the micro-
EW) are given by their correspondences to the electromagnetic waves (having
particular features as wavelengths and amplitudes in the field-EW). From my
viewpoint, the “jump” of an electron from one state to another state is neither a
“classical” (“realistic”) movement, nor a “quantum jump”; it is a “movement” which

1
Rosenblum and Kuttner: Knowing the results of Faraday’s experiments, few years later, Maxwell wrote
his four equations for electric field and magnetic field which indicated that these fields are different
“aspects” of the same electromagnetic field. He discovered that the speed of the electromagnetic waves
are c; it was knows that light had this speed, therefore, Maxwell’s conclusion was quite normal: light was
an electromagnetic wave. Faraday predicted that “jiggling of charges” would produce electromagnetic
radiation and the frequency of such jiggling was the frequency of the wave produced. “Higher frequency
jiggling produces violet and ultraviolet light; lower frequencies produce red and infrared. Today the most
fundamental theories in physics are formulated in terms of fields — Faraday’s ‘mental crutch’ is a pillar
upon which all of physics now rests.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 44) The microparticles and the
electromagnetic waves/fields belong to the EDW. “Today”, the notion of “fields” is the main one in
“fundamental theories of physics” only for reductionists working within the unicorn world…
2
In the last years, some experimental researchers believed that the grasped both wave and particle with
the same apparatus. From my EDWs perspective, this picture cannot even exist. In reality, those pictures
mirrors “curved electromagnetic field”, but not particles.
3
Balmer’s equation refers to the hydrogen spectral series: these “sequences strongly suggest some kind
of energy diagram as the emission/absorbtion of light from an atom correspond to a decrease/increase in
the atom’s energy.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 69)
4
Based on their experiments (how an alpha particle beam is scattered when it strike a thin metal foil),
these researchers concluded that an atom was composed of a very small positive-charge nucleus.
(McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 74)
5
Knowing the results of certain experiments, Bohr presupposes that the electron does not moves on any
circular orbit but only on certain circular orbits for which its energy had precise certain values.

38
can be explained only through the correspondences between the ED processes/entities
(waves and particles, respectively) which belong to two EDWs.
A sudden transition of the electron between two stationary states will produce an emission or absorption
of radiation with a frequency given by the Planck/Einstein relation hf = Ei–Ef (McEnvoy and Zarate
2013, p. 88).

Let me translate this statement within the EDWs perspective:

1
A sudden transition of the electron between two stationary states (these states correspond to certain
wavelengths/amplitudes of the corresponding electromagnetic wave) will correspond to an emission or
absorbtion of radiation given by the Planck /Einstein relation (electromagnetic wave).

The “sudden” transition means exactly the disappearance of an electron from “one
stationary state” and its appearance in the “other stationary state” based on the
correspondence between the microparticle and the electromagnetic wave. More exactly,
the transition of an electron from one state to another correspond to the sudden changes
2
in different parts of the continuous electromagnetic wave.
The same observation is available for the “Zeeman effect” (later, “Anomalous
Zeeman effect”, AZE): more extra spectra lines appear when the atoms are placed in a
3
magnetic field. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 92) We have to recall that the electric
and the magnetic fields are EDWs, i.e., the magnetic field corresponds to the electric
field, and this is the reason, the magnetic field “influences” (in reality, it is about
“correspondence”, no more) the electric field (and vice-verse). Anyway, AZE is related
4
to the Pauli’s “hidden rotation” which produces an “extra angular momentum

1
I explain again: this “sudden transition” of an electron between two stationary orbits does not
effectively happen as a “continuous process”; in reality, the microparticle which exists on one orbit
disappears from that orbit and appears on another orbit. This sudden transition is possible just because
the electron (a discrete physical entity) corresponds to the electromagnetic wave (a continuous physical
entity). Only discovering the EDWs, I was able to understand those “spooky actions at distance” and
“mad jumps”…
2
This phenomena is related to quantum tunneling. (see below)
3
“The direction or orientation of the orbit is important, when a field is applied, the excited electron can
select from more orbits pointing in various directions with respect to the field, allowing different
energies.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 92)
4
Pauli improved Schrӧdinger’s equation showing that the probability wave was modified by the
presence of magnetic field. (Presura, p. 252) In each point in space, the electron can be founded in two
quantum states and each of them has a differen evolution in the magnetic field, evolution give by Pauli’s
equation. Those two quantum states are labelled “spin”. Being a punctiform entity (no form, no
dimension), the spin of an electron represent two intrinsic quantum states, not the rotation under its axes.
(Presura, p. 253) So, all microparticles are just punctiform mathematical labels; a human body is
composed of punctiform microparticles, therefore, a body is just a mathematical label, no more… Even
if we can avoid introducing many waves for a macro-body (using the “multiparticle probability wave”
(Presura p. 254), we still work within the unicorn world. (Recall Feynman’s idea about Young’s
experiment: before striking the screen, the electron is in a “superposition” of many places (everywhere
in the universe), but it interacts in a particular point with the screen… Contrary to Feynman, recall
Einstein’s opinion about the Moon/bed…) “If we want to quantify any system, we have to take into
account all the classical states that are possible for that system. Schrӧdinger’s cat has two: cat live and

39
responsible for the AZE”: “the electron itself is spinning” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013,
p. 97), but Pauli indicated that the angular momentum of the spinning electron is “one-
half of the normal value h/2ℼ of atomic orbits, so-called spin 1/2” (McEnvoy and Zarate
2013, p. 98). In reality, from my viewpoint, this kind of “spinning” (not a real spin!) is
due to the correspondence between microparticle/electron and wave. There is a direct
correspondence between a “rigid” electromagnetic wave and an electron, and the
electron has very small dimensions in correspondence to the particular features of wave,
and this is the reason the electron cannot have “spin 1”. A planet (a macro-object) can
rotate completely (spin 1) just because of its mass and because of the “weak
correspondence” between the mass of a planet and that “rigid and continuous”
electromagnetic field. Obviously, a planet corresponds with many electromagnetic
waves (better, to an electromagnetic field), but exactly because of its massive mass and
dimension, a planet rotates completely (spin is 1, i.e., it is a real spin!), while because
the electron is quite small (a “strong correspondence” with the wave), the microparticle
1
cannot have spin 1. Essentially, there are “different degrees of correspondences”
between these two pairs of ED entities: “planet-wave” and “electron-wave”.
There are various approaches to the quantum measurements problem (for instance
Rosemblum and Kuttner investigate ten intepretations, some of them quite shortly), but
the main approaches are Copenhagen interpretation (with Bohr, the leader), the many-
worlds approach (Everett, Deutch, etc.), Bohm’s approach, and Girardi, Rimini &
2
Weber’s approach. (see Putnam 20053, Greene 2004) Trying to save the phenomena

cat dead. Quantum statue [of Liberty] has also two: with left hand rises or with right hand rises. A particle
without spin has in infinite such classical possible states, each state for each point in space where it can
be found. For each classical state there is a complex number, and its module represents the probability
of finding the system in that classical state. The totality of these complex numbers are called probability
wave of system or wave function.” (Presura, p. 257) “Many physicists interpret the probability wave
indicating that the electron is, at the same time, in all positions in space. However, at one measurement
of position, the microparticle would be find only in one position… the virtual evolutions of a particle” is
due to Fenynman. (p. 271)
1
A footnote for reductionists: if everything is microparticles, you can not spin your body 360 grades…
spinning your body 360 grades is just an illusion, isn’t it? My opinion: you have “spinned” your
body/brain too much (within the unicorn world)…
2
Rosenblum and Kuttner: Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber modified the Schrӧdinger equation in such a
way that the wavefunctions collapse in each moment. For an atom, a collapse happens, approximatively,
one in hundreds million years. Without collapse of the wave, there has to be its interference pattern.A
large object has millions of microparticles, so the probability of collapse of one atom is very high. The
collapse of one atom (its wavelength) produces the collapse of all other atoms which compose the macro-
object (for instance Schrӧdinger’s cat). At every microsecond, at least one atom of that cat collapses. The
cat is in superposition of living and dead very shortly. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 163) Within the EDWs
perspective, there is no “randomnly collapse” of wave function; more exactly, there is no collapse of
wave function at all: when we observe a particle, its corresponding wave did not collapse. Putnam
mentions an inexplicable phenomena: when we stop measuring the particle, the wave reappear! Within
the unicorn world, this has been a very strange phenomena, indeed…
3 Putnam considers three alternatives: Bohm’s or Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber’s (which can be the correct
interpretation), Pitowski’s alternative (Pitowski comments on one of Putnam’s conferences, as Putnam
himself remarks), which indicates that we will “fail to find a scientific realist interpretation which is
acceptable”. (Putnam 2005, p. 631) What exactly is the “spontaneous collapse theory” for Ghirardi-
Rimini-Weber? The wave-function has a probability of collapsing any time (radioactive decay, de ex).
For a particle, this probability is very small, for a macro-object, this probability is quite large. If one
particle (its wave) collapses, all other particles which composed the macro-object collapse too.
Nevertheles, this theory has not been testable yet… As we will see below, Bohm’s interpretation is the

40
(“empirical results”), but working within the unicorn world, inevitable all the physicists
have introduced certain “Ptolemaic epicycles” in constructing various interpretations
of “quantum mechanical-world”. However, there is no quantum world: many physicists
have started to use this notion exactly after I have published my article in 2005! In
reality, there is no “quantum world”, but there are field/wave-EW and micro-EW.
Working within the unicorn-world, all approaches for explaining quantum (empirical)
phenomena have been quite wrong speculations.
In support of the EDWs approach, in next sections, I will continue analyzing certain
notions and interpretations of quantum mechanics. I want to show, in detail, that
working within the unicorn-world, the physicists have not been able to explain certain
“spooky” problems or “mysteries” of quantum mechanics in the last 100 years. With
the existence of EDWs, we clarify all (thought) experiments and “mysteries” of
quantum mechanics.
The 19th century brought about several great disputes on particles and fields
(electric and magnetic fields). These problems followed the strong debate regarding the
nature of the light (particles or waves). Using elementary particles from mathematics,
Newton embraced an atomistic view about matter: light is composed of particles.
Huygens thought that light was a wave and the movement of the waves was possible
because of the “ether”. In the history of physics, we can find many problems in
understanding the nature of light and phenomena like “electric field” and “magnetic
field”. About the “interference”, there was the famous Young’s “double-slit experiment”
1
(1802) which indicated that the light was a wave. Maxwell’s electromagnetic waves

closest alternative to the EDWs perspective; however, his alternative is also constructed within the
unicorn world. From an EDWs perspective, it is indeed impossible to find a “scientific realist
interpretation” of quantum mechanics within the unicorn world. Replying to Putnam’s presentation,
Pitowski said “You are saying that before we can interpret quantum mechanics we have to change it.”
(Putnam 2005, p. 632) Putnam’s answer was that Von Neumann, “[...] already ‘changed’ quantum
mechanics, certainly from Bohr’s point of view. All interpretations of quantum mechanics are in a sense
‘changes’ of quantum mechanics, because it is an incomplete theory−one cannot ‘regiment’ it, formalize
it in standard logical notation […] unless you add an ‘interpretation’.” (Putnam 2005, p. 632) Within the
EDWs perspective, any interpretation of quantum mechanics is an “incomplete theory within the unicorn
world” (so, any interpretation has been wrong!), and the search for Bohm’s “hidden variables” and
Einstein’s incompleteness of quantum mechanics are also Ptolemaic epicycles. There are no hidden
variables and quantum mechanics is not “incomplete” but, because all the interpretations have been
constructed within the the unicorn world are all wrong and even the experiments have been wrong
explained. Using different macro-tools of observation, at different times, a human being can observe the
electron and the wave, the ED entities which belong to the EDWs.
1
Rosenblum and Kuttner: In the first years of 19 th century, Young’s experiment proved that light is a
wave. Beyond this plate, there is a screen detector. Light is sent towards plate with two slits (parallel
lines) and that detector registers an interference pattern which means light is an electromagnetic wave.
“Its explanation is central to the quantum enigma: that observation creates reality. This is the only
classical physics we present in any detail — bear with us. We can picture a ‘wave’ as a moving series of
peaks and valleys, or crests and troughs.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 40) Clearly, from my
viewpoint, Young’s experiment proved, indeed, that light is wave. If light is composed of particle, the
detector would be illuminated in two parts (the particles passing through those two slits). Shinning light
through those two slits, the detector showed bands of “brightness and darkness”, but a stream of particles
could not produce such result. “… light waves from the top slit travel the same distance as light waves
from the bottom slit. Therefore, crests from one slit arrive together with crests from the other. The crests
add to produce more brightness than would exist if only one slit were open… The interference pattern
spacing depends on the slit spacing.” (idem, p. 41) The light waves reaching the screen must pass through
both slits and produce interference pattern (not produced by particles). (idem, pp. 41-2) However, later,
even when the physicists sent not “light” but a microparticle (an electron) toward those two slits, the
screen detects interference pattern, i.e., a wave. Later, the physicists placed another detector close to plate

41
theory (1865) indicated light was a wave. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 108) In 1905,
Einstein argued light was made of particles (photons). (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p.
109) In the first half of 20th Century, there were two different views: light is
microparticles (Newton and Einstein) versus light is manifestation of a field (Leibniz
and Faraday, Huygens, Maxwell and Hertz); these views represented two scientific
theories that used two incompatible concepts. Neither the concepts of one theory can
explain the notions of the other theory (Einstein in McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 165
or p. 169)
My view: the unicorn-world had been the framework of thinking which has
dominated all the philosophers and the scientists until my discovery of the EDWs. Now,
we can clearly understand great debates/interpretations on this (un)famous scientific
experiment. In reality, microparticles and electromagnetic fields belong to the EDWs
and this is the reason for such noticeable “incompatibility”.
As we have seen in my previous works, using the field theory and geometry of
space and time, Einstein tried to construct a “marble” theory about the
“world”/“Universe”. Few years later, in opposition to his view, it was quantum theory,
a theory of “wood” (Kaku’s notions). Within the unicorn world, inevitable, the quantum
theory indicated that Einstein’s general theory of relativity was just “approximations”
about something: the “planets” did not exist, but only microparticles and
1
electromagnetic waves really exist. However, even in this new framework of thinking
furnished by quantum mechanics, there has been the main problem (among many
others): the “incompatibility” between the existence of a particle and of a wave in the
same place, at the same time. As I indicated in my previous works (Vacariu 2005, 2006,
2007, 2008, etc.), this problem was generated by the mixture of EDWs, the particle-
EW and the field/wave-EW. 2 Obviously, Einstein’s general relativity refers to the
macro-EW; quantum theory refers to the EDWs than the macro-EW, i.e., to the micro-
EW and the field-EW (again, the notion “quantum world” is quite wrong!). If we have
to investigate the relationship between electromagnetic waves/field and microparticles,
we want to see what does it mean an electromagnetic field/wave for the EDWs

to observe through which slit many electrons send (in a serial order) pass. Always, the detector detected
through which each microparticle passes and the screen detects microparticles. (The same result is when
one slit is closed: the detector does not detect interference pattern, but only microparticles.) This
experiment mirrors exactly the existence of EDWs: situated in some places, the microparticles are in the
micro-EW; in the same places and time, there are the electromagnetic waves (each particle corresponds
to an electromagnetic wave) that are parts of the electromagnetic field (explained by Schrӧdinger’s wave
function).
1
An essential footnote: until 2006, working within the unicorn world, everybody considered the macro-
objects did not really exist: these objects were composed of microparticles (an identity theory). After
2005, suddenly, some physicists indicated that this identity was not quite quite a completely correct idea
and even spacetime did not exist. Of course, just coincidence: I published my article in November 2005…
2 “Initially, I started to construct the EDWs perspective for solving the mind-body problem. In the same
time, I keep in my mind the idea of applying my perspective to some problems from cognitive science
and physics (quantum mechanics). However, for applying my perspective, for instance, to the problem
of wave-corpuscle duality, I follow the strategy of solving this problem from a completely different area
and not attacking it directly from within the physics. The majority of physicists and philosophers have
attacked directly this problem but their strategy involved the incarceration of their approaches within the
framework of the unicorn-world.” (Gabriel Vacariu 2008).

42
 1
perspective. It is well known that the “electric charges” generate the “electric fields”,
and the “magnets” generate the “magnetic fields”. Also, the “electric charges” in motion
generate the “magnetic fields”. The magnetic force (of a magnetic field) “acts” on the
electric charge which moves inside that magnetic field. (Presura 2014, p. 54) Essentially,
it is that, according to Ampere, the electric fields generate the magnetic fields which
generates the electric fields, and so on. 2 Also, the “Faraday law” indicates that the
variable magnetic fields generates the variable electric fields. (Presura, p. 68)
We have to explain this phenomena within the EDWs perspective. The magnetic
field and the electric field are two faces of the same phenomena, the electromagnetic
field which is the field-EW. Until my discovery, a physicist believed that the magnetic
field, for instance, “acted” on the trajectory of electric charges (microparticles) in
motion through the magnetic force (Presura 2014, p. 67). From my viewpoint, the field
and the particle exist in EDWs, therefore, the magnetic field “acts” not on the particle,
but on a part of the electromagnetic field (the field-EW) which corresponds to that
particle (micro-EW). The microparticle does not exist for the electromagnetic field,
therefore a direct “act” of the (electric or magnetic) field on the microparticle is quite
impossible. Moreover, the “quantum particle” is not like a “ball”, but something totally
different. We have NOT to imagine that the microparticle corresponds to a “part of the
wave/field” which rotates completely and this “rotating energy ball” would correspond
to the “rotating completely particle”. Why? Because there is no “part of the wave”
which completely rotates (380º) since, in its ontology, the electromagnetic wave/field
is an indivisible entity. More exactly, the entire electromagnetic field (not only that
small “enfolded”/coiled up/wrapped part of the wave – wave is part of field!)
corresponds to a microparticle.3

1
Rosenblum and Kuttner: Withing quantum theory, empirical facts show that the
measurement/observation of one physical entity (a particle, for instance) instantaneously influence the
behavior of another physical entity (another particle placed at a long distance from the first particle).
Einstein but also Bohr did not accept the existence of a physical force between those two particles.
Working within the unicorn world, Bohr could not explain the entanglement between these two particles.
Einstein strongly rejected these “spooky interactions”. However, these spooky interactions have been
demonstrated by many empirical experiements (and by Bell’s theory). Some interpretations appeal to
collapse of wave function into microparticle. This microparticle either was not there before the wave
collapses or it was in different places at the same time (= superposition of microparticle). Not only
measurement apparatus (the Copenhagen interpretation) but also human consciousness (Wigner, etc.) has
to be introduced in defining the physical entity. The possibility is transformed in actuality by
measurement apparatus and human consciousness. More directly, the “existence” of different physical
entities is dependent on our tools of observation. As I mentioned above, this idea is an epistemological
step (see Spinoza or Kant), but not an ontological one. This was a great problem for Einstein. (Rosenblum
and Kuttner 2006, p. 12) Some physicists have tried to transform this epistemological principle in an
ontological principle. (see below) Following the special relativity (c is the maximum speed), these
“spooky interactions” could not even exist. From my viewpoint, there are no “direct/spooky interactions”
between those two particles, these particles just correspond to an indivisible electromagnetic wave.
2 “The static electric charges generates the electric field, while these charges are in motion, generate
both the electric and the magnetic fields. Moreover, the electric and the magnetic fields generate one
another. Together, they form the electromagnetic field. They count the configuration of the field knowing
the positions and the speeds of the electric charges, using Maxwell equations. They tell us also how the
electromagnetic field acts, with forces, on the electric charges changing their state of rest or motion.”
(Presura 2014, p. 322)
3 In the chapter about the “quantum field theory”, Presura writes: “Will we see that, one quantified, there
will be changes between different points of it or it will changes packages of discrete energy with other
fields, packages of energy that we call particles. After these observations, we have to abandon the idea
of the universe in which the particles are a kind of minuscule ‘balls’. The particles will become now the

43
 We have to investigate a very important detail of quantum mechanics: the energy
takes only discrete values (not continues values). In order to explain the “black body
radiation” Planck, one of the father of quantum mechanics, quantifies the quantum
energy (i.e., the energy can take only discrete values). (Presura, p. 214)1
For us, in our macroscopic world, the levels of energy seems to be continue, and not discrete values.
Therefore, in classical physics, the energy of a body will evolve continuously. In reality, however, the
evolution takes place through jumps from one level to another. Because the difference between discrete
levels of energy is very little, we do not perceive this evolution in jumps. (Presura 2014, 215)2

Let me explain this paragraph within the EDWs perspective. Presura writes here about
the macroscopic “level” (“world”) and the microscopic level, but he forgets to introduce
the field/wave in this equation. The electromagnetic field/wave is continuously (it has
no “discrete” values), and we have to recall that a microparticle (“discrete” entity)
corresponds to a wave/field (“continuously” entity). Also, the macro-entities are
discrete physical objects. There are “discrete values” for the energy at quantum “level”
only when we refer to
(1) different parts of the continuous field having different values
(2) the microparticles.
Let me shortly recall some classical steps in the development of quantum
mechanics: Young's two-slit experiment3, Schrödinger (the inventor of wave function
which it was believed to describe the motion of electron), Born (“probability
interpretation”), de Broglie’s duality of wave and particle ( “association” of wave and

energetic manifestations of the entire universe seen as a huge quantum field.” (Presura 2014, p. 329)
“Manifestations” is a wrong notion: it would introduce the notion of “causality” between the field and
the particle which, in my EDWs perspective, cannot even exist (it would produce strong ontological
contradictions). Moreover, a particle does not correspond to a “package of energy”, but an
electromagnetic wave which is part of the entire electromagnetic field. Of course, the “enfolded” part of
the wave is this “package of energy” (Planck), i.e., a microparticle (Einstein). Within the field-EW, this
“package of energy” is not broken (not “totally isolated”) from the rest of the field/wave, it is just a part
- the peak of an wave - of the entire electromagnetic field, even if that package of energy (microparticle)
is the most important part of the wave regarding this correspondence.
1 If Planck quantified the quantum energy of “black body radiation”, Einstein quantified light: the
electromagnetic waves of light is formed from discrete packages of energy, the photons. (Presura 2014,
p. 217) From my viewpoint, we have only the correspondence between a part of “enfolded”
electromagnetic wave and the microparticle. Interesting, there is necessary at least 10 photons to reach
retina of the eye in order this information to be manipulated by the brain. (Presura, p. 219) “The emission
or the absorption of light takes place through transitions between the levels of energy of atoms. In these
processes, the photons are emitted ...” (Presura, p. 220) What does “light” mean here? It has to be the
electromagnetic wave, of course, since the “photons” appear later. Therefore, this sentence is a mixture
of the EDWs. Moreover, the “levels of energy of atoms” mean exactly different values in different places
(“peaks and valleys”) of the electromagnetic field.
2 If we accept Presura’s reductionism (many physicists have worked in the same framework), we have
to believe that when a human body moves on the street, the motion of the body is not a “continuous”
process, but a process which takes place in “jumps”. Within the macro-EW, there are no such “jumps”;
there are the particle-EW and the field-EW. These “spooky jumps” are for the motions of microparticles
between “discrete levels of energy” (Planck’s notion). However, an electromagnetic field/wave is not
constructed from the fields with certain “jumps”. The electromagnetic field is something continuous and
not discrete. This “discretness” mirrors the interactions between certain microparticles (Einstein).
3 Feynman used to say that the entire quantum mechanics could be resumed by analyzing Young's
experiment. Evidently, within the unicorn-world, Young’s experiment had always been (until I
discovered the EDWs) a mixture the waves and the particles, a mixture of EDWs, the micro-EW and the
macro-EW (the particle, the wave, the screen and double-slit apparatus) within the unicorn-world; it
resumes, indeed, the wrong picture of quantum mechanics until 2002-2005.

44
 1
particle) , Heisenberg’s (“uncertainty relations”), Pauli (the wave function as the
“probability amplitude” for position or momentum of particle), Zeh (supporting Pauli’s
idea that “the appearance of a definite position of an electron during an observation is
a creation outside the laws of nature”, Pauli in Zeh 2004, pp. 104-5, Zeh’s translation).2
The last steps are Bohm’s perspective (both electron and wave exist – evidently, within
3
the unicorn world) and Bell’s approach (the global wave function has to be regarded
as real, the “entanglement”, Einstein’ “spooky actions at distance” really exists). The
“entanglement” (according to Schrödinger, “the greatest mystery of quantum theory”,
Zeh, p. 106) involves the “superposition” of different quantum states.
Regarding the last example, we recall Bohr’s “principle of complementarity” (more
details, below): we cannot observe the wave and the particle using the same
4
measurement apparatus at the same time. Obviously, these phenomena belong to

1
The wave of probability is called “wave function” for indicating a feature more general than wave.
(Presura, p. 229) A harmonic periodic wave has intensity, wavelength and frequency. Because harmonic
periodic wave has a constant intensity (a constant amplitude of vibration), the probability to find the
electron is the same in any point of harmonic periodic wave. (p. 230)
2 Similarly, Heisenberg claims that “the particle trajectory is created by our act of observing it”.
(Heisenberg in Zeh 2004, p. 105) Only within the unicorn world, could Heisenberg claim such statement
exactly as many other physicists (Feynman, etc.) have used the ontological “superposition” of a
microparticle in different places at the same moment (until I discovered the EDWs).
3
Rosenblum and Kuttner: Bohm’s interpretation assumes that particles produce all results asked by
Schrӧdinger’s equation. He presupposes (no real argument, my comment) a “quantum force” (“quantum
potential”) which interacts to the particles. Schrӧdinger almost argues for a kind of Newton/Einstein’s
view of deterministic world. Therefore, “quantum randomness” is just an epistemological principle since
we cannot know precisely the position and velocity of particle. He rejects (1) the collapse of
wavefunction (Copenhagen interpretation) (2) Everett’s many worlds (3) the role of observer in quantum
mechanics. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, pp. 161-2) Even if Bohm’s interpretation was quite close to my
EDWs, nevertheless, his framework of thinking was inevitable the unicorn world.
4
Rosenblum and Kuttner: Bohr was aware about the problem of spooky actions (results) versus physical
phenomena and as physicist he did not want to enter in the domain of philosphy. „He arbitrarily asserted
his principle of complementarity: The two aspects of a microscopic object, its particle aspect and its wave
aspect, are ‘complementary,’ and a complete description requires both contradictory aspects, but we must
consider only one aspect at a time. We avoid the seeming contradiction by considering the microscopic
system, the atom, not to exist in and of itself. We must always include in our discussion — implicitly at
least — the different macroscopic experimental apparatuses used to display each of the two
complementary aspects. All is then fine, because it is ultimately only the classical behavior of such
apparatus that we report.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 108) Obviously, there is a mixture of EDWs;
moreover, Bohr works within Spinoza and Kant’s epistemological perspective (not an “ontological-
epistemological” view like the EDWs perspective). Commenting Bohr’s words, Rosenblum and Kuntter
remarks that even if physicists use, pragmatically, words like atoms and microscopic particles, many of
them believe that the notions do not refer to real entities; we use them for describing the “behavior of our
measuring instruments”. So, neither the microparticles, nor the macro-tables/chairs/human bodies (for
instance) really exist since all are just excitations of the electromagnetic field. “But, no matter, for all
practical purposes big things allow a classical description. And, according to Copenhagen, that’s all we
need concern ourselves with.” (p. 109) Only working within the unicorn world, somebody could write
these statement: “The Copenhagen interpretation asks us to accept quantum mechanics pragmatically.
(Bumper-sticker summary of pragmatism: ‘If it works, it’s true.’) When physicists want to avoid dealing
with philosophy, and for most of us that’s almost all the time, we tacitly accept the Copenhagen
interpretation. Physicists tend to be pragmatists. In dealing with microscopic objects, we analyze and
report on the behavior of our laboratory apparatus. These big things present no paradox; they never need
be considered to be in superposition states. The properties of microscopic objects are inferred from the

45
EDWs, therefore we need different kinds of measurement apparatus to observe,
indirectly anyway, these ED phenomena.
Other developments (which rejected the existence of macro-entities, like almost all
physicists and philosophers until 2005, a period dominated by reductionism within, of
course, the unicorn world paradigm) showed that the main idea of quantum mechanics
(the Standard Model) is that “All matter consists of quarks and leptons, which interact
by exchanging different types of quanta, described by the Maxwell and Yang-Mills fields.
(Kaku 1994, p. 124) Different forces are created through the exchange of different
“quanta”. The Yang-Mills fields are just a generalization of Maxwell’s electromagnetic
field. (Kaku 1994, p. 118) Oerter believes that according to quantum mechanics
[…] which was developed to deal with the new phenomena, particles sometimes behaved like waves, as
if they were not small and hard but spread out like a field. At the same time, fields could behave like
particles. The two entities, particles and fields, that had seemed so different were starting to show a
family resemblance. (Oerter 2006, p. 17)

This paragraph reminds us about Wheeler’s famous dictum: “mass grips space by
telling it how to curve, space grips mass by telling it how to move”. All these sentences
are constructed within the unicorn world, space and time do not exist, therefore all these
verdicts have been quite wrong: the particles and the fields belong to the EDWs and we
have to replace “spacetime” (having an ontological status since Newton and even
relativized by Einstein’s special relativity) with “nothing” (no ontological status) which
corresponds to the electromagnetic field which cover the entire “universe”.
Unfortunately, Oerter furnishes a wrong example of this non-existing relationship:
objects that display electric or magnetic properties are said to have an electric charge. This charge
produces a field, rather like the barbecue produces an aroma. The larger the charge, the larger the field.
A distant object doesn’t need to be told of the presence of the charge, it only needs to sniff out the field
in its immediate neighborhood, just as your neighbors sniffed out your barbecue (Oerter 2006, p. 25).

The “barbecue” (particle) does not exist for the “aroma” (field) since particle and field
are just “complementary aspects” of a thing-in-itself (constructed within the unicorn
world, Bohr’s notion of “complementarity” has no ontological background but just an
epistemological view – following Spinoza and Kant’s views, see my previous works).
In reality, these epistemological “aspects” represent certain real ED entities which
belong to EDWs.

behavior of our apparatus. Nevertheless, we talk of microscopic objects, visualize them, and calculate
with models of them as if they were as real as little green marbles. But if confronted with paradox, we
retreat to the Copenhagen interpretation that microscopic objects are just theories. They should accurately
explain the sensible behavior of our macroscopic equipment, but microscopic objects themselves need
not ‘make sense’.” (p. 110) Inddeed, it was necessary a philosopher (myself) to come with a new
ontological-epistemological perspective independent of our measurement apparatus and observer’s
consciousness (a stupid notion applied to quantum mechanics by people (physicists and philosopher)
having no imagination: “I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more
important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” (Einstein)
Unfortunatelly for this great scientist, neither the world, nor spacetime exist... (see my previous works)
Before 2005 (when I published my article at Synthese journal (US, the best journal of philosophy of science)
the majority of physicists believed in quantum mechanics (many believed in Copenhagen interpretation, see
R&K, for instance) and Einstein’s general relativity was just an approximative approach about something
which did not exist (planets). Amazing, in the last 12 years, this view about Einstein has totally changed: his
name has regained his high level position (available in the first three decades of last century). This
accomplishment has been produced by my discovery of EDWs but, because I am just a „poor” Romanian,
nobody cares about by name...

46
 Again, in the last century, there was another major mistake: everyone (scientist or
philosopher) believed that the macro-objects were “composed” of microparticles
(within the identity theory.). Within the unicorn world, it was quite normal to reject the
existences of the macro-objects (because of their relationship to the microparticles) and
even of the microparticles (because of their relationships to the electromagnetic field).
That is, to avoid any ontological contradiction, any thinker could not assume that both
the macro-objects and the micro-objects existed within the same place, at the same
moment. However, from my viewpoint, we cannot reduce the macro-objects to the
micro-objects since, for instance, we cannot explain gravity by those non-existing
“gravitons”; we cannot explain Weinberg’s body/brain through the corresponding
electromagnetic waves; we cannot explain the mental states through the corresponding
neuronal states. So, if we want to maintain the existence of our bodies and our minds,
we have to maintain the existence of all sets of entities (electromagnetic fields, macro-
entities and micro-entities) not within the unicorn world, but in the EDWs.
Let me offer more details about the (un-)famous relationship between
microparticles and electromagnetic waves (this very problematic “relationship” in
quantum mechanics for many decades, until I discovered, in 2002, the EDWs). For
Close,
an electromagnetic wave acts like a burst of quanta – photons. The energy of any individual photon is
proportional to the frequency (ν) of the oscillating electric and magnetic fields of the wave. This is
expressed in the form E = hν. (Close 2004, p. 25)

What does the author understand by “act”? Does Close speak about an electromagnetic
wave or a particle? We can use this expression only in a theater, and the unicorn world
is indeed a “theater” with an “ideal/wrong scene” created by the all human beings when
they had just begun to think (long time before my discovery of EDWs). Obviously, the
electromagnetic wave does not “act” like photons, since all the waves and all the
photons belong to the EDWs. The energy of any photon corresponds to the frequency
(ν) of the oscillating electric and magnetic fields of the wave. Anyway, all fields/waves
belong to the field-EW.
Think of the magnetic field like a field of wheat: Each wheat stalk is an arrow, and the “field” is the
entire collection of arrows. Unlike the wheat field, which only has a stalk every few feet or so, the
magnetic field has an arrow at every spatial point. That is, to specify the magnetic field completely, one
must give the strength of the field (length of the arrow) and direction of the field (direction of the arrow)
at every point in the entire universe. Obviously, it would be impossible to experimentally determine the
magnetic field at every point, even for a limited region, as it would require an infinite number of
measurements. In real life, physicists must be content with having a pretty good idea of the field values
in some limited region of space. To a physicist, the field is everywhere: in the air around you, penetrating
the walls of your house, inside the wood of your chair, even inside your own body. (Oerter 2006, p. 26)

Working within the unicorn world, if the “field” is present “at every point in the entire
universe” and, at the same time, the particle has to be present somewhere (“here”, for
instance), we reach certain (hyper)ontological contradictions, since two
entities/processes cannot be present in the same place, at the same moment. The field
or the wave cannot “penetrate” the “walls of your house”, since the walls and the wave
belong to the EDWs. Within the unicorn world, almost everybody (recall Bohr’s
complementarity) believes that a particle and a small part of the field occupy the same
place, at the same time. This is a clear ontological contradiction. Therefore, we either
give up an entity/process or we change the framework with a new one which avoids
this contradiction: I prefer to replace the unicorn world with my EDWs.

47
In classical physics, the universe is composed of particles and fields. A complete description of the world
at any instant must specify the locations of the particles, the values of the fields, and how both are
changing. From this information and the laws of interaction between particles and fields, the complete
future of the universe can be predicted. In quantum mechanics, the basic picture is radically different: a.
The motion of any particle is described by a wave, known as the wave function or quantum field. b. The
probability for the particle to be detected at a given point is the square of the quantum field at that point.
c. The quantum field changes according to a mathematical law known as the Schrödinger equation. In
(A), we have the first hint that particles and fields are not such wildly different entities as they appear in
classical physics. The full realization of this wave-particle duality comes in relativistic quantum field
theory, where particles and fields are treated identically. Relativistic quantum field theory is, then, a
unification of particles and the forces acting on them. The terrible price we have to pay for the unification
of particles and fields is revealed in (B). The laws of quantum mechanics are random; only probabilities
can be determined. (Oerter 2006, p. 61)1

Only thinking/working within the unicorn world, somebody could written this
paragraph (with essential ideas about quantum mechanics). Being constructed within
the unicorn world, all classical and contemporary physicists have been wrong. It is
completely wrong to believe that the “universe is composed of particles and fields”: the
notion of “universe” is wrong (the “unicorn world”) and even the notion “composed”
is wrong (it sends to the “identity” between a macro-object and an amalgam of
microparticles). The planets, for instance, are not “composed” of microparticles, since
these ED entities belong to the EDWs and, more importantly, the planet does not exist
for the microparticles, so how is it possible to relate one notion to the other:
(a) The “motion of a particle” is described, indeed, “by a wave” (wave function or
quantum field), but there is a “corresponding description”;
(b) “The probability for the particle to be detected at a given point” is given by the
corresponding place where the node/peak of wave is placed.
It is meaningless to talk about the “interactions” between “particles” and “fields”.
The motion of a particle is not “described” by an electromagnetic wave, but
corresponds to that wave. When we consider the “forces” as being “waves”, then the
“unification” of particles and “forces acting on them” is quite wrong since we talk about
two EDWs. A “complete description of the world” does not exist, since the
“world”/“universe” does not exist at all.
Apparently, there are two reasons for the use of “probability” in describing the
microparticles: (1) the dimensional relationship between our bodies (eyes and our
macroscopic apparatus) and the microparticles (2) the correspondences between a
particle and an electromagnetic wave. The macro-apparatus does not exist for the
microparticles (or waves) anymore. Also, any electromagnetic wave/field does not exist
for any microparticle. Only within the unicorn world, it was possible to consider the
relationship (including the identity theory and the “property dualism”) between micro-
particles and macro-particles or between electromagnetic waves and particles, mind and
brain or organism and life. Oerter draws the attention upon the fact that nothing is
[…] logically wrong with an interpretation that avoids the electric field concept entirely, in which energy
leaps into and out of existence like this. However, the electric field concept is so useful, and the

1 At page 76, Oerter mentions again these points specifying that in “classical physics, the fields were
interpreted as real, physically existing entities spread throughout space. The quantum field, in contrast,
is only an information wave. It doesn’t tell us where the electron is. Rather, it summarizes everything we
know about the electron. Quantum mechanics doesn’t model the physical world, it reflects what we can
say about the world”. (Oerter 2006, p. 76) Indeed, quantum theory mirrors what we can say about the
“unicorn world”. Oerter continues writing that the “universe, it seems, does not admit of a complete
description. The quantum mechanical description is the best we can do, and it gives only probabilities,
not certainties.” (idem) Obviously, we cannot have a “complete description” of the unicorn world.

48
conservation of energy so compelling theoretically and so well established experimentally that it seems
eminently reasonable to consider both energy and electric fields as real in the same sense that atoms (and
cars) are real. (Oerter 2006, p. 82)

Within the unicorn world, this statement leads to certain ontological contradictions:
how is it possible to place microparticles and fields in the same space, at the same time?
In reality, microparticles and fields/waves belong to the EDWs. Oerter wonders:
What about quantum mechanics? Is the quantum field real? True, it describes the motion of matter (the
electron, say) and therefore energy (the electron’s kinetic energy, for example) from one place to another
and so, like the electric field, would seem to be real enough. But the probability interpretation makes this
view difficult to maintain. The main question in this information interpretation of the quantum field is
this: How does the electron know where it should be? If the quantum field is not a physical object, why
is the electron’s probability always governed by the quantum field? (Oerter 2006, p. 83)1

As every competent physicist, within the framework furnished by “probabilities”,

Oerter asks how the electron “knows” where it should be. He believes that maybe “there
is a deeper theory of the electron. Perhaps the electron has some unknown properties
that determine its motion, or perhaps it interacts with a guiding wave that tells it where
to go.” (idem). Obviously, there is no interactions between the electron and the wave.
The quantum “enigma” (entanglement, non-locality, probability) appears again. As a
guiding line, Oerter introduces Bell’s inequality.2 (p. 83) (For these problems, Vacariu

1 In his new book, regarding quantum theory, Krauss writes that: “We would need a theory of everything
before we could ever have a theory of something.” (Krauss 2017, p. 115) “Theory of everything” is
theory of the “unicorn world”. In our book 2010, we showed that the superstring theory is quite a wrong
theory.
2 About the “quantum enigma” (Bell’s inequality, etc.), see Rosenblum and Kuttner (2006). This book
is also investigated in Vacariu 2016a. “In refuting EPR, Bohr claimed that what happened to one object
could indeed ‘influence’ the behavior of the other instantaneously, even though no physical force
connected them. Einstein derided Bohr’s ‘influences’ as ‘spooky interactions’.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner
2006, p. 141) From my point of view, indeed, no “physical force” connects these microparticles; the
wave corresponds to two microparticles and this correspondence represents that (un)famous
“instantaneous influence”. As I recalled, “correspondence” is not a real phenomenon, i.e., it does not
have any ontological status. „EPR’s argument assumed that the behavior of objects could be affected
only by physical forces, and any object could otherwise be considered separate from the rest of the world.
In particular, two objects could be separated so that the behavior of one could in no way affect the other.”
(Rosenblum and Kittner 2006, p. 141) Again, between these two microparticles there is, indeed, no
“physical force”; there is only a correspondence (no ontology) between these two microparticles and the
electromagnetic wave (established when the particles somehow interacted in the past). However,
microparticles and waves belong to EDWs. As in cognitive neuroscience, in quantum mechanics for
some physicists it has been common to talk about “correlations”. After experimenting with “correlations”
between two photons (more specifically, their angle of polarization), physicists have reached the
conclusion that their “twin photons indeed had identical polarization, identical stick angles. (In quantum
theory, where polarization is observer created, the twin-photon correlation must be explained by a
mysterious ‘influence’ instantaneously exerted on a photon by the observation of its twin.)” (Rosenblum
and Kuttner 2006, p. 145) Actually, physicists believe that in principle, “any two objects that have ever
interacted are forever entangled. The behavior of one instantaneously influences the other. An
entanglement exists even if the interaction is through each of the objects having interacted with a third
object. In principle, our world has a universal connectedness.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 150) I
consider we cannot talk about the “universal connectedness” of some or all objects (microparticles and/or
macroobjects), but only about the correspondence between the ED entities and the electromagnetic
waves/field. Our experiment with the stick and the two corresponding electrons (microparticles) directly
mirrors Bell's inequality. Bell's inequality is broken just because those two microparticles (electrons or
photons, etc.) correspond to the wave. A real entanglement between two microparticles (a phenomenon
which belongs to the EW of those microparticles) does not exist as a real physical phenomenon. Again,
there is only a correspondence between the wave and the two microparticles, and, I must repeat, this

49
2008, Vacariu and Vacariu 2010, Vacariu 2016) But writing Schrödinger’s equation, as
usually in quantum mechanics area, Oerter believes that the electron “knows where it
should be”. From my EDWs perspective, this opinion is quite wrong. It is only about
the correspondence between the electron and the electromagnetic wave. At page 85,
Oerter, writes that “the quantum field ψ, apparently does not correspond to any known
physical quantity.” (2006) Obviously, working within the unicorn world, Oerter could
not think within the framework of EDWs. The “clockwork universe” (everything being
determined in this universe full of banal causalities) is rather strange in quantum
mechanics:
Because of the strange, non-local nature of the quantum field that we saw earlier, any two electrons that
interact carry a strange sort of correlation, an instantaneous connection that can be ascribed neither to a
property that the electron has of itself nor to a communication (in the usual sense) between the electrons.
(Oerter 2006, p. 85)

Here, we have again the un-famous “entanglement” between two particles. In reality,
there is a correspondence between the continuous wave (with two peaks/nodes) and
those two microparticles.1

“correspondence” is not a real physical state which belongs to the microparticles-EW or to the waves-
EW. Within the EDWs perspective, it is much easier to understand Rosenblum and Kuttner's inquiry:
“Nonphysical” influences: If there’s a mind that’s different from the physical brain, how does it
communicate with the brain? This mystery reminds us of the connection between two quantum-entangled
objects – of what Einstein called ‘spooky actions’ and Bohr called ‘influences’.” (p. 189) (We will remind
you that in cognitive neuroscience the great unsolved problem is the “binding problem” which is quite
similar to this “entanglement problem” from quantum mechanics. In both cases, there are phenomena
which belong to the EDWs, nothing mystical...).
1 Again this paragraph: “We can say that the electromagnetic wave of light (the oscillation of electric
field) is, in fact, a wave of probability for photons. There where the amplitude of oscillation of electric
field is greater (lighter areas), we will find more photons, while where the wave is smaller (dark areas),
less photons. We have to notice that not the values of electric field in one point determines this
probability, but the amplitude of oscillation. In other words, the electric field can have null-value, during
the oscillation, because it is the size of oscillation (amplitude) which determines the number of photons
we find there.” (Presura 2014, p. 226) Within the unicorn world, every physicist either appeal to un-
explained, mysterious entanglement, or rejected the existence of microparticles (the radicalists).

50
Chapter 6

Three interpretations of quantum mechanics:

de Broglie’s “matter-wave duality” (1924), Schrödinger’s wave
function (1925/6), and Heisenberg’s “matrix” (1926)
1924 de Broglie, “matter-wave duality”
In these years, de Broglie proposed the “duality of matter”: “matter-wave” perspective
or “wave-pilot theory”. In that period and later (recall the “Compton effect”, for
instance), many scientists accepted this approach, i.e., light was both particle and wave,
but nobody knew exactly what this state would exactly mean. De Broglie introduces
the wave „attaches” to the electron (in its motion) with formula λ = h/p. This pilot-wave
„guides” the electron in its motion. He believes the electrons really exist, there are
classical microparticles having speeds and positions well-defined. We measure an
electron in its position, at one moment, just beacuse the electron is guided by the pilot
wave.

In de Broglie’s interpretation, both the pilot wave and the particle (the electron, for instance) are real,
both exist in any moment of time. See the difference between Copenhagen interpretation where only one
of these states manifests at one moment, either there is the probability wave between measurements, or
ther is a punctiform electron (classic) for measuring its position.
Because de Broglie’s interpretation considers the classical electron (having a postion and speed at
anhy moment in time, we would say that this is a theory with hidden variables. In this case, hidden
variables would be the position and the speed of electron between measurements which we have not
found them until now, but we would be able to find them using a new tehnology in the future. (Presura,
p. 284)

Obviously, de Broglie was missing my EDWs: both particle and wave are „real”,
indeed, not within the unicorn world but in the EDWs. The idea that the wave „guides”
the microparticle is quite strage, even in the unicorn world. In this case, „guide” means
a kind of interaction between wave and particle, a very strange notion even within the
unicorn world, a notion against even to Bohr’s complementarity (see below). Moreover,
there are no hidden variables. de Broglie proposes that not only any photon but also any
electron (particle) is always “associated” with an electromagnetic wave: so, the wave,
somehow, “pilots” the electron. He does not clearly explain the meaning of “pilot” (a
concept related to “associated”). Anyway, for him, if an electron is also an
electromagnetic wave, it would explain Bohr’s model: the different wavelengths fit
Bohr’s orbits, i.e., each orbit “is given” by a fixed wavelength.
From my viewpoint, this theory was constructed within the unicorn world. In
reality, an orbit of a particle (discrete physical entity) corresponds to a fixed wavelength
of an electromagnetic wave (continuous physical entity) which is part of the
electromagnetic field (also continous physical entity but it covers everything in the
“universe” – recall Schrӧdinger’s wave function). In this way, de Broglie extended
“light duality” to all microparticles. Following Planck’s formula, he indicates a
relationship between momentum of a particle and the wavelengths of wave: λ = h/p,
that is larger momentum (p in formula; p = mv) are “associated” to shorter wavelengths

51
 1
(λ). Esentially, this presupposition was an ad hoc one (recall Bohr’s „orbits” and
Einstein’s „photons”): de Broglie did not furnish any clear argument for it.

Wave-corpuscul duality
A particle is described between measurements only by its wave of probability. The wave involves the
interference pattern as any wave. When we realize a measurement, we find the particle localized in one
are or another with a probability given gy its wave of probability. Now, it corpuscular character is
manifested. (Presura, p. 229)

So, the electron is a wave before measurements and a corpuscul when we measure.
Being constructed within the unicorn world, the status of this duality remained without
having any ontological status: for a frequency of an electromagnetic wave, the particle
had a certain energy. It was about different vibrations of wave (modes of the string)
which “piloted” different particles. In fact, if we push further de Broglie’s thought (see
Schrӧdinger’s wave function and other radicalists), these vibrations of wave eliminate
the existence of particles, that is, the particles are just “approximations of the modes of
string” wave. When we use a particular measurement apparatus, we „observe” waves,
but using a different apparatus we „observe” particles. I would like to emphasize again
that Bohr’s orbits were explained by the vibrations of waves but this theory did not
explain completely all strange „quantum phenomena”. I repeat: from my viewpoint,
this formula does not indicate a real „physical law” since it involves cetain ED physical
entities which belong to the EDWs: particles and waves. The problem was that quantum
mechanics was „constructed” (more exactly, „interpretated”) within the unicorn world.
From the „continuous” electromagnetic wave/field2 viewpoint, „discreteness” would

1
Rosenblum and Kuttner: As a wave, the electron moves on certain allowed orbits (which are
“determined by a whole number of electron wavelengths that fit around the orbit’s circumference”. In
this way, de Broglie explained Bohr’s ad hoc quantum rule. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 66) Clinton
Davisson realized certain experiments (electrons striking metal surfaces) which indicated the interference
patterns, i.e., the microparticles/electrons were also waves. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 67) We already
know: there are EDWs: each electron is a microparticle in the micro-EW but it corresponds to an
electromagnetic wave in the field-EW. “We see that de Broglie furnishes us a physical justification for
particular selection of Bohr’s orbits: there are ‘auto-selected’ those orbits of an electron for which its
associated wave is resonant on that orbit. de Broglie introduces a simple relationship which naturally
explains the selection of those orbits for which the kinetic momentum is quantified, i.e., Bohr’s proposal,
and in consequence, the levels of energy of hydrogen atom.” (Presura, p. 223) Esentially, both the
electron (describes by its pilot wave) and the photon (described by electromagnetic waves) have the same
relationship between momentum and wavelength λ = h/p… An electron can be described not only by its
corpuscular properties, but also by ondulator waves, as it is indicated by attached pilot wave.” (Presura,
p. 224) An electron has an associated pilot wave with wavelength given by the momentum of
microparticle. This wave is resonant in atoms where the perimeter of orbit is an “integer/whole number”
of wavelengths. So, the pilot wave has a wavelenght λ invers proportional to momentum p of
microparticle (λ = h/p, where p = mv), therefore, for small speed of a free electron, the wavelength
becomes larger. (Presura, p. 227) In 1927, Davidsson and Germer’s experiments indicated the electrons
created interference patterns. (idem, p. 228, see figure 9.16) Presura asks if the electron is particle or
wave? Certain experiments indicates particle, other experiments indicate wave. “If the electron is a wave,
then why do we see the electron as a point in experiments? Is the electron a wave or a corpuscul? This is
a dilemma that we have to solve it… The electron is both corpuscul (at detection) and wave (in the
process of interference), this is the essence of wave-corpuscul duality. How do we solve this paradox?”
The solution is the wave pilot of electron as a wave of probability for electron, i.e., the probability to find
the electron in one place or another. (Presura, p. 228) This question had dominated the entire 20th century.
I have solved it through my discovery of EDWs.
2 The characteristics of an electromagnetic wave are intensity, wavelength, and frequency. (Presura, p.
230) From our viewpoint, photons do not have mass just because these microparticles have

52
be a strange notion for characterizing microparticles and macroparticles.1 A photon
with a measurable frequency (wavelength) interacts with a single electron. “It seems
certain to me that the propagation of a wave is associated with the motion of a particle
of any sort… photon, electron, proton or any other.” (de Broglie in McEnvoy and Zarate
2013, p. 111) In the micro-EW, each microparticle corresponds to a particular wave (all
waves are parts of the entire field, that is the field-EW). Important is that next section
of McEnvoy and Zarate’s book has title “An associated wave”. Within the unicorn
world, this expression has no meaning, more exactly, it mirrors an ontological
contradiction.
De Broglie believes that these “waves I call ‘pilot’ waves which guide the particle
in its motion” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 112), but there are the “phase velocity of
wave” and the “group velocity of wave package”. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 113)2
From my viewpoint, a wave cannot “guide” the particle since the wave does not exist
for the particle. Obviously, the correspondence between the wave and the microparticle
(in EDWs) indicates that the “wavelength of a light is decreased, the momentum of the
individual light photons is increased.” (λ = h/p) (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 114)
Essentially, all particles were associated with electromagnetic waves (proved by using
diffraction experiment) demonstrated by G. P. Thomson (the wave property of electrons)
(30 years after his father, J. J. Thomson proved that electrons were particles). (McEnvoy
and Zarate 2013, p. 117) Again, de Broglie introduces the “pilot wave” that is always
“attached to” or “associated with” a microparticle (an electron, for instance). (Presura
2014, p. 223) That is, a microparticle has to always to be “associated” with an
3
electromagnetic wave. Again, what does it mean “attached” or “associated”? Both
notions are wrong terms used by physicists working within the unicorn world. In reality,
the notion has to be the “correspondence” between an electron and “it pilot wave”.

electromagnetic waves with particular values of intensity, wavelength and frequency. Other
microparticles have mass because they correspond to different waves with different values for intensity,
wavelength and frequency.
1 “… oscillators which are in thermal equilibrium, responsible of light emission in the case of black
body radiation, are not given by the internal structure of atoms, as maybe we expected. On the contrary,
they are given by the oscillations of atoms surrounding the equilibrium position. In other words, not the
internal structure of atoms did reveal the quantum form of energy, but their movement of oscillation.”
(Presura 2014, p. 215) Obviously, we have to introduce here the correspondence between microparticles
and waves. The oscillations of atoms have to be related to their correspondences to certain
electromagnetic waves. If the quantum energy is “discrete”, from a reductionist viewpoint, the
“movement of our body” is not continuous but discrete, that is the microparticles which correspond to
our body jump from one level to another. From the viewpoint of the macroscopic entities, there is a
continuous movement for them, otherwise, we would be able to explain nothing referring to them.
Presura writes that “we have to imagine oscillators are exactly the modes of vibrations of electromagnetic
field…” (Presura, p. 215) Again, we have to understand that any microparticle (a discrete entity)
corresponds to an electromagnetic field/wave (a continuous physical entity).
2 “One is the phase velocity – the speed at which a wave crest moves – and the second is a group velocity
– the speed of the reinforcement regions formed when many waves are superimposed.” (McEnvoy and
Zarate 2013, p. 113) Again, we can detect a particular wave (which corresponds to a particular
microparticle), but many particular waves represent the electromagnetic field, i.e., the field-EW. “The
group velocity represents the velocity of a particle”. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 123)
3
“Visualizing the Atom: the ‘Old Quantum Theory’: Bohr: ‘But how should we now think of the
electron in the hydrogen atom… as a tiny charged particle circling the nucleus jumping from one allowed
orbit to another? De Broglie: ‘Or as a wave adjusting its length just enough to fit exactly into one of the
orbits, setting up a standing wave pattern with its electric charge somehow disturbed around the
circumference?’ For the moment, it doesn’t matter. We will need both to continue.” (McEnvoy and Zarate
2013, p. 119) Working within the unicorn world, such paradoxes were inevitable…

53
Presura writes that “de Broglie furnished a physical justification of the selection of
Bohr’s particular orbits: there are ‘auto-selected’ those orbits of the electron for which
the wave attached to the electron is in resonance on orbit.” (p. 223)1 In this staement,
there is a mixture of EDWs: we have to replace “attach” (no ontology within the unicorn
world) with “correspondence” (no ontology within the EDWs framework). Presura
indicates that the same de Broglie’s relationship between the impulse and the
wavelength is available for the impulse of a photon. That is, both the electron
(“described” by its “associated” pilot-wave) and the photon (described by its pilot-wave)
have the same relationship between the impulse and the wavelength. “The coincidence
is not random. An electron has to be described not only by its corpuscular properties,
but also by its undulatory properties” furnished by the “correlations to the wave pilot”.
2
(Presura 2014, p. 224) Of course, there are EDWs: a microparticle has certain micro-
properties and it corresponds to an electromagnetic wave. There are some physicists
who, working within de Broglie’s approach, have used the notion of “correlation” or
“association” between wave and particle. Nevertheless, all of them have been working
within the unicorn world. In this period, we recall that Peter Debye suggested that there
had to be an equation for the electromagnetic wave.

Duality wave-particle
A particle is described between the measurements only by its probability wave. The wave can have a
process of interference with any other wave. At one measurement, we will find the particle localized in
one place or another, with a probability furnished by its probability wave. Now there it is its corpuscular
manifestation. (Presura, p. 229)3

1 “To the electron is attached a pilot wave which wavelength is given by its impulse: λ = h/p. This wave
is resonant in atoms, where the perimeter of orbit is a whole/integer number of wavelengths of the wave.”
(Presura, p. 224) “We have seen that the electron chooses in atom those classical orbits for which the
wave pilot is resonant, i.e., its wavelength is included by a whole/integer number in orbital
circumference. Since only certain orbits fulfill this condition, the electron selects in atom only these
states and therefore it has discrete states of energy.” (idem, p. 227) We can see again a perfect picture of
two EDWs: the microparticle-EW and the field-EW. The equation f = E/h means that “the probability
wave of free electron, in rectilinear and uniform movement, vibrates with a temporal frequency given
directly by the energy of the electron divided by h. More energetic electron, faster vibration for the
probability wave.” (idem, p. 231) This equation mirrors the relationship between the electron and the
wave (real ED physical entities) which belong to EDWs. “The probability of finding an electron is
proportional with the intensity of the wave...” (p. 231) In reality, the position of the electron corresponds,
proportionally, to the intensity of the wave. For me, it is important that Presura emphasizes that the speed
of a phase of harmonic periodic probability wave describing an electron is different than the speed of the
electron, a “thing that seems to lead to a contradiction. However, this observation is not a contradiction,
on the contrary, it indicates very well the probabilistic character of describing the electron”. (p. 231) It is
very clear that this statement (introduced by many physicists long time ago) has been constructed within
the unicorn world. From my viewpoint, this sentence mirrors exactly the correspondence between two
ED entities (with ED different properties) which belong to the EDWs. There is no direct, “proportional”,
correspondence between these ED properties since these ED entities belong to the EDWs (and, esentially,
one EW does not exist for any EDW). For photon, “the probability wave is given exactly by the classical
electromagnetic field of light wave.” (Presura, p. 233) In fact, it is about the correspondence between the
photon and the electromagnetic wave and these ED entities belong to the EDWs.
2
“Correlations” has become a very used notion in cognitive neuroscience after 2006! Amazing, isn’t it?
Before my article published in 2005, everybody accepted the identity theory regarding the ontology of
mind and brain and “correlation” was only an epistemological notion. However, after 2005 and later,
some reserchers have started to used, very often, “correlations” (somehow an ontological notion
involving “different realities” – in reality, it was about my EDWs).
3 “The study of electrons become, in this way, a theory of waves, more exactly of probability wave of
electrons, and a theory of probabilities. More simple saying, the electron is a wave between the

54
EDWs perspective: the microparticle is not “described between measurements” “only”
by its “probability wave”. It would means that the particle does not exist between these
measurements. Within the unicorn world, if the particle “exists between measurements”,
there would be obviously a strong ontological contradiction given by the existence of
microparticle and existence of electromagnetic wave in the same place, at the same time.
On the contrary, within the EDWs perspective, the “microparticle” is a physical entity
1
between our measurements because the microparticle has always been a microparticle
before and after our measurements in its EW, the micro-EW.2 The “probability wave”
refers just to the electromagnetic wave, no more. From my viewpoint, the particle is not
“localized” by our measurement in a particular point; it has always been localized
somewhere, independently of our measurements/consciousness. “...the pilot wave tells
us where the electron can be find, with certain uncertainty which became, today, a
principle…” (Presura 2014, p. 229) This is the reason the “pilot wave” is the
“probability wave” or “wave function”. The correspondence between the microparticle
and the node/peak of the wave cannot be perfectly establish, therefore, the “probability”
is just a label furnished by our tool of observation but it is not something which could
have an ontological support (like radicalists believe). From my viewpoint, the wave-
pilot does not “guide” the movement of the electron since microparticles and the
corresponding wave are certain ED entities which exist in EDWs and, essentially,
particle does not exist for wave, wave does not exist for particle. Indeed, there is only
a correspondence (no ontology) and we can think for a “corresponding guidance” (no
ontology!), no more. That is, there is not a “direct guidance” between wave and particle
just because such “direct guidance” would presuppose a “physical contact/interaction”
between wave and particle, anyway physical contact which would lead to some strong
ontological contradictions. Even Bohr thought about this “correspondence” but,
working within the unicorn world, he encorporated this correspondence in
Spinoza/Kant epistemological framework. It was quite impossible for Bohr to assume
an ontological-epistemological status to this correspondence. Also, I did not attach an
ontological status to this correspondence, but I have changed the framework of thinking:
I replaced the unicorn world with EDWs (one EW did not exist for any EDW). In this

measurements and a corpuscular at measurements.” (Presura, p. 229) This statement is quite wrong: any
electron is always a microparticle, any electromagnetic wave is always an electromagnetic wave (part of
the electromagnetic field presents in the entire “universe”), but these ED entities exist in EDWs. Maybe
we need a theory of probability (epistemological one) because of the “uncertainty principle” (we cannot
localize exactly the position and the impulse of a microparticle), but the physicists working in quantum
mechanics within the unicorn world have made the huge error through ontologizing this “probability”
(given by our macroscopic tools of measurement for microparticles and electromagnetic waves). The
“nature” (i.e., the ED ontologies of EDWs) has no idea about this “epistemological probability”;
mathematics, in general, is just a tool that help us in explaining certain processes of “nature”. Einstein
was totally right regarding this statement: “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
1
Recall, Einstein indicated that light is composed of microparticles…
2 This statement confirm my principle that in a conscious state, like the human body, the human self is
a continuous entity without any “quantum jumps”. This principle strongly supports the existence of
EDWs. (It would be possible, working within the unicorn world, some selves to have “such jumps”, I do
not know, exactly…)

55
way, I have avoided any ontological contradiction and these ED entities received an
1
ontological-epistemological status.
I emphasize again that the correspondences between the ED entities (which belong
to the EDWs) do not have any ontological status. Why the wave pilot does not really
“guide” the electron? Since one EW does not exist for any EDW, then we cannot talk
about such “guidance” between two ED entities which belong to the EDWs. Also, we
cannot talk about the “identity” between a part of the wave (that is a “wrapped wave”
which corresponds directly to an electron) and a microparticle, just because these ED
entities belong to the EDWs. We can talk about a “guidance” of a “node” (part of the
wave) of the electromagnetic wave by the rest of the wave, no more. From my
viewpoint, the “fathers” of quantum mechanics (great physicists, anyway) had two
reasons for introducing the “probability wave”:
(1) They were working within the unicorn world.
(2) In reality, a particle is associated with (more exactly, corresponds to) the entire
electromagnetic wave. (see below, Feynman’s “sum over histories”)
I strongly emphasize here that it is about the “nonlocality” of a microparticle.2 This
“nonlocality” (from my viewpoint, an epistemological notion) is furnished exactly by

1
In my previous works, many times, I emphasized that the distinction between epistemology and
ontology was the greatest mistake realized by human beings, especially by Greek philosophers, Plato
being the “supreme mind” (and later, Kant) who strongly promoted the distinction between
ideas/noumena and apparences/phenomena. Nevertheless, this distinction (related also to religion, i.e.,
the existence of “God”) has dominated human thinking (especially philosophy and physics) many
centuries until I discovered the EDWs. Moreover, in my previous works I indicated that “God” (any
religion) could not even exist…
2 “In a non-local theory, the events from a very distant galaxy can influence instantaneously the events
placed here.” (Presura 2014, p. 287) Presura emphasizes that Einstein’s special relativity imposes a limit
of the speed of “transmission of information”. In fact, introducing the notion of “information” (a real
empty notion created by philosophers and scientists working within the unicorn world), Presura wants to
avoid (like all others) the great problem of “instantant causality” (a much greater speed than c) between
the “nonlocal” events of quantum mechanics: quantum events do not transmit “information”, therefore,
“it is possible a nonlocal theory does not violate relativity theory”. (Presura, p. 297) For me, the
distinction between “event” and “information” is a very absurd distinction and “information” is an empty
notion. There is, inded, no causality of physical events (Einstein was right) or “causality of information”
(another Ptolemaic epicycle). It is about the ED entities which belong to the EDWs: the node/peak of an
electromagnetic wave and the entire wave correspond to the microparticle (for instance, an electron or
photon). Presura indicates that when we measure something, the “probability wave” collapses, and this
change happens in the entire universe. From my viewpoint, the change happens for the entire
electromagnetic field which covers “nothing” (i.e., the entire EW0, no ontological status, but
hyperontological one, see Vacariu 2023, for more details) (or using a wrong notion, the “entire space”,
an empty notion, anyway). “However, still the collapse of the probability in the entire Universe is quite
disturbing. Why it would be possible the probability wave to collapse in the entire universe at the same
time?… The de-coherence explains the collapse of the probability wave through a process in which it
becomes localized step-by-step, through the interaction with the environment. The decoherence theory
will not explain why, because the measurement, the collapse of probability wave happens instantly in the
entire universe. It is a local theory, while quantum mechanics is non-local.” (Presura, p. 288) As I
emphasized above, if we stop measuring the microparticle, the collapse of wave-function disappears, i.e.,
the wave appears again in the same place. This state of affair cannot be explained within the unicorn
world, but only within the EDWs perspective: the wave function (the electromangetic wave, in this case
– even if it refers to a microparticle) did not collapse at all. What it did really happens is the fact that,
changing the measurement apparatus, we change our indirect observation of one entity which belongs to
a particular EW to an ED entity which belongs to an EDW. Changing the measurement apparatus helps
us to observe, indirectly, certain ED entities which belong to EDWs. There is no “decoherence”, no
collapse, no disappearance, but only the changes of our observations (changes of “measurement
apparatus” – indirect “measurements”, anyway) for “measuring” a particular entity (which belong to a

56
the “correspondence” (no ontology) between the micro-entities (i.e., a particle or two
particles or even more particles) and the entire electromagnetic wave/field which
belong to the EDWs. These two ED entities belong to two EDWs and only because of
this reason, we can “associate” a microparticle with the “entire” wave. If Maxwell’s
equations are for the electromagnetic wave/field, Schrödinger’s equation is for the
electron but it describes the “evolution” of “probability wave”. (Presura, p. 234) Also,
the equation describes the discrete “levels of system” (in Hilbert space). (p. 235) From
my viewpoint, Schrödinger’s equation mirrors the correspondence between the electron
and the electromagnetic wave. It is supposed that the electron has a greater probability
to be in place then in another, but it can be everywhere with less and less probability.
Since the electron corresponds to the entire wave, than indeed, the electron can be found
in any point which corresponds with the electromagnetic wave, but it has the greatest
probability to be found in the point which corresponds with that “node” of the
electromagnetic wave. Since there are many points of any electromagnetic field, the
electron corresponds to any of these points with different probabilities (greater the
distance of a point from the node of the wave, less probability the microparticle to be
there). I repeat, all these probabilities are, for me, just pragmatic instruments for
describing ED entities belonging to the EDWs; in this way, I strongly reject any strange
“ontological framework” (or “spooky actions at distance”) which it had been accepted
by many physicists (following Born). Again, working within the unicorn world, many
physicists have been forced to introduce and accept, somehow, certain “superposition
states”. The “quantum superposition” is a wrong notion since, within the EDWs, there
is no “superposition states” since one EW does not exist for any EDW and the
microparticle is not places in two places; only the electromagnetic field is present
everywhere, while an electromagnetic wave is just a small part of this field.1

2
1925/6 Schrödinger, wave function
particular EW) to “measuring” an ED entity (which belongs to an EDW): we use a particular
measurement apparatus for “measuring” (not directly “observing”) the wave (which belong to the field-
EW), but we need to change the measuring apparatus for measuring the particle (which belongs to the
micro-EW). The microparticle only corresponds (no ontological status) to the “node/peak” of the
electromagnetic wave (more exactly to the entire electromagnetic field). The “nonlocality” of two
microparticles, for instance, is given by the fact that the indivisible electromagnetic wave/field is
everywhere (in this “universe”) and it corresponds to these two microparticles and the distance (no
ontology) between them.
1 I would have to draw the attention that, working within the unicorn world, the physicists have been
forced to introduce the “complex numbers” in order to explain the relationships between a wave and a
microparticle.
2
“The story is told of a graduate student asking Richard Feynman: ‘Aside from being a tool for
calculation, what actually is the quantum wavefunction?’ The only response overheard was: “’Shh! First
close the door.’ As J. M. Jauch puts it: ‘For many thoughtful physicists, [the deeper meaning of quantum
mechanics] has remained a kind of skeleton in the closet’.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 13)
Working within the unicorn world, all the physicists needed to close the door because of the skeleton in
the closet… “The quantum enigma has challenged physicists for eight decades. Is it possible that crucial
clues lie outside the expertise of physicists? Remarkably, the enigma can be presented essentially full-
blown to nonscientists. Might someone unencumbered by years of training in the use of quantum theory
have a new insight? After all, it was a child who pointed out that the emperor wore no clothes.” (idem)
Indeed, it was necessary “a child” (me, a philosopher) to come and indicated the emperor (all the
physicists, no exception, until me) wore no clothes. I remark here the usually, in the history of human
thinking, always there was a dictature of human thinking imposed by some groups of “important”
professors in a period of time. There are, in reality, just groups of interests (money, fame, prizes, nothing
else). Such professors really impose a (sub)framework of thinking just because they accept this

57
Schrödinger introduced the wave function for the entire “universe”, and this function
1
(a mathematical formula) described all the possibilities where the particle could be.
However, when we “measure”/observe the particle in one place, the wave collapses in
2
that particle. From all those “posibillities” it remains only the actual one, where the
particle is observed/measured. Schrödinger’s equation uses real and imaginary
numbers, while de Broglie uses only real numbers. From this equation, psi is the wave-
function which describe the particle, location and energy. For a particle in empty space,
the equation describes the particle in a single form; however, if the particle is in an atom
3
(quite close to a nucleus), the form has different shapes.

framework (maybe they contributed to it) and reject all other alternatives. It is a kind of “imperialist
mentality”, i.e., a professor (like any living being, anyway) believes he/she is always “right”… (just a
result of species evolution, nothing else – see my third novel).
1
“Schrödinger’s remarkable discovery was that the replacement waves described the individual states
of the quantum system and their amplitude gave the relative importance of that particular state to the
whole system. [Schrödinger] ‘In other words, contained within the well-established mathematics of
eingen value functions was the underlying quantization of atomic systems’.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013,
p. 136) “The integers called quantum numbers by Bohr, Sommerfeld and Heisenberg were now related
in a natural way to the number of nodes in a vribrating system.” (idem, p. 137) “Schrödinger even began
to doubt the existence of particles. [Schrödinger] ‘The image point or particle of a mechanical system
can be represented by a wave group with small dimensions in every direction. Today, this is called a wave
packet, the image point (or particle) moves with the group velocity of the wave packet. This looks like a
particle, but it is really a superposition of thousands of waves as de Broglies described’.” (idem, p. 140)
2
“But Erwin Schrödinger wasn’t looking for significance. He saw de Broglie’s matter waves as a way
to get rid of Bohr’s ‘damn quantum jumps’.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 69) “Schrödinger credits
Einstein’s ‘brief but infinitely far-seeing remarks’ for calling his attention to de Broglie’s speculation that
material objects could display a wave nature. The idea appealed to Schrödinger. Waves might evolve
smoothly from one state to another. Electrons would not need to orbit without radiating. He might get rid
of Bohr’s ‘damn quantum jumps’.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 71) In fact, there are both the
electrons and the corresponding electromagnetic waves in the EDWs and those “damn quantum jumps”
of electrons (the micro-EW) are not ad hoc, but in correspondences with the peaks of electromagnetic
waves (the field-EW). “Schrödinger himself was delighted to think that he had gotten rid of quantum
jumping. He wrote: It is hardly necessary to point out how much more gratifying it would be to conceive
a quantum transition as an energy change from one vibrational mode to another than to regard it as a
jumping of elec trons. The variation of vibrational modes may be treated as a process continuous in space
and time and enduring as long as the emission process persists.” (idem, pp. 72-3)
3
“What’s waving in Schrödinger’s matter wave? The mathematical representation of the wave is called
the ‘wavefunction.’ In some very real sense, the wavefunction of an object is the object. In quantum
theory there is no atom in addition to the wavefunction of the atom.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 72) “A
couple of years before Schrödinger’s vacation inspiration, Compton showed that photons bounced off
electrons as if they were each tiny billiard balls. On the other hand, to display interference, each and
every photon or electron had to be a widely spread-out thing. Each photon, for example, had to go through
both slits in a barrier. How can an object be both compact and spread out? Well, a wave can be either
compact or spread out. (But, of course, it cannot be both at the same time.) The wavefunction of a moving
atom might look much like ripples, or a series of waves, a ‘wave package,’ moving on water… For big
things, objects much larger than atoms, Schrödinger’s equation just turns into Newton’s universal
equation of motion. Schrödinger’s equation governs not only the behavior of electrons and atoms but
also the behavior of everything made of atoms — molecules, baseballs, and planets. Given an initial
wavefunction, it tells what the wavefunction will be like later. It’s the new universal law of motion.
Newton’s equation is just the approximation for big things…. The waviness of a package of quantum
waves is large where the amplitude of the waves is large. Perhaps that is where the object is. (In quantum
theory, the technical expression for the waviness is the “absolute square of the wavefunction,” and there

58
 1
1926 Heisenberg, “matrix”
Following/working with Bohr, Heisenberg was interested in the results of experiments.
More than this, with his “matrix theory”, he rejectes even Bohr’s orbits: before using a
2
particular apparatus which measure the particle, this particle does not even exists.
Only because of our particular measurement apparatus (for microparticles), we can
3
observe (indirectly, anyway) the particle. The classical mechanics describes particle
as having position and momentum. Heisenberg believes that position and momentum
are just „potential“ features of a particle. Therefore, the unpredictable Bohr’s jumps of
the electron from one orbit to another (criticized by Rutherford) receives an
4
explanation: quantum nature is probabilistic. However, elaborated together with Born
and Jordan, the mathematical background of matrix theory (which explained,
5
probabilistically, these jumps) was very complicated.
In Heisenberg’s “matrix mechanics”, the “energy levels of atoms” are “described
purely in terms of numbers” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 131) and this matrix is
equivalent to Schrödinger’s “wave equation” “that described in some magical way the
quantum aspects of the system… He had taken de Broglie’s idea of the wave description

is a mathematical operation for getting it from the wavefunction. We mention that term only because you
might see it elsewhere.” (idem, p. 73) Rosenblum and Kuttner write that initial Schrödinger’s
interpretation of wave function was quite wrong. (p. 74) Following Copenhagen interpretation (and
Born’s “quantum probability”) they belive that before our measurement, there is only the electromagnetic
wave, but after we measure, the wave collapses in microparticle. “The waviness in a region is the
probability of finding the object in that region. Be careful — the waviness is not the probability of the
object being there. There’s a crucial difference! The object was not there before you found it there. Your
happening to find it there caused it to be there. This is tricky and the essence of the quantum enigma.”
(idem, p. 75) (Later, these authors emphasize that nobody knows what this “collapse” means…)
However, within the EDWs perspective, I explained this experiment very clearly in my previous works:
there was is collapse, but there EDWs like the micro-EW, the field-EW, and also the macro-EW (with
macro-entities like both measurement apparatus (for wave and particle) and human bodies who
manipulate the apparatus)…
1
Again, the “triple birth of the New Quantum theory” is Heisenberg’s “matrix mechanics”, Schrödinger’s
“wave mechanics”, and Dirac’s “quantum algebra”. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 120)
2
“[Heisenberg] ‘My starting point was to treat the atom, not like a little solar system, but like a simple
virtual oscillator which could produce all the frequencies of the spectrum.’ This was similar to what
Planck had done on black-doby radiation in 1900.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 124) Heisenberg
applied Bohr’s correspondence principle for very large orbits of an atom. In this case, the orbital
frequency is equal to the radiation frequency, therefore, the atom can be concived like a simple linear
oscillator; Heisenberg’s formula includes all possible states of the atom. He had broken the spectral
code.” (idem, pp. 124-5)
3
Heisenberg‘s view is quite close to Bohr’s complementarity. (see below) Anyway, they worked
together and both belonged to the Copenhagen Interpretation.
4
This probabilistic view is totally against the classical view furnished by the classical physics. All those
features of Newtonian (Maxwell, Einstein) classical view (see above) are rejected.
5
Just one year later, Schrödinger introduced the “wave function” with a much simpler mathematics.
Therefore, even those belonging to the “Copenhagen group” started to use the Schrödinger’s equation.

59
of matter very seriously indeed.” 1 (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 134) Thus, the
whole/integer numbers “called quantum numbers by Bohr, Sommerfeld and Heisenberg
were now related in a natural way to the number of nodes in a vibrating system.”
(McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 137) Obviously, if we want to relate them in a “natural
way” we have to appeal to the inevitable correspondences between “nodes”/peaks of
waves and microparticles.

1 “He loathed the concept of discontinuous quantum jumps within the atom proposed by Bohr.”
(McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 139) Working within the wave/field-EW, Schrödinger could not accept
the phenomena from the micro-EW. “Frequencies of birth line spectra can now be visualized as beats
between the vibration frequencies of two there quantum states. How much more appealing is the
conception that in quantum transitions energy passes continuously from one vibration pattern to another
rather than for indescribable jumping electrons.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 139) His “classical
theory of matter waves” to mechanics is similar to “Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetic waves had to
optics”. (p. 139) Amazing, the next section has the title: “Who needs particles anyway?”, the first
sentence being: “Schrödinger even began to doubt the existence of particles.” followed by this one: “The
image point or particle of a mechanical system can be represented by a wave group with small dimensions
in every direction.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 140) The “wave package” (a superposition of
thousands of waves as de Broglie described”) represents the particle. Anyway, Henrik Lorentz criticized
Schrödinger’s approach (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 140) (but his critics mirrored directly the EDWs).
At next page, we have a Schrödinger’s “thought” on last week of February 1926: “I am repelled by the
Heisenberg formalism because of the difficult algebra involved and the lack of an Anschauslischkeit, a
viewpoint or picture. Yet, to my surprise, I showed that the two theories were completely equivalent from
a mathematical point of view.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 142) However, at the meeting in July 1926
in Munich, after Schrödinger’s presentation, Heisenberg asked him: “Can you explain quantized
processes such as the photoelectric effect and black-body radiation on the basis of your continuum wave
model?” Working within the unicorn world, Schrödinger had no answer to this question. (McEnvoy and
Zarate 2013, p. 143)

60
Chapter 7

Four mysteries of quantum mechanics: „entanglement”,

„nonlocality”, “electron spin”, and “superposition”

„Entanglement” and „nonlocality”

I will furnish more details about „entanglement” and „nonlocality” within my EDWs
perspective. There are two particles associated to two electromagnetic waves. If we put
together those two particles, the corresponding two waves interfere and this inference
creates a single wave. Mathematically, there would be a single wave function
“correlated” with both electrons. These two electrons are „entangled” by that „wave
function”. Using a measurement apparatus, we determine the spin of an electron (it
would be “up”, for instance) and this process instantly determines the spin of the other
electron (it would be down). The main problem was that it does not matter the distance
(one or 10,000 km) between those two electrons: it was interpreted that the process of
measuring the spin of the first electron transmits instantaneously a „message” to the
second electron. However, this transmission contradicts the principle imposed by the
special relativity: the speed of light c is maximum speed which can be reach by a
physical entity (usually elecgtromagnetic waves and photons have speed c) in the entire
„universe”. (In order an entity to pass the speed c, there would be necessary an infinite
amount of energy.) However, many quantum experiments have indicated such
“correlations” of two particles. Einstein called this process “spooky action at a
distance”, a process of transmission a physical processes with a speed greater than c.
This correlation means the nonlocality of two particles. „In a non-local theory, the
events from a great distance galaxy can instataneously influence certain events from
the place yoiu are at this moment.” (Presura, p. 287) Presura figure 10.25:
(above): In initial state, there is a probability wave ψ (x) of an electron. The wave is very delocalized and
extends from here to Sirius. In this moment, we measure the electron and we find it on Earth. (down)
After measure, the probability wave collapses, it become localized in the area where we have found the
electron. The process of quantum collapse takes instantenously place in the entire universe... through our
measurement, we have instatenously influenced the probabilities of measuring the electron by an alien
on Sirius. The alien belives there is a change to find the electron on Sirius, but he would check in vain,
he will not find the electron there. (Presura, p. 288)

EDWs: Again, in reality, those two particles correspond to a wave function (i.e., to an
electromagnetic wave between those two particles is established when we put quite
close those two particles). So, entanglement and nonlocality are much easier to be
explained within the EDWs perspective: when we put together two particles (micro-
EW), a corresponding electromagnetic wave is created (by nobody) in the field-
1 2
EW. Moreover, there is no collapse of the wave.

1
This particular electromagnetic wave is part of the wave function which describes the electromagnetic
field which covers the entire “universe”. This is the main reason, the appearences of these “spooky
actions at great distances” are not something “mystical”. (Some thinkers have appealed to Oriental
religion in the last years… they have to go to church not to work in academic environment…)
2
“However, the process of collapse of probability wave in the entire universe is quite problematic. Why
the probability wave would collapse in the entire universe at the same time? ... As we see, anyway, the

61
 The entanglement cannot be explained within the micro-EW (where those two
microparticles are placed), but it is does not mean we have here only a “dual aspect” of
the “real nature”/noumena or “dual property”/property dualism. There are EDWs,
nothing else. Oerter believes that the electrons are caught in a “web of interactions” and
any electron has a “kind of mystical instantaneous connection with every object in the
universe”. (p. 86) We can give up this “mysticism” only by accepting the EDWs
perspective. Let me investigate quite a long paragraph about related to particles and
fields in quantum mechanics:
In nineteenth-century physics, the universe contained two things: particles and fields. Particles were tiny
and hard, like small billiard balls. Fields were elastic and spread throughout space. Particles produced
fields according to their electric charge and their motion, and particles responded to the fields of the
particles around them. Relativistic quantum field theory completely eliminates the distinction between
particles and fields. Matter (the electrons and positrons) and forces (the photons) are both described in
the same way—by quantum fields. Quantum fields combine particle nature and field nature in a single
entity. The quantum field spreads out through space, just like a classical field, but it is quantized: When
you try to measure the field, you always find a whole particle, or two particles, or none… This dual
nature of quantum fields is reflected in the two descriptions physicists employ when working with them.
Feynman diagrams picture the field as a dense mesh of tiny interacting particles. Schwinger instead
pictured the field as a continuous collection of harmonic oscillators, spread throughout the universe. Both
pictures are useful in their own way. Schwinger’s field picture makes the symmetries of the theory
apparent and emphasizes the continuous nature of the quantum field. Feynman diagrams are easy to
visualize, they emphasize the particle aspect of the theory, and they greatly simplify the process of
calculation. (Oerter 2006, pp. 121-122)

Again, in this paragraph, we clearly see the “dual aspect” of “universe”, which in reality
is represented by, at least, two EDWs. Within the unicorn world, together Feynman and
Schwinger’s views would produce strong ontological contradictions. Within the EDWs
perspective, both Feynman and Schwinger are partially ok: there are particles as well
as fields there, but in the EDW. Again, it has to be very clear that the particles do not
exist for the field/waves and the field/waves does not exist for the particles. Therefore,
Feynman handled particles, Schwinger dealed with fields, both approaches being
partially acceptable only within the EDWs.
Later, at page 124, Oerter writes that the light “was something completely new—a
quantum field, neither particle nor wave, but with aspects of both. But the revolution in
thought goes deeper than that. Matter, too, can be described by a quantum field.” 1
Obviously, as I indicated in my articles (2002, 2003, 2005) and PhD thesis (2007), my
presupposition of decoherence (section 111) would not explain this characteristic. Decoherence explains
the collapse of probability wave through a process in which it becomes localized step by step, through
its interaction with the environment. The decoherence theory would not explain why the probability wave
collapse takes place instatenously in the entire universe as a results of measurement. This theory is a
local one, while quantum mechanics is non-local.” (Presura, p. 288) Again, such ideas are all created
within the unicorn world… this has been the main reason, the physicists have introduced quite wrong
theories/concepts/principles.
1 “We need a new conceptual model, something that is neither particle nor wave, something for which
our everyday experience provides no analogy. That ‘something’ is what I have been calling the quantum
field. It is a field that obeys a wave equation (the Schrödinger equation) that gives us the properties of
interference and so on, but it always comes in chunks—in any interaction, only a whole electron (or atom
or molecule) is emitted or absorbed or detected.” (Oerter 2006, p. 73) I believe that now it is quite clear
that this new conceptual model is the EDWs perspective: there are EDWs (micro-EW, field-EW) and an
essential point: any electromagnetic wave is part of the electromagnetic field which covers the entire
“universe”. This electromagnetic field appeared 380.000 years after “Big Bang”, it has continuously
expanded (speed c) until now, it will expand in the future. When this expansion will stop? Ask Newton,
not me…

62
book 2008 (etc.), light is both photons and waves but in EDWs.1 This complementarity
(see Bohr’s idea of complementarity in Vacariu 2008) was extended to all
microparticles, but the framework was wrong: the unicorn-world.2 We think that the
EDWs perspective could be a much better alternative for explaining Bohr’s
complementarity and superposition, entanglement, nonlocality and nonseparability.
Taking the “collapse” as a criterion, Putnam (2005) makes a classification of
different interpretations of quantum mechanics. He replaces the “measurement problem”
from quantum mechanics with the “collapse problem”. For him, the question is “Do we
or don’t we need to postulate a ‘collapse’ and if we do assume a ‘collapse’, what should
we say about it?” (Putnam 2005, p. 624). The collapse problem refers to the relationship
between waves and microparticles or between micro and macro-observables. From the
EDWs perspective, these kinds of “interactions” are certain “Ptolemaic epicycles”
within the unicorn-world. Following de Broglie’s “duality” (“association”), physicists
believe that the “collapse” of the electromagnetic wave takes place when we measure
the position of its “associated” microparticle. Before measuring the position of the
electron, the wave is continuously but because of our measurement, it becomes
“delocalized” (i.e., its wavelength continuously increases, its amplitude continuously
decreases). (The wave “decoheres” in particle.) When, using a special apparatus for the
microparticle, we

measure the position of the electron, its probability wave will have a quantum collapse, and it will
suddenly change, it will be localized. Then, however, it will evolve from the last position until the next

1 For more details about the photon-wave complementarity, see my previous works. Anyway, I add that
the speed of a photon (no mass) corresponds to the speed of the electromagnetic wave. Therefore,
Michelson-Morley experiment is valid just because the speed of light c is constant. “Albert Einstein took
a different tack and cut the Gordian knot. He postulated the observed fact: that the speed of light is the
same no matter how fast the observer moves. He took it as a new law of Nature. Two observers, though
moving at different speeds, would each measure the same light beam to be passing them at the same
speed. The speed of light in a vacuum is therefore a universal constant, called ‘c’… The prediction most
important to us in this book is that no object, no signal, no information, can travel faster than the speed
of light. Another prediction is that mass is a form of energy and can be converted into other forms of
energy. It’s summarized as E = mc2. Both of these predictions have been confirmed, sometimes
dramatically.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 48) E = mc2 indicates that there are the ED entities
(microparticles and electromagnetic fields) which belong to the EDWs. The main principle of special
relativity (constant speed c) is correct just because the field-EW appeared firstly and the micro-EW and
the macro-EW appeared later. So, there are certain certain correspondences between the electromagnetic
waves/fields (all having speed c) and the microparticles (except photons (speed c), all the microparticles
and macroparticles have speed less than c). (About these topics, see my previous works) In this case,
“constant” means the correspondence between particle and wave which itself includes (through
correspondence) the speed of light.
2 “In fact, light also behaves like both a particle and a wave, depending on the circumstances under
which you choose to measure it.” (Krauss 2017, p. 88) Krauss works within the wrong framework of the
“universe”, inside the “universe”: if somebody presupposes the existence of both entities (particles and
wave), that person would reach strong ontological contradictions. Only within EDWs perspective, we
can accept that both ED entities exist, but in the EDWs. Later, Krauss wrote: “As I have noted, in quantum
mechanics particles have a wavelike character.” (Krauss 2017, p. 97) Indeed, Krauss works within the
unicorn world. See also: “As I described in the earlier double-slit experiment example, there is no sense
in which the particle has at any time both a specific position and a specific momentum. It possesses a
wide range of both, at the same time, until we measure it and thereby fix at least one of them within some
small range determined by our measurement apparatus.” (Krauss 2017, p. 101) If our measurement
apparatus determines the position and the momentum for a particle, and following Heisenberg, there are
ontologically “undetermined” features for the microparticle, than our body (which, within the unicorn
world is identical with a huge amalgam of microparticles) has an “undetermined” position or moment.
(About Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, see below)

63
measurement. If nobody from the universe would measure the position of the electron, then its probability
wave will delocalize on huge distance. (Presura 2014, p. 240)

In fact, there is no such “collapse” or “delocalized” processes, there are only

correspondences (no ontologies) between the wave and the particle.
Presura indicates the “third postulate” of quantum mechanics:

at each measurement of electron, its probability wave has a quantum collapse (a sudden change). In the
case we measure the position of electron, the probability wave becomes, after measurement, localized in
the area where the electron was found. (Presura, p. 240)

We have to translate this postulate in my EDWs language. The “collapse” means the
indirect intervention of our macro-apparatus (it does not exist either for wave or for
particle) on the wave (in reality our macro-apparatus did not interact with
microparticlees or wave; it intereacts with “nothing” which corresponds to certain a
certain electromagnetic wave/field which corresponds to the electron).1 Moreover, if
we stop measuring the position of an electron, the electromagnetic wave reappears in
the same position as before our measurement. Why? Because our apparatus does not
act (indirectly) on either the electromagnetic wave or the microparticle, but it “acts” on
“nothing” (no ontology) which corresponds to both real ED entities: wave/field and
electron. From my viewpoint, in reality, there is no collapse at all! The electromagnetic
wave did not “disappear” when we take the measurement (with our macroscopic tools
of measurement) and “appears” after we stop taking the measurement. In reality, with
our apparatus, we localized (indirectly) the “position” of an electron (for instance), but
the wave did not disappear, it is still “there” (the field-EW), not in the entire “universe”,
but in an EDW (the field-EW) than the microparticle (micro-EW) and our tool of
investigation, a macroscopic entity (the macro-EW). More exactly, without collapsing,
the wave always remains as part of the field-EW. We recall that a microparticle
corresponds to an electromagnetic wave (the “node”/peak of a wave which is part of
the whole electromagnetic field), while a macroparticle (a planet in the macro-EW, for
instance) corresponds to an electromagnetic field (a huge node of the wave in the field-
EW which corresponds to a huge amalgam of microparticles in the micro-EW).
A thing is clear: the quantum collapse happens at each measurement and not between measurements.
Between measurements, the probability wave evolves continuum according the Schrödinger equation.

1 “When does the collapse happen? When the photon of the microscope strikes the electron, when my
brain becomes conscious of the new value of its position? We don’t know yet precisely when the process
take places or how does it happen. The physicists describe it as a ‘black box’ and they see it as a result
of the measurement process… Does the collapse happen suddenly in the entire universe, even passing
the speed of light? Paradoxically, the collapse takes place instantly in the entire universe, even if this
process would presupposes, apparently, a speed greater than the speed of light.” (Presura 2014, p. 260)
From my viewpoint, the “collapse” does not exist. The observer has just changed the tools of measuring
(we cannot measure the particle and the wave with the same instrument) moving from one EW (particle-
EW, for instance) to an EDW (field-EW). Nothing it is passing the speed of light, so there is no paradox
here. Working within the unicorn world, it is not surprising that Presura writes that it is “paradoxical that,
after almost 100 years from the construction of the elements of quantum mechanics, we don’t know yet
for instance how the collapse of the probability wave takes place.” (Presura, p. 261) “There are many
physicists who have had (and still have) objections for this standard interpretation. They believe that we
do not impose the limits in describing mathematically the measurement process only through the collapse
of probability wave.” (p. 261) These physicists needed the EDWs; nobody discovered them until me;
neither after… (I avoid to furnish details about decoherence theory since decoherence does not even
exist, see Pressura 111; also I avoid to write about brain and quantum mechanics too much; see Presura
112, for instance)

64
At measurement, however, it suffers the process of quantum collapse, in the way in which at the next
measurement we get the same result…
But what does it happen, in reality, with the electron before measuring it? Should I have to consider
only its probability wave, which evolve according to Schrödinger’s equation? Contemporary quantum
mechanics gives us the following answer: the electron cannot be consider like a ball between the initial
moment and that after measurement, but only as being a probability wave. Except the fact that it exists
between those two moments, the electron has no property (form, dimension, etc.) excepting, of course,
its probability wave which evolves. When we want to see if it is a place, we “look” there, and the
probability to find it there is given by its probability wave. If the electron is there, then the probability
wave suffers a quantum collapse, the electron falls practically “like from the sky” in that position where
we find it. (Presura 2014, p. 241)

What does it mean “collapse”? Does it mean “disappearance”? That is, when we
measure the electron, does the wave disappear? Obviously, the answer is negative. Then
what does it mean “collapse”? From my viewpoint, it means just an observational
change from one EW to an EDW. The wave does not collapse when our special
measurement revels the existence of electron. If the electron were existing only when
we would measure it, then any human being would not exist (we are “made” of
1
microparticles, don’t we?) until someone “measure” that body. If the electron has no
properties until it is measured, then any human body has no properties until someone
measure (“look at”) that body. The reductionists would believe we, humans (human
bodies), do not really exist. Then who is writing this sentences? An amalgam of
microparticles? Or certain electromagnetic waves? Or a macro-object, the human body?
We recall that the reductionist physicists believe that when we measure the particle,
wave collapses, and when we stop measuring the microparticle the wave reappear. From
the “sky”, of course...2 Surprisingly, isn’t it? Within the unicorn world, there have been
quite many unexpected processes. However, the EDWs perspective is a different
framework which explains completely all the “mysteries” of quantum mechanics
(created within the wrong framework, the unicorn world.). The wave does not collapse
at all. Our observation is moved, indirectly, from an EW (wave-EW) to an EDW (micro-
EW), and this is all. Nothing disappears, nothing appears from the sky...

1
Following Einstein’s question (regarding the existence of the Moon or a bed in a room only when
he/somebody observes it), I introduce another question for two persons (let me suppose, two married
human beings) who sustain the Copenhagen interpretation (within the unicorn world): the bodies of these
two persons exist only when they perceive or kiss each other, aren’t they?
2 Presura indicates the role of abstract “Hilbert spaces”, vectors, and “operators” for describing the
relationship between wave and particle. (Presura 2014) Within the unicorn world, the physicists needed,
indeed, “abstract mathematics”… The reader, don’t forget: “As far as the laws of mathematics refer
to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” (Einstein) In
1998, when I received my job of professor at Philosophy Department (I did not discovered the EDWs
yet), physics had been dominated by the (super)string theory several decades (mainly in US, the leaders)
Nevertheless, in the last 6-7 years, the (super)string theory has lost, almost completely, its “leader-
position” in the international academic environment. Why? Only because many academic “professors”
have become aware about my EDWs. This is the only reasons, in our days, only very old professors are
still working on the (super)string theory, a SF story since “spacetime” could not have any ontological
status (see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016). Anyway, many scientists/philosophers have started to reject the
existence of “spacetime” (any dimensions 4, 5, 10, 11, or 26), but only after my article 2005 have been
published at Synthese (USA). Almost nobody rejected completely “spacetime” until that moment.
(However, see the dispute between Newton and Leibniz about the existence of “absolute” versus
“relative” space and time… I recall an idea from my previous works: if, with his special relativity,
Einstein relativized “spacetime”, why he (or any other physicist) did not think that “spacetime” could
not even exist??? Very strange state of affair, indeed…

65
 The “non-locality” refers to the entanglement between two particles (which, in the
past, had an “interaction”) but this entanglement does not have any ontological status
(therefore, Einstein was, partially, right!); it is the corresponding indivisible wave
(which belongs to an EDW). Again, I strongly underline that the “space” (no ontology,
anyway) of the field-EW is the entire “cosmic space” (in this sentence, “space” is just
a pragmatic word). The difference between two EDWs is given not by their
1
“spatiotemporal frameworks” with “different metrics” (pragmatic words) , but by their
ED entities/interactions. It is completely wrong to assign the property of non-locality
to the relation between objects which belong to the micro-EW. All we can say is that a
wave corresponds to the “system” of particles (system because these particles
interacted in the past and this interaction created the corresponding electromagnetic
wave). Both Einstein et al. and those supporting the Copenhagen interpretation were
wrong:
- because of his special relativity, Einstein rejected any instant physical interactions
between those two particles (he was partially right, but he did not think about the
correspondence between those two particles and wave);
- those from Copenhagen group introduced epistemological properties (or un-
explained property) or even wrong properties (non-locality as a kind of physical entity)
into the unicorn-world.
The so-called “hidden variables” and “non-locality” or “non-separability”
introduced by some physicists to “save the phenomena” of the unicorn-world are just
“empty concepts”. 2 Only the unicorn-world and a one-to-many relationship have
forced us to even consider von Neumann’s idea of classical logic’s revision (a pseudo-
alternative among others) for understanding Bohr’s complementarity.

“Electron spin”
It is well known that matter-particles have all “spin-1/2” (“the value ½ is, roughly
speaking, a quantum-mechanical measure of how quickly electrons rotate).3 Moreover,
the “nongravitational force carriers—photons, weak gauge bosons, and gluons” have
spin-1. The graviton is supposed to have spin-2. As in indicated in our previous works
and this book, the graviton cannot even exist.4

1
For Newton (absolute space and absolute time), Einstein (general relativity) and some reductionists,
an alternative would be the same “spatiotemporal framework”, but for me, “spacetime” could not even
exist.
2 Within the unicorn world, there have been people (Bohm with his “implicit order”, Schrӧdinger with
his wave function, and others) who claimed that all the macro-objects in the “Universe” are somehow
related. Some of them even thought that this “nonlocality” is available not only for the microparticles
but also for the macroparticles. They believed that, because of the great difference regarding the masses
for microparticles and the masses of macro-objects, we can “ignore” the “nonlocality” for the macro-
objects. From my viewpoint, there are “different grades of correspondences” for the wave-microparticle
relationship and the wave-macroparticle relationship. Anyway, working within the unicorn world, we
can claim that all macro-objects are somehow related, i.e., there is a “nonlocality” or “entanglement”
between any two entities (being micro or macro). Within a strong reductionism framework, the
explanation of behavior of macro/micro-objects become meaningless, therefore, “entanglement” and
“nonlocality” are meaningless notions since only the electromagnetic waves exist.
3 “More precisely, spin-½ means that the angular momentum of the electron from its spin is h/2.”)
(Greene 1999, p. 80)
4 I recall: graviton cannot even exist. The gravity is not the “curved spacetime” (Einstein’s general
relativity) (since spacetime (or both space and time) cannot even exist), but it is “nothing curved” which
corresponds with something which belongs to an EDW, for instance, there are electromagnetic waves

66
Some hundred years earlier, the Frenchman André-Marie Ampère had shown that magnetism arises from
the motion of electric charge. Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit followed this lead and found that only one
specific sort of electron motion could give rise to the magnetic properties suggested by the data:
rotational motion—that is, spin. And so, contrary to classical expectations, Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit
proclaimed that, somewhat like the earth, electrons both revolve and rotate.
Did Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit literally mean that the electron is spinning? Yes and no. What their
work really showed is that there is a quantum-mechanical notion of spin that is somewhat akin to the
usual image but inherently quantum mechanical in nature. It's one of those properties of the microscopic
world that brushes up against classical ideas but injects an experimentally verified quantum twist. For
instance, picture a spinning skater. As she pulls her arms in she spins more quickly; as she stretches out
her arms she spins more slowly. And sooner or later, depending on how vigorously she threw herself into
the spin, she will slow down and stop. Not so for the kind of spin revealed by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit.
According to their work and subsequent studies, every electron in the universe, always and forever, spins
at one fixed and never changing rate. The spin of an electron is not a transitory state of motion as for
more familiar objects that, for some reason or other, happen to be spinning. Instead, the spin of an electron
is an intrinsic property, much like its mass or its electric charge. If an electron were not spinning, it would
not be an electron. (Greene 1999, p. 80)

From the EDWs perspective, the electron, for instance, does not have a “pure”, real spin
1
just because it corresponds to an electromagnetic wave. This correspondence blocks
the electron to have a real spin like a macro-entity (because of the mass of a macro-
object, in its rotation, the corresponding “influence” of an electromagnetic waves do
not even exist for the macro-object; these electromagnetic waves exist for a
concentration of electromagnetic waves which corresponds to that macro-object). Why
does a macro-entity (the spinning skater) can have a real spin and a microparticle cannot?
Because the correspondence between the macro-entity (the “spinning skater”) and the
electromagnetic wave is very “week”, while the correspondence between a
microparticle (the electron) and the electromagnetic wave is much “stronger”, i.e.,
“different degree of correspondences”. That is, indirectly (through correspondence), the
electromagnetic wave has a “stronger” correspondence for the microparticle (the
electron) than for the macro-entity (the “spinning skater”) just because of the
dimensions of microparticle and macro-object in correspondence to the electromagnetic
wave. The correspondence between the electromagnetic wave does not “influence”,
practically, the rotation of a spinning skater at all.
In the case of a particle without spin, the probability wave is given by a complex number for each point
of space ψ(r). The module square of the complex number (the intensity of the wave) |ψ(r) |² is proportional
with the probability of finding the particle in that point. If the particle has a spin, there are more quantum
states for the same spatial position, depending of the values of spin. For instance, the electron has two
different quantum states in the same position. (Presura 2014, p. 257)

that are “indirectly curved” (“correspondence”) by the “planets”. However, the planets does not exist for
the wave/field, the fields does not exist for the planets since both belong to the EDWs. What, then curve
the electromagnetic field? Great concentrations of this field (which correspond to the planets) curve the
electromagnetic field between these concentrations. This is “gravity” in the macro-EW: “nothing curved”
(no ontology) which corresponds to certain curved electromagnetic field (the field-EW).
1
Again, there are “different grades of correspondences” between electromagnetic wave-microparticle,
wave-macroparticle, microparticle-macroparticle: a wave indirectly “influences” (through
correspondence – no ontology!) a microparticle because the mass of microparticle is very small. A wave
does not influence (indirectly) a macroscopic object just because the mass of macroscopic entity is much
greater than the mass of microparticle.

67
From the EDWs perspective, the electron has one state in one position, no more. There
are no “more quantum states for the same spatial position depending on the value of
spin” at all. In reality, when we measure the electron state, there is the corresponding
electromagnetic wave, and this is the reason the electron can appear in one state or
another. Actually, the electron is in one spatial position, but our measurement can,
instantaneously, change (indirectly through correspondence) the position of the
microparticle (essentially, our measuring apparatus for the electron influences,
indirectly, also the wave) and, therefore, it can appear in another spatial position.
Until I discovered the EDWs, the main question of Young’s experiment had been
1
what it was an electron (or light): a wave or a particle or both? We have already known
that the photon was believed to be a wave (Maxwell in the 19th century) and a particle
(Einstein 1905).
In general, the physicists from Copenhagen interpretation believe that the electron
is a wave until we measure it and, in the moment of our measurement, we “observe”
the particle. Before our measurement, only the wave function exists, but it „collapses”
in that particle. I repeat: nobody understands properly what this „collapse” means.
Anyway, many physicists have believed that the fields and the particles are different
aspects of the same fundamental entity: the „wave function”. Nevertheless, the wave
function had been considered (by many physicists) as being not something real (neither
like a light wave (Maxwell), nor a sound-wave); the wave-function is based on its
mathematical background which involves both real and imaginary numbers. So,
quantum wave („wave function”) is an abstract mathematical description for us to get
properties like momentum or position of an electron. For the position of an electron we
use the „square amplitude” of wave function. When we square the amplitude of wave
function, we get the „probability distribution” which it indicates the probability as the
electron to be somewhere where it would be a peak (another peak, in both peaks, in all
peaks = “superposition”) before we measure. When we measure the electron, we find
it in one peak. Some physicists believed that, before measuring it, the electron is in all
the peaks of the wave function. (Feynmann, for instance) Working within the unicorn
world, the physicists had to accept that „probability” was a fundamental characteristic
of “universe”! Introducing probability as a „physical feature of universe”, the
deterministic view of the Newtonian perspective (Newton, Einstein and even
Schrödinger) was rejected. I repeat: until the end of 2005 (when I published my article),
nobody had had an accepted (by the majority of physicists) a meaning for the wave
function (except the mathematical one).
The „measurement problem” has been related to many notions in quantum
mechanics (Young’s experiment and Feynman’s remark about quantum mechanics).
Many physicists accepted that the electron passes through both slits (superposition), but
the screen registers the wave property of a particle. In this sense, the particle has been
„associated” to a wave: until we measure, the wave function is a wave, when we
measure it, we see the particle; this is the „wave-particle duality”. Working within the
unicorn world, nobody was able to understand the “collapse” of the wave into a particle:
when we use the measurement apparatus, we see the particle, but if we stop using that
apparatus, the wave reappears. This had been the greatest mystery until I discovered the
EDWs.

1
Being both within the unicorn world (de Broglie or Bohm, for instance), there would be an ontological
contradiction. This was the reason Bohr accepted Spinoza and Kant’s view and introduced the role of
measurement apparatus in defining the entities like waves and microparticles.

68
 Working on Rutherford‘s model in 1912, Bohr published three papers (his
„trilogy“) in 1913 referring to orbits which quantized energy. It was known that when
the light was sent toward an electrified „hydrogen gase“, only certain colors passed
(four colors), all other colors being absorbed or emitted by that gase. Esentially, Bohr
introduced an ad hoc rule for the behavior of electrons witin atom: the electrons could
jump from one orbit to another emitting or absorbing light/photons having certain
1
frequency (not any) just because of orbits.
Being a collaborator with Bohr (and Pauli), Heisenberg (within „Copenhagen
interpretation“) believes that the electron is a wave function (Schrödinger‘s wave
function), but when this function is measured, the electron appears. So, the wave-
function is related to the probability of finding the electron in a particular location. The
„square wave function“ represents the probability of electron being in one place or
another. Importantly, Feynman (and other physicists) believes that before our
measurement, the electron is where the wave is (i.e., everywhere) having the probability
given by the square amplitude. When we measure, the wave collapses and the particle
2
„appears“ (Young‘s experiment). Some physicists believe that, before our
measurement, the particles is in different places (i.e., superposition), others believe that
the electron is in „many potential states“ but only one state becomes „actual“ state.
Working within the unicorn world, „great“ physicists invent „great“ SF stories...
The wave function (a mathematical notion) is related to many other pseudo-notions
from quantum mechanics: superposition, entanglement, „energy quantisation“,
decoherence, quantum tunneling, etc. So the measurement problem appears when we
measure the wave function. It is a „wave function“ until it strikes the screen-detector,
but after this „interaction“, the screen indicated (indirectly, of course) that a particle
strikes it in a „point“. Therefore, some physicists believe the wave function is spread in
the entire „universe“, but when it strikes the screen, it collapsed in „localized wave-
function“ where the particle strikes the screen. Working within the unicorn world,
nobody has been able to explain this collapse. This is the unfamous „measurement
problem“. Anyway, we do would never see the wave function, but only indirectly the
particle (on the screen). Following Spinoza‘s view (different „epistemological aspects“
of the „thing-it-itself“, only thing-in-itself had an „unknown ontology“) and Kant‘s
distinction between phenomena (epistemological aspects, no more) and
noumena/thing-in-itself, Bohr and many other great physicists believed that „reality“
(epistemological notion which depends on our different measurement apparatus – one
for particles, the other for waves but, very important, the results of these measurement
apparatus were indirectly!) was given by our „observation“. Therefore, Bohr
emphasizes that in the definitions of entities like microparticles and waves we have to
include the measurement apparatus (macro-objects).
The amplitude of wave-function is given by complex numbers. For de Broglie,
each particle is associated with a wave. For Schrödinger, there is only one wave-

1
Bohr related angular momentum with h and orbits.
2
“Extreme Copenhagen: Aage Bohr (a son of Niels Bohr, and also a Nobel laureate in physics) and Ole
Ulfbeck hold that the usual Copenhagen interpretation does not go far enough. Where a standard
Copenhagen interpretation allows physics to ignore its encounter with consciousness by confining
observer-created reality to the microscopic quantum world, they explicitly deny the existence of the
microworld. In this view, there are no atoms.”? (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 157) Just an extreme SF
story, nothing else.

69
function in the entire „universe“, a single function and all the microparticles depend to
this function (i.e., an „universal entanglement“). The wave function indicates how the
states change in time; it predicts the future. (It is a mathematical function similar to
Maxwell equation (but not simlar to „Heisenberg matrix“). Even those from
Copenhangen group started to work not with Heisenberg matrix but with Schrӧdinger’s
equation (wave function) which was related to de Broglie‘s formula λ = h/p. If the
wavelength decreases, then the momentum increases. This indicates Heisenberg’s
uncertainty principle: we can predict position of a microparticle but not its speed
1
(momentum).
The entire Copenhangen‘s group worked within the unicorn world: there was,
indeed, a mixture of at least three EDWs: field-EW, micro-EW, and macro-EW.
Working within the unicorn world, „shut up and calculate“ had been the slogan which
had dominated the physicists (again, philosophers had been excluded) during many
decades until 2005.
This is the old quantum theory: Planck, Einstein and Bohr with „particles“ versus
Maxwell with „waves“. Bohr‘s approach was avalaible for the „hydrogen“, but it had
limits for other elements from Mendeleev‘s chemical table (published in 1869).
Moreover, the problem was that the jump of an electron from one orbit to another was
2
a random process. Therefore, many physicists were aware that a better explanation
was necessary.
A decade later, the „matrix theory“ and the „wave-function“ appeared but it was
discovered that these approaches were different mathematics for the same „quantum
mechanics“. The wave function is influenced by the Hamiltonian: the energy of parts
of system and terms which describe the interactions between parts. (Any interaction
involves a specific Hamiltonian). If a quantum wave function describes a system with
a definite energy value, the Hamiltonian corresponds to that value. Waves functions are
superpositions of different possibilities, representing a combination of multiple
(different) energies. In these cases, the Hamiltonian represents all the
particles/components of the system. With his wave function, Schrӧdinger eliminates the
„particles“, i.e., they are just particular vibrations of wave function which appear to be
„particles“ for the observers (using their measurement apparatus). The wave function
3
is the mass density in space. However, Schrödinger equation implies the probablity :
when the wave function describes, with approximation, a small quantity (particle) in
space, the equation indicates that this quantity is spread in space, it does not have
localization, more exactly, the particle does not exist. All these notions and approaches

1
Schrödinger extended this uncertainty to the relationship between “energy” and “time”.
2
In a letter, Rutherford asked Bohr: who decide the electron to jump from its orbit to a higher or a lower
orbit, i.e., what frequency the electron had to move from one orbit to another? It was like the electron
knew from the beginning the jump it would do. (In this context, many physicists – including Bohr) were
aware that the notion of causality from classical mechanics had to be changed in quantum mechanics. (I
recall: all the important physicists (in the 20th century and beginning of 21th century (2005) were aware
about this problem (and others), but clearly no philosopher did exist in these very strong debates
regarding these great problems of quantum mechanics until me.
3
I recall: following Newton and Einstein’s deterministic paradigm of thinking, Schrödinger was totally
against Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

70
 1
are „creations in vain“ within the unicorn world.

Superposition
There are certain examples of superposition: the spin of a particle can be spin-up and
spin-down simultaneously, a particle can be in different places at the same time, and
the superposition of wave and corpuscle. According to Presura, the quantum
superposition realizes the difference between the quantum and the classical mechanics
(the superposition of Liberty statue, Schrӧdinger’s cat, the same electron placed in
different position at the same time).

In all these cases, quantum superposition is a set of complex numbers, one for each classical state, set
which represents the probability wave of a system (called the wave function). In a well accepted
interpretation, we can say that the system is, at the same time, in all classical states which form quantum
superposition. (Presura, p. 275)

Working within the unicorn world, the majority of physicsists accepted superposition
of wave and particle or the same particle being in many places at the same time. In
reality, there are the ED entities in EDWs, superposition (any kind) being a totally
wrong notion. There is a correspondence between a wave and a particle, but the particle
is always in one place at one moment even if we do not measure/observe it.
Let me take the example of measuring the spin or polarization of two particles
which belong both to the micro-EW. These particles initially represented one system
(they interacted somehow), but then they were separated. According to the Copenhagen
interpretation, the spin of particle 1 has no value until it is measured. Before
measurement, there is a superposition of various states of that particle “produced” by
the “unitary” evolution of the wave function which corresponds to that particle. The act
of observing produces the collapse of the wave function and the observer “measures”
2
the particle in one definite classical state.

1
Again, many physicists have absolutely believed in “mathematics” applied to physics. They have had
no idea, they have been working within a wrong framework of thinking. They have followed an old
(false) story: Plato’s mysticism in mathematics. It was like believing in a God… We were lucky with
Gӧdel… Amazing, after Gӧdel, many American physicists had still believed in mathematics (I recall
(super)string theory). Such a great error (closed to religion, from my viewpoint) has dominated the human
thinking in the last 2,500 years! These physicists should go to church, not to impose a “dictature” (that
of “mathematics”) in academic environment (i.e., physics) during many decades until a “nobody” from
“Africa” (discovering the EDWs) demolished all their pseudo-achievements in “abstract physics”.
(Recall Einstein’s verdict about mathematics applied to physics…)
2
“But, unlike the classical shell game, where the pea was in fact under one shell or the other, quantum
theory says the waviness, and therefore the atom, is simultaneously in both boxes… We open a small
hole in each box of the pair at about the same time. The wavefunction leaks out of both boxes and falls
on a screen to which an atom will stick. In some places on the screen, waves from the two boxes will
reinforce each other, and at other places waves will cancel. Repeating this with many identically
positioned box pairs, atoms will be found in regions of large waviness. That’s the crucial point: Each
and every atom follows a rule allowing it to land in regions separated by distance ‘d’ in figure 7.10. That
rule depends on the box-pair spacing ‘s.’ Therefore, each atom had to ‘know’ the box-pair spacing.
According to quantum theory, each atom knows the rule because each atom was in both boxes at the
same time.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, pp. 78-9) The electromagnetic wave is in both boxes, while (if we
have sent a microparticle) the atom (microparticle) is only in one box. “Each atom” “knows” the box-
pair spacing just because it corresponds to the wave (which is in both boxes), but not because the atom
is in both boxes. In Young’s experiment, if we send, sequentially, many particles, these microparticles

71
 In reality, from my viewpoint, there is no “superposition” at all. There are only
those two particles, the corresponding wave, and our intervention with measuring
apparatus (a macro-instrument). There are ED entities which belong to three EDWs:
the macro-EW, the micro-EW and the wave-EW and their correspondences.

strike the screen in correspondence to the peaks of the electromagnetic waves. “We can, for example,
actually shine an appropriate light beam into the box and see a glint from the atom. About half the time
we will find a whole atom in the looked-in box; about half the time we find the box empty. If there is no
atom in the box we look in first, it will always be in the other. But before we looked, an interference
experiment could have established that the unobserved atom had been in both boxes. The atom didn’t
have a single position. But, on looking, we find the whole atom in a single box. The most accurate way
of describing the state of the unobserved atom is to put into English the mathematics describing the state
of the atom before we looked to see where it is: The atom was simultaneously in two states; in the first
state, it is in-the-top-box-and-not-in-the-bottom-box, and simultaneously in the second state, it is in-the-
bottom-box-and-not-in-the-top-box. Putting it this way, however, boggles the mind. It’s saying a physical
thing was in two places at the same time. The quantum mechanical term for this situation is that the atom
is in a ‘superposition state’ simultaneously in both boxes.” (idem, 79) The wave is in both boxes, the
microparticle is only in one box; there is no superposition of microparticle in both boxes…

72
Chapter 8

“Probability” and “uncertainty”: ontological or epistemological

principles in the “quantum world”? Born’s “probability of wave
function” (1926) and Heisenberg’s „uncertainty principle” (1927)
versus Dirac’s combination of quantum mechanics and special
relativity (1927)
1926 Born, “probability of wave function”
Born collaborated with Heisenberg for the “matrix approach”. For Born, the wave
function calculates the probability of measuring a particle in a particular location. This
probability is given by the square of amplitude of wave-function (both imaginary and
real). When we use the measurement apparatus for particle, the wave function
1
„collapses“ in a particle localized in a particular position.
Schrödinger was against this “probability” (i.e., each microparticle existed as a
“possibility” of being in different places), but some radicalists believed that the particle
was in different places at the same time („quantum superposition“). Many physicists
(including Bohr) believe that the particle is in both places (superposition) before we
measure and collapses it in one place when we observe it (see Feynman). The square of
Schrödinger’s „wave function“ indicates the probability of measurement outcomes.
Let me apply this „probability“ to the Young‘s experiment. We send a microparticle
toward those two slits: for radicals, the particle passes through both slits
(„superposition“) and there are different probabilities for the particle to hit the screen
in different places. For Feynman, for instance, the particle is everywhere in the
“universe” until it strikes the screen only in one place. As we have already known, the
results of the screen indicates where the particle strikes the screen, but if we send many
particles (in a serial order, i.e., one after another), we notice these particles strikes the
screen following a „wave form“ (many points on the screen, all these points having the
form of an „interference pattern“!). (see also Presura, pp. 225-6)

We can say that the electromagnetic wave of light (the oscilation of electric field) is in fact a wave of
probability for photons. In the places where the amplitude of oscilation of electric field is greater (light
areas [on light on the screen]), we will find more photons, in the places the amplitude is smaller, we see
less photons. We have to notice that not the value of electric field in one point determines this probability,
but the amplitude of oscilation. In other words, the electric field can have null value during oscillation
since the size of oscilation (amplitude) determines the number of photons in one place. (Presura, p. 226)

From my viewpoint, the screen registers the particles but since these particles
correspond to an electromagnetic wave, the particles strike the screen following,
indirectly through correspondence the „interference pattern“ of a wave. So, directly the
screen measures the particles which strike it (as points) but indirectly the screen
measures the „interference pattern“ of the correspoding wave.

1
This probability involves that unobserved “quantum superposition”: microparticle is potentially (or,
for some radicalists, even actually) in different places; moreover, the wave function “collapses” in a
particle placed in a particular position indicated by the screen. For radicalists, the particle passes through
both slits; if we introduce a measurement apparatus to observer through which slit the particle will pass,
then the screen records only particle, not under the indirectly form of “interference pattern”, but directly
under the form of particles passing through one or the other slit.

73
 It was time for Max Born to introduce “probability” in interpreting “wave function”,
i.e., the “probability interpretation” of Schrödinger’s wave equation. Born’s thought
was the following one:
Ψ is the probability amplitude for an electron n the state n to scatter into the direction m. It is, in a sense,
its own wave. When it is squared and the absolute value is taken, it turns out to be a physical probability
of the associated particle’s presence.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 144)

It is clear, from the EDWs perspective that the electromagnetic wave just corresponds
to the microparticle. The physical probability is only an explanatory tool for any human
being in explaining the correspondences between the ED entities which belong to the
EDWs.
During a decade, Born’s probability superposition of quantum states was quite
accepted, but Schrödinger introduced his (un)famous “cat thought experiment” in
which, because of probability of radioactive source to decay is 50% yes, 50% no, the
cat is both alive and dead before the radioactive decay takes place. So, Born’s
interpretation of quantum mechanics was the following: before we open the box, the
cat is neither totally alive nor totally dead but a mixture of the two states, the
1
superposition of two wave functions. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 147) Again,
working in a framework similar to Einstein’s frame (almost a Newtonian framework
which presupposes locality - entities having well-establish properties like position and
speed - and determinism), Schrödinger could not accept the “probability interpretation
of his wave function. “Yet today, 60 years later, his so-called paradox is used to teach
the concepts of quantum probability and the superposition of the quantum states.”
(McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 147) Clearly, working within the unicorn world, there
are certain “paradoxes” which could not have been explained by anybody.
For Born, our “act of observation collapses the superposition of the two wave
functions to a single one, making the cat definitely dead or alive.” (McEnvoy and Zarate

1
I quote here an essential paragraph from R&K: “It was, in fact, only a few months after Schrӧdinger
announced his equation that Max Born realized that the waviness in a region was probability, the
probability for the whole object being found in that region. Like probability in the shell game, when we
find out where the object is, its waviness instantaneously becomes unity in the region we found it and
zero everyplace else.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 76) The authors indicate the difference between
classical and quantum probabilities: the first is epistemologically (“subjective”), the second is
ontologically (“objective”). “Quantum probability, waviness, on the other hand, is objective — it’s the
same for everyone. It’s the whole story: There is no atom in addition to the wavefunction of the atom. If
someone happened to see the atom at a particular spot, that look would collapse the spread out
wavefunction of the atom to be concentrated at that particular spot for everyone. Any subsequent looker
would find the atom there — as long as they looked before it moved away… In quantum theory there is
no atom in addition to the wavefunction of the atom. This is so crucial that we say it again in other words:
The atom’s wavefunction and the atom are the same thing; ‘the wavefunction of the atom’ is a synonym
for ‘the atom.’ Accordingly, before a look collapses a widely spread-out wavefunction to the particular
place where the atom is found, the atom did not exist there prior to the look. The look brought about the
atom’s existence at that particular place — for everyone… And it is now time for us to display the
archetypal quantum experiment that demonstrates the creation of reality by observation: the so-called
‘two-slit experiment’ treated in every quantum mechanics text.” (pp. 76-7) From my viewpoint,
“quantum objectivity” is created within the unicorn world, therefore, it is totally wrong: the wave
function refers to the electromagnetic field and corresponds to a particle which exists only in one place
and not in a “superposition” of different places (as physicsts of the Copenhangen interpretation (and
many others) believed…). Obviously, the corresponding electromagnetic wave (established when those
two particles were arranged one closer to the other) passes through both slits and these two slits produce
two waves which interact and the results is the “interference pattern” on the screen.

74
2013, p. 147) Only within the unicorn world, we could imagine such “superposition”
1
of the same microparticle and “collapses” of the wave-function.

From the EDWs perspective, we can better understand another “ontologized”

notion introduced by Max Born, the “probability”. The probability of an electron is
calculated on the relationship between the particle and the “associated” wave. In the
terms of classical quantum mechanics, the “wave function” describes all the possible
states of a particle. Until it is measured, a particle is the sum of all possible states. The
electron has greater probability to be found where the amplitude of the wave is greater.
The wave-characteristic of matter implies that the matter itself has to be described at
the “fundamental level” under a “probabilistic” framework. Thus, the “ultimate reality”
2
is under the jurisdiction of “probability”.

1
Wigner’s “role of consciousness in collapsing wave function”. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013 p. 148) (I
add here von Neumann is even more absurd, since there are at least three EDWs: the mind-EW, the
micro-EW and the field-EW. Being so absurd, I have tried to avoid writing about the “role of
consciounesss in quantum measurement” in this work…)
2
Presura: “The rule of probabilities: The probability p for finding a photon in one place or another is
given by square amplitude of its wave of probability p ⁓ A2. The probability wave can be considered for
beginning just the oscilation of electric field, for a light monochromatic wave.” Here light is a photon
associated to its probability wave (which indicates us the probability the photon is in a place or another).
A photon having frequency f has its energy E = hf. If the photon is microparticle, relativity theory gives
us its momentum. P = E/c = hf/c = h/λ, the mass for photon is null (since it has the speed c). Figure 9.15:
A monochromatic electromagnetic wave (in vacuum) represents an ansamble of packages of energy
(photons) E = hf. In figure, it is represented, the oscilation of frequency f of electric field of wave (at one
moment) which can be interpreted as a wave of probability for photons. The probability is proportional
to the intensity of oscilation I = A2, which it is a constant in time and space because the oscilation is
sinusoidal. Because the amplitude A has the same value in all points in space (the electric field changes
instantenoulsy, but the amplitude of oscilation does not change), a photon can be find (with the same
probability) in all position s. The energy of a photon is hf, its momentum p = h/λ. (Presura, p. 226) These
formulas are correspondence-laws (see my principle of “correspondence-laws” above). At the same page,
Presura introduces an interesting observation: “if a single photon is associated with a probability wave,
then what does it happen to the photon in the process of interference? The probability wave is split in
two waves when it does passes through two slits (fig. 9.13), but what does it happen to photon? The
photon appears now as particle, so through which slit does it pass? … this paradox appears also in the
case of electrons and mirrors the wave-particle duality… The photon can be seen as particle, but its
behaviour is not a classical one, even if it is always describes as a probability wave (electromagnetic
wave).” (Presura, p. 227) Again, this observation can be properly explain using my EDWs, nothing else.
The probability wave (having the same amplitude in all points or “constant wave”): For a particle in
rectilinum uniform motion with constant momentum p and energy E, its wave of probability is a constant
wave which moves in the direction of particle. The wave has wavelength λ and frequency f give by
formulas: λ = h/p; f = E/h.” (Presura, p. 227) The probability to find an electron is proportional with the
intensity of wave, therefore, with the square of amplitude of oscillation: p ⁓ A2 = |Ψ|2. And few sentences
later, Presura writes: “In consequence, the speed of phase of probability wave is different than the speed
of electron, and this seems to be a contradiction. However, the observation is not a contradiction, it
reveals very well the character for describing the electron.” (Presura, p. 231) As every physicist until
2005, Presura had been working within the unicorn world since there is no contradiction only if we work
within the EDWs perspective: the wave corresponds to the electron, therefore, the speed of ED entities
can be different, just because there is only a correspondence (no ontology) between these ED entities.
The intensity of light is equal to the probability of finding a package of quantic energy (i.e., a photon) in
an area of interference pattern. (p. 233) “The Schrӧdinger’s equation represents for electron what
Maxwell’s equations represent for photon: the evolution of probability wave. A component of
Schrӧdinger’s equation indicates which it would be the influence of external fields, another component
indicates how the probability wave of electron changes in time. Finally, the equation describes the

75
 Again, when working in the unicorn-world, it is perfectly normal to introduce the
“probability” in explaining the status of a microparticle which corresponds to a wave.
As limited entities and using limited tools of observation, we need to relate (with the
help of “correspondences” without any ontology) the ED entities/processes (the EDWs)
for acquiring more knowledge about these ED entities (in this case the microparticles).
However, it is completely wrong to “ontologize the notion of probability” (quite absurd
to belive “nature is probable”!), i.e., to explain the status of a microparticle from our
viewpoint (i.e., including the measurement apparatus in defining certain ontological
classical states). I recall, for Feynman (and others), this notion presupposes that, in the
two-slits experiment, it is possible for an electron to travel through both slits (and to the
Moon and back) before reaching the screen. Therefore, we have to take into account all
1
the possible histories for any individual electron. Again, because of the unicorn-world,
Feynman could introduce this radical notion, the “sum over histories”, against the
classical view. The beam-splitter experiment supports such an abstract, mathematical,
picture of “reality”. It is understandable that if a beam of light is spilt into two beams
(by those two slits – indirectly, since wave and plate with two slits belong to EDWs)
and then, with the help of two mirrors, the beams are detected by a single detector, we
can see the interference of those beams. When an individual photon (a serial sequence
of microparticles) is fired toward the splitter, the result is the same. But the photon
cannot be split as it is possible for a wave. Then what produces the interference?
Borrowing this property of splitting from waves, some physicists introduced different
notions. We saw above that, decades after Feynman, Deutsch uses an empty notion,
“shadow electrons”, to explain the interference pattern. For Feynman, we need to
combine those two possible histories “in determining the probability that a photon will
hit the screen at one particular point or another.” (Greene 2004, p. 181) In fact, each
particle (micro-EW) has a corresponding wave in EDW (field-EW). When the
apparatus fired the photon, we measured that particle from the micro-EW which
corresponds to “its” wave (field-EW). The screen measures the interference of the wave
in the field-EW which corresponds to the particle in the micro-EW. At every time a
particle has a corresponding wave, but these physical entities are in EDWs.

1927 Heisenberg, „uncertainty principle”

The position of a particle is given by the amplitude of wave function and its momentum
is given by the wavelength of wave. However, the position of a particle is gives us by
the probability distribution, so we don’t know exactly where the electron is. The same
principle is available for momentum (speed) just because the wave function is realized
by many different wavelengths.
Uncertain position: If we have a single wave function (a particle in an “empty
space”), there is the sine wave (regular wave): in this case, we know its moment (its
speed since p = mv) since there is only a single wavelength. However, we do not know

evolution of probability wave of electron in each moment.” (p. 234) However, the electron can be find,
probabilistically, in one or another place: “in principle, it is possible an elecgtron to be find on the Moon,
after few seconds! So, if we extend this law to macroscopic objects, it is posibil an entire body to be
found on a beach in Hawaii in the next moment. Probabilitatea is mathematically infinite small, but not
null. (Presura, p.234) Again, I recall Einstein: “I don’t believe the Moon [bed] does not exist when I do
not see it…”
1
“Feynman showed that each such history would contribute to the probability that their common
outcome would be realized, and if these contributions were correctly added together, the result would
agree with the total probability predicted by quantum mechanics.” (Greene 2004, p. 180)

76
the position of particle since it can be in the peak of any peak of regular wave function
but there are many peaks with equal amplitude and the wave covers the entire
1
“universe”.
Uncertain momentum/speed: if the wave function has only one position, we know
exactly its location, but in this case, we do not know the wavelength of wave. The
wavelength is very uncertain: only a sine wave gives us a precise momentum, but in
general, each wave function is made from many sine waves with different wavelengths.
Therefore, there are possible different values for momentum of each particle. In
principle, these uncertainties are not given by our measurements, they are fundamental
2
characteristics of “universe”.
EDWs: Obviously, each particle has both fixed position and momentum before our
measurements (Einstein/EPR was right). Moreover, there are no “hidden variables” (see
below); any particle just correspondents to a wave. From my viewpoint, the problem of
uncertainty (referring to position and momentum, for instance) are just epistemological
consequences of our measurement apparatus. In order “to measure” an electron we use
light (photons) to “see” that particle. If we send many photons (which interact with
electron), we can “observe” its position, but because of the interactions between the
electron and many photons, we cannot see its speed. Inversely, if we send much less
photons, we can identify (not exactly, of course) its speed, but because we send just few
photons, it would be quite dark so we would not be able to see its position. In this sense,
the uncertainty of position and momentum are just epistemological consequences of
our measurement apparatus. The EDWs perspective totally rejects the ontological status

1
The amplitude of regular wave (sine wave) is constant in the entire space, so there is the same
probability of find the electron in any of these points in space. Because the amplitude of regular wave is
constant everywhere, the probabilities to find the electron in one place or another are equal. (Presupra,
p. 247) Each time we measure the speed, the probability wave changes in such a way we do not know
the position of particle, and, each time we measure the position, the probability wave changes in such a
way we do not know the speed of particle. (Heisenberg’s formula: ∆x∆p ≥ h/2) (Presura, p. 247) Presura,
figure 9.33: A photon of microscopic light interacts with an electron and determines the position of
electron. The resolution in position of electron is given by the wavelength of photon ∆x ≈ λ. After
interaction, the electron receives a part of momentum from photon (p = h/λ). This interaction modifies,
unpredictable, the momentum of electron approximately with the same value ∆p = h/λ. We see the
product between of the position of electron and its momentum is the order ∆x∆p ≈ λ h/λ ≈ h. (Presura, p.
248) Of course, the measurement is one of the greatest unknowns of modern physics (in the end, its
consequence is the collapse of probability wave)… (idem) “The Heisenber’s uncertainty principle has
strong philosophical implications. We can see this principle not only as s simple mathematical description
in the case of quantum measurement, but as a fundamental limitation of our process of knowing the
universe.” (idem) Only somebody working within the unicorn world could claim such verdict…
2
Rosenblum and Kuttner writes about a thought-experiment elaborated by Heisenberg, “Heisenberg
microscope”, but Bohr indicated that “Heisenberg forgot that if you knew the angle at which the photon
bounced off, you could in fact calculate which box the atom came from. He had the right basic idea,
though. Bohr showed him that by including the microscope needed to measure the photon angle in his
analysis, he could recapture the result he thought he had.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 106) Again, we
see here Bohr’s “epistemological view” (closed to Spinoza and Kant) of including the measurement
apparatus in describing the measured/observed entity. Nevertheless, Heisenberg elaborated his
“uncertainty principle”: “The more accurately you measure an object’s position, the more uncertain you
will be about its speed. And vice versa, the more accurately you measure an object’s speed, the more
uncertain you will be about its position. The uncertainty principle can also be derived directly from the
Schrödinger equation. In fact, the observation of any property makes a ‘complementary’ quantity
uncertain. Position and speed are, for example, complementary quantities. Energy and the time of
observation are another complementary pair.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 106)

77
of the uncertainty principle (many physicists had accepted this principle as having an
ontological status until I had discovered the EDWs). Therefore, Einstein and even
Schrödinger were right and all from the “Copenhagen group” (and the majority of
physicists) were wrong until I published my article in 2005.
The Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty, the essence of quantum mechanics
(Greene 1999, p. 135) that is “by far the most controversial aspect of the theory, but one
that has resisted every challenge in the laboratory for half a century. There is no
experimental deviation to this rule.” (Kaku 2005, p. 114) In 1927, Heisenberg indicated
his “uncertainty principle” for position and momentum1 (no-commutative variables) of
a particle (∆x∆p ≥ h/2): we cannot measure exactly simultaneously these parameters.
To locate or “see” precisely any object, the illuminating radiation must be significantly smaller than the
object itself. For an atomic electron, this means waves much small than the ultraviolet, as the diameter
of the entire hydrogen atom is only a fraction of the wavelength of visible light. (McEnvoy and Zarate
2013, p. 156)

We have to be aware that, for such kinds of measurement, we use the ED entities which
belong to EDWs (their correspondences do not have any ontological status) this being
2
the main reason our measurements cannot be, in principle, “exact observations”. Here,
very important is the “degrees of correspondence”: there is no problem to measures
certain big atoms comparing with small microparticles just because of their
relationships (their correspondences) with the “illuminating radiation”. The uncertain
principle indicates that the “uncertainty in a simultaneous of momentum and position
is always greater than a fixed amount approximately equal to Planck’s constant h.”
(McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 158)
- Less intensity of light, less interactions between the microparticle (an electron, for
instance) and the photons: we cannot clearly see the “position” of microparticle, but we
can measure, with some approximations, electron’s speed (momentum). Less position,
better speed.
- If we want to “see” clearly the position of the electron, we need to increase the
intensity of light, therefore it will be more interactions between the electron and more
photons. We will see better the position of the microparticles, but because of those
interactions, we will measure less its momentum (speed). Less speed, better position.
From my viewpoint, these measurements do not involve (as many physicists and
philosophers believed - based on the “uncertainty principle”) a kind of “breakdown”
Laplace’s “principle of determinism” in the “Universe” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p.
159) There are, using the correspondences of ED entities which belong to EDWs, just
approximate, indirect corresponding measurements, no more. Obviously, actually we
cannot use other instruments of measurement, but it does not mean that, ontologically,
the “quantum world is uncertain”. Surely, in the future, there will be better and better
measurement apparatus but the measurements of all “external entities” are

1 Momentum, p = mv.
2
“This is a good place for an example of why you can’t display quantum strangeness with large objects.
To see interference, an object’s waves must be spread by passing through an opening smaller than its
wavelength. Even a slow moving grain of sand would have enough energy (momentum, actually) to
make its wavelength smaller than the sand grain itself. But if the grain is larger than its wavelength, and
the opening is smaller than that wavelength, the grain could not go through the hole. Actually,
interference would be possible if the grain of sand moved slowly enough. But at the slowness needed, it
would move less than an atom’s length in a century.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 107) Obviously, again,
there is here a mixture of EDWs…

78
approximations since any human mind cannot have direct access to any external entity
and, the situation is even worse for quantum mechanics, there are the ED
entities/processes/interactions which belong to the EDWs.
I will inquiry about an essential consequence of this principle: “quantum
fluctuations” at subatomic scale (below Planck’s scale). The Heisenberg’s principle of
uncertainty is constructed within the unicorn-world and tells us that we cannot measure
“position” and “velocity” of a particle at the same time. “Uncertainty is built into the
wave structure of quantum mechanics and exists whether or not we carry out some
clumsy measurement.” (Greene 2004, p. 99) More exactly, the “uncertainty principle”
is constructed within the unicorn-world. “Uncertainty is built into the wave structure of
quantum mechanics and exists whether or not we carry out some clumsy
measurement.”1 (Greene, p. 99”) Following the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, but
working within the unicorn world, the physicists have ontologized the “quantum world”,
but they had been working within the “identity theory”: the “quantum world” (this label
had been a mixture of ED entities (waves and microparticles), therefore a mixture of
EDWs) is identical to the “macroscopic world”. This principle is more than a
consequence of the fact that each electron (microparticle) is described “by a probability
wave and the probability wave suffers a collapse (a sudden change) at each
measurement.” (Presura 2014, p. 246) There is a “quantum superposition” which
evolves following the Schrödinger’s equation. If “wave structure” or “wave probability”
involves, then particle also involves and, therefore, there is a mixture of two EDWs.
Measuring the location of an electron depends on the magnitude of “its” wave function.
Each classical state has a complex number which it is related to the probability to find the system in that
state. The set of the numbers forms the probability wave of the system called the wave function… When
we do not measure the system, it will remain in a quantum state described by this set of complex numbers
(the probability wave) which it will change in time. If we measure in what state the system is, the quantum
state will collapse in the classical state in which we measured. (Presura 2014, p. 246)

This paragraph mirrors exactly the standard (wrong) view of quantum mechanics in the
last 100 years. If we accept this view, we have to believe that the planets did not exist
until the first human observer “measured” them. (Recall Einstein and the moon/bed)

If we have a localized electron and we measure its speed, after measurement, the probability wave will
have a quantum collapse (sudden change). The probability wave necessarily will become a plane-wave”
[a single frequency with same amplitude or harmonic periodic wave], and we can find the speed of that
particle. “Paradoxically, however, the amplitude of a plane-wave is constant in all space which means
that we have the same probability to find after this the electron in any point in space.” So, we know the
speed of a particle, but we don’t know its position. (Presura 2014, p. 247)

In this context, we will try to find the position of an electron. We already have a “plane-
wave” (which inform us about the speed of the particle). With a new measurement for
its position, we will find the electron in a place. However, the probability wave (which
it was a “plane-wave”, i.e., a single frequency with same amplitude or harmonic
periodic wave) will suddenly change (the quantum collapse) and we get the position of
the electron, but the probability wave will become “very localized” (not a
plane/harmonic periodic wave). Therefore, we have the position, but we cannot have a
“precise speed” of that electron, since each plane/harmonic periodic wave describes a

1 We recall that, embracing a deterministic universe view, Einstein claims that “I can’t believe that God
plays dice.” (Tegmark and Wheeler 2001, p. 71)

79
particular speed. (Presura, p. 247) 1 We cannot measure position and speed of that
particle at the same time (again, for me, this is just an epistemological principle). If we
try to do this, we will have an uncertainty regarding the value of one or the other
parameter. (Presura 2014, p. 247) 2 If a harmonic periodic wave has an uniform
succession of peaks and troughs, then the particle has a definite velocity. Nevertheless,
its position is completely undetermined, the “probability” of a particle’s position
indicates it can be anywhere.
From my viewpoint, we need to use the “probability calculus” because of several
reasons:
(1) Particle and wave are in the EDWs, so we need, indeed, the “probability calculus”
for relating the correspondences between wave and particle. From the epistemological
viewpoint, the EDWs perspective is quite close to Bohm’s theory which follows earlier
de Broglie’s “pilot wave” interpretation. Putnam mentions that this approach is the
classical view of “hidden variable theory”. (Putnam 2005, p. 622) Within this approach,
particles have definite positions and momenta at all times. A particles has a continuous
trajectory determined by the “velocity field” and its initial positions and momenta of
are randomly distributed. We can identify the positions of one particle only using the
quantum mechanical probability. (Putnam 2005, p. 622) This approach seems closer
(epistemologically speaking) to the EDWs perspective: indeed, the particle has a clear
position and impulse (velocity), only our tools of investigation create the conditions of
this “uncertain principle”.
(2) Different degrees of correspondences between waves, microparticles, our macro-
instruments and our minds measure, indirectly, these “quantum processes”.
(3) Our macro macro-instruments influence, indirectly through correspondences, both
waves and particles, but it does not mean the uncertainty principle is an ontological
one).
Using the EDWs perspective, we can explain very clear there is no ontological
“uncertainty” regarding “speed” and “position” of a microparticle:
- sending many photons toward a microparticle, we can see its position, but we
cannot identify its speed (the photons strike the microparticle which will move in
different directions);
- sending few photons, we can identify the speed of microparticle (the particle is
striked only by few photons therefore its movement will be quite slow), but we cannot
identify its position very clear (just because it would be too “dark” there).
The uncertainty principle is just an epistemological principle, NOT an ontological
one. It is not a surprise, working within the unicorn world, the majority of physicists
transformed such “epistemological” principles in “ontological” principles. Anyway,
these paragraphs offers us the standard view about quantum mechanics. In reality, from
my viewpoint, the probability wave (with its “complex numbers”) mirrors those two
EDWs involved in these processes. When we do not measure the “system”, there would

1 “… after measuring the speed, the probability wave becomes a plane-wave [a single frequency with
same amplitude or harmonic periodic wave]. Now the electron can be found everywhere, and we don’t
know its position anymore, even if we know its speed. After measuring position, the probability wave
becomes localized in the zone where the particles has been measured, and this can be mathematically
written as a sum of plane-waves, with different wavelengths (which mean with different speeds). Now
we know the position of an electron, but we don’t know exactly its speed.” (Presura 2014, p. 260)
2 If we try to measure both values (position and speed), we will have uncertainty value for one or the
other: ΔxΔp ≥ h/p (Heisenberg’s relationship). The product between the uncertainty of position and
uncertainty of speed cannot be less than h/p. The uncertainty cannot be null, therefore we cannot know
position and speed at the same time. (Presura, p. 247) (Another “uncertainty” relationship is between
“energy” of particle and “time”).

80
be two states, but in EDWs. It seems that the uncertainty principle is based on our tools
of measuring: even if, in principle, we will not be able to have better tool, from the
viewpoint of a particle, it has determined position and speed and it corresponds to the
wave. In an ontological frame, the particle has determined position and speed. Only
because of our “tools of observation”, we cannot determine exactly the position and the
speed of particle. Therefore, from this ontological viewpoint, the conclusion that
“between the measurements, the particle is the probability wave and when we measure,
there is the particle” is false (this judgment has been created within the unicorn world).
Moreover, we can claim that when I perceive, indirectly, your body, I cannot know
exactly its position and speed, but it does not mean, your body has no exact position
1
and speed.
Baggott explains the “uncertainty principle” through the correspondence between
the properties of particle and wave. It is important to know that, within the field-EW,
the electromagnetic wave can be localized “here” only by combining “a large number
of wave forms of different frequencies” in order to get a wave “which is large in one
location in space and small everywhere else”. In the micro-EW, this “large form” of the
electromagnetic wave corresponds (mostly) to the microparticle. In the field-EW, with
this form, we get the position, but we lose the wave frequency (since we have many
waves with different frequencies). (For more details about the uncertainty principle, see
Vacariu 2008, Vacariu and Vacariu 2010) Baggott’s paragraph continues:
But in de Broglie’s hypothesis, the inverse frequency of the wave is directly related to the particle
momentum. Uncertainty in frequency therefore means uncertainty in momentum. The converse is also
true. If we want to be precise about the frequency of the wave, and hence the momentum of the particle,
then we have to stick with a single wave with a single frequency. But then we can’t localize it. The wave-
particle remains spread out in space and we can no longer measure a precise position. This uncertainty
in position and momentum is the basis for German physicist Werner Heisenberg’s famous uncertainty
principle, discovered in 1927. It is a direct consequence of the duality of wave and particle behaviour in
elementary quantum objects. (Baggott 2012, pp. 29-30)

“Duality” means, for the EDWs perspective, just the correspondence between a particle
and a wave. The frequency of an electromagnetic wave corresponds to a particle
momentum. Therefore, the “uncertainty in frequency” corresponds to the “uncertainty
in momentum” (vice-verse is also true). A single frequency of a single wave (or
harmonic periodic wave) corresponds to the momentum of particle, but we cannot
localize the electromagnetic wave since it spread out in “space”. So, Heisenberg’s

1
An extremist can claim that even a human body or a car cannot be precisely “localized”: somebody
can claim “My car is in front of me at two meters”. The problem is how do we agree with this statement?
We have to measure the distance. We use a meter and we see the distance is approximately at 2 meters.
The extremist will indicate us that our meter is just very approximative tool. He is right. Therefore, we
can use a better instrument and detect that that are not exactly 2 meters, but few centimeters longer. If
we use a better instrument, we will see 2 meters, few centimeters and few millimeters. And so on, there
is no perfect instrument to measure perfectly that distance. Does it mean the distance is wrong? No, even
if the distance has no ontology (spacetime does not exist), nevertheless, we can say that the car is placed
at a perfect distance from us (there is a corresponding electromagnetic wave – having exact length, exact
not for us as observers - between the observer and the car), even if we will never measure, perfectly, that
distance. We have not to mix epistemological tools with ontological states.

81
 1
“uncertainty principle” is a direct consequence of the correspondence between wave
and particle which belong to EDWs.
Again, only within the EDWs framework, we can really understand what it means
that the “electron is” both particle “here” and electromagnetic wave “there and
everywhere”: the electron (which is a particle localized “here” in the micro-EW)
corresponds to the wave (which is spread “there and everywhere” in the field-EW). We
should not forget that an EW does not exist for any EDW, therefore a particle does not
exist for an electromagnetic wave, and a wave does not exist for a particle. Moreover,
the “inverse frequency of the wave” is indirectly (through correspondence) related to
the particle momentum, i.e., the “uncertainty in frequency” corresponds to the
“uncertainty in momentum” (the vice-verse is also true).2

1
In classical case, pq–qp = 0; in quantum theory, pq–qp = h/2πi (i = √-1, an imaginary number). Working
within the unicorn world, Heisenberg needed to appeal to imaginary numbers and to “kill” Bohr’s orbits,
his so abstract “matrix mechanics”. “The principle of uncertainty remains a manifestation of one of
fundamental laws of universe: we cannot measure all classical characteristics (especially for those non-
commutative variables) because otherwise the system would behave classically and we would throw
quantum mechanics to garbage.” (Presura, p. 248) Discovering the EDWs, I have throwed to garbage all
the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Moreover, quantum experiments are not just neutral
experiments; they also need an interpretation and my EDWs perspective is the framework of thinking.
2 “Think, for example, of how the electron is described in the quantum theory. Because of uncertainty,
the electron does not exist at any single point, but exists in all possible points around the nucleus. This
electron ‘cloud’ surrounding the nucleus represents the electron being many places at the same time.”
(Kaku 2005, p. 93) From my viewpoint, the electron exists in a single point but it corresponds to the
wave (localized everywhere); for physicists working within the unicorn world, this correspondence has
created the illusion that the electron is in many places at the same time, i.e, the “electron cloud”.
“Likewise, the universe was once smaller than an electron. When we apply the quantum theory to the
universe, we are then forced to admit the possibility that the universe exists simultaneously in many
states. In other words, once we open the door to applying quantum fluctuations to the universe, we are
almost forced to admit the possibility of parallel universes. It seems we have little choice.” (Kaku 2005,
p. 93). According to the EDWs perspective, the “electron cloud”, i.e., the “virtual particles cloud” is
nothing more than the corresponding field (which belongs to the field/wave-EW). If we reject the
existence of an “electron cloud” and of a single Big Bang and therefore the idea that “universe was once
smaller than an electron”, then, inevitably, we reject the idea of a “parallel universe” or Everett’s many
worlds, another Ptolemaic epicycle created by the human minds within the unicorn world (against the
idea of “multiverse” and many worlds, see Vacariu 2008, 2023, this book or other works). Within the
unicorn world, indeed we have “little choice”. “What keeps two atoms locked in a stable molecule is the
fact that electrons can simultaneously be in so many places at the same time that they form an electron
‘cloud’ which binds the atoms together. Thus, the reason why molecules are stable and the universe does
not disintegrate is that electrons can be many places at the same time. But if electrons can exist in parallel
states hovering between existence and nonexistence, then why can’t the universe? After all, at one point
the universe was smaller than an electron. Once we introduce the possibility of applying the quantum
principle to the universe, we are forced to consider parallel universes.” (Kaku 2005, pp. 147-148) Are
we, the human beings, just an amalgam of microparticles, each such microparticle being situated in
“many places at the same time”? Obviously, this is another absurd idea constructed within the unicorn
world in which we are indeed “forced” to believe in “parallel universe”. “The multiverse idea is
appealing, because all we have to do is assume that spontaneous breaking occurs randomly. No other
assumptions have to be made. Each time a universe sprouts off another universe, the physical constants
differ from the original, creating new laws of physics. If this is true, then an entirely new reality can
emerge within each universe.” (Kaku 2005, p. 96) The “multiverse” (Everett’s many worlds) can be
appealing only within the unicorn world. We replace the “multiverse”/“many worlds” with the EDWs
and we reach exactly the same conclusion but in a different framework of thinking. Several important
physicists (absolute reductionists) claim that they believe only waves exist (see Schrӧdinger and Penrose,
for instance). In that case, the human bodies and minds do not exist, they are just “appearances”; thing-
in-itlsef? The electromagnetic field. Quite absurd… (against Everett’s many worlds, see below)

82
 Again, this principle (elaborated by physicists in the unicorn world) is based on the
relationship between a wave and a particle and therefore it is constructed in a mixture
of two EDWs. For us, the measure of location of an electron depends on the magnitude
of “its” corresponding wave function. For instance, if a wave has a uniform succession
of peaks and troughs then the particle has a definite velocity. Nevertheless, its position
is completely undetermined (from my viewpoint, for us as indirect observers). The
probability (about probability and a related notion, Feynman’s “sum over histories”, see
below) of a particle’s position is to be anywhere. The particle and the wave are in EDWs
and if we want to get some information about the particle, we need to use probability
calculus (just an epistemological instrument) for relating the correspondences (no
ontology) between wave and particle. Again, from this viewpoint, the EDWs
perspective is quite close to Bohm’s theory (who follows the earlier de Broglie’s “pilot
wave” interpretation). Within this approach, the particles have definite positions and
momentum in all times. The particles have continuous trajectories determined by a
“velocity field” and the initial positions and momentum of particles are distributed
randomly. As limited entities, we can identify the positions of these particles only by
using the quantum mechanical “probability” (Putnam 2005, p. 622). Withn the unicorn-
1
world, the “superposition” of wave and particle has created this infamous
“nonlocality”. 2 From my viewpoint, the “nonlocality” is represented by the
correspondence between particle and entire wave/field since these ED entities belong
to the EDWs.
Let me furnish more details about “quantum superposition” (a very important, but
wrong, notion in quantum mechanics).
For any system, the probability wave is a set of complex numbers, each being attached to each possible
classical state. We can say that the quantum system is in a state of quantum superposition of its classical
states, or the quantum system is, in the same time, in all its classical states. (Presura 2014, p. 243)

Working on quantum mechanics within the “unicorn world framework”, the physicists
had been able to introduce such statements (in fact, from my viewpoint, there were just
the correspondences between particle and wave). Again, the “complex numbers” were
necessary just because the physicists had been working within the unicorn world. From
the EDWs perspective, the quantum system is not a “superposition” of “its classical
states, but it is just a correspondence between electron and wave (we saw above that
“association” and “complementarity” are quite unclear notion3). The “quantum system”
is, at the same time, “in all its classical state” means that the electron just corresponds
to the entire wave. Therefore, there is the probability to find the electron on the Moon
because the electromagnetic field is present everywhere. Let us see “the postulate of
quantum collapse”:

1
The superposition of the same particle in different locations is more absurd… (see below, Feynman,
for instance)
2 In his famous book from 1935, von Neumann introduced the “projection postulate” (the collapse wave-
function) which proved that hidden variables were impossible in quantum theory. (Whitaker 1996, p.
199) Thirty years later, Bell showed that von Neumann was wrong (hidden variables could exist) and
“non-locality” was real. (Whitaker 1996, p. 256) From an EDWs perspective, there is neither collapse,
nor “hidden variables”; there are only certain ED entities/processes which belong to the EDWs. (About
the non-locality and the EDWs perspective, see Vacariu 2006, 2007 and 2008)
3 “As we see, to the macroscopic objects are associated to probability waves.” (Presura p. 243) We can
“associate” the electromagnetic waves even with the macroscopic entities, but we have to take into
account that the waves, the microparticles and the macroparticles really exist but in the EDWs.

83
At one measure of classical characteristic of a quantum system, it can be found in one of its classical
states. Moreover, following the process of quantum collapse, the system instantly reaches one of these
classical states. (Presura 2014, p. 244)

Moreover, “we cannot measure completely the probability wave directly under any
circumstance. … we can never ‘see’ the superposition” (Presura 2014, p. 245) of these
“classical states”. Obviously, from my EDWs viewpoint, the system is always in a
classical state. Only if we work within the unicorn world, it would appear the
“superposition” of states (in reality, a mixture of ED states which belong to EDWs).

1927 Dirac, combination of quantum mechanics and special relativity

Dirac (an English mathematician) combined quantum mechanics (matrix interpretation)
with Einstein’s special (not general) theory of relativity in 1927. He elaborated his
theory on the “non-commuting quantities” (AxB not equal BxA). (McEnvoy and Zarate
2013, p. 150) He constructed “transformation theory” in which Heisenberg and
Schrödinger interpretations were only “particular cases” of his “own more general
formulation”: in this way, all the interpretations were equivalent. (McEnvoy and Zarate
2013, p. 151) “By consistently applying quantum mechanics to Maxwell’s
electromagnetic theory, I constructed the first know specimen of a quantum field theory.”
(McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 152) So, using both Faraday’s notion of “continuous
field” and “discrete entities” (microparticles), Dirac interpreted “light” as “waves or
particles”. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 152) “Dirac’s was well understood formalism
which if interrogated in a particle like way gave particle behaviour and it interrogated
in a wave-like way gave wave behaviour.” (Polkinghorne in McEnvoy and Zarate 2013,
p. 153) In other words, if we use a particular instrument of observation, we “observe”
a wave, if we use a different instrument of observation, we “observe” a particle.
Working within the unicorn world, some physicists (including Bohr) believe that there
is the “noumena” which we would never be able to observe; we observe just
“phenomena” (epistemological “aspects” furnished us by using one or another
instrument of measurement) of ontological “noumena”. In my terms, there are EDWs
(ED entities which belong to EDWs) and the Hypernothing (an EDW, the EW0).
In quantum mechanics, the notion of “probability wave” is very important (just an
epistemological concept, from my viewpoint): “… we will interpret the pilot wave of
an electron as a probability wave for electron which gives us the probability to find the
electron in one place or another.” (Presura, p. 229) From my viewpoint, this “probability”
was introduced just because the microparticle and the wave are in the EDWs and the
microparticle corresponds to the entire electromagnetic wave, even if, there is the
greatest probability for the microparticle to be in a place which corresponds to the
“node”/peak of the electromagnetic wave. If there are many peaks having the same
amplitudes, we would know quite well the “speed”/momentum of that microparticle
but not its position. Probabilistically/epistemollogically speaking, the particle has the
“probability” to be in different places at the same time. For moderates, the “probability”
has to be understood as a pragmatic tool, but without any ontological commitments as
it has been wrongly interpreted; however, for radicalists, the particle is really in
different places at the same time (“superposition”).
The experiments of diffraction show that also the electron behaves as a particle, exactly as the light
behaves like a particle. Somehow, there is a unification: both behaves also as wave and as particle. Some
physicists interpret the results of interference saying that the electron is both wave and particle…. They
say: the electron is particle because we detect it only as individual particle. On the other side, it is wave
because it has to pass through both slits for creating the interference.” (Presura 2014, p. 229)

84
Obviously, there are neither “superposition of particle”, nor only one world; there are
at least two EDWs. Only using different apparatus of measuring (in different times!),
we can detect the electron in the micro-EW and the wave in the field-EW. Many
physicists have believed that “the electron is both wave and particle” (de Broglie’s
association or Bohm’s interpretation or Everett’s many worlds), but this description has
been constructed within either within the unicorn world or in “many worlds” (Everett’
SF story); therefore, all these interpretations have led either to strong ontological
contradictions or to absurd SF stories.1 Anyway, Dirac discovered the “electron spin”.
This was a property already known to experimentalists, and tentatively interpreted in terms of an electron
spinning on its axis like a spinning top, much as the earth rotates on its axis as it orbits the sun... But this
was another visual metaphor that was quickly found to have no foundation in reality. Today, we interpret
electron spin as a purely ‘relativistic’ quantum effect, in which electrons may take up one of two possible
“orientations”, which we call spin-up and spin-down. These are not orientations along specific directions
in conventional, three-dimensional space, but orientations in a “spin-space” which has only two
dimensions – up or down. (Baggott 2012, p. 17)2

Today, indeed, we “interpret” the “electron spin” as a “purely ‘relativistic’ quantum

effect” with its spin-up and spin-down3 just because the electron corresponds to the
electromagnetic wave (there is no spin for the wave), the electron and the wave belong
to the EDWs. I recall, our instruments of measuring are different macro-tools which
“interact” with “nothings” which correspond to the wave and those two microparticles.
These two “possible orientations” (with only two dimensions) are due to this
correspondence. Obviously, we should not confuse electron spin with the “old planetary
model”). (Baggott 2012, p. 17)4

1 The error of this statement sends me to Spinoza’s dual aspects, Bohr’s complementarity, Leibniz’s
parallelism, and any other kinds of epistemological “dual property” constructed all within the unicorn
world.
2 “By immersing atoms in magnetic fields and through other experiments, physicists deduced that the
electron’s spin can point in one of only two directions: either in the same direction as the magnetic field
(called spin-up) or opposite to it (spin-down). It may seem strange that the spin can’t point in any arbitrary
direction; after all, there are no restrictions on how we orient the spin axis of a top or a gyroscope. The
quantization of spin, like the quantization of the energy levels, is a consequence of quantum mechanics,
however. Just as the energy levels of a (quantum) ant rollerblading in a bowl could only take on certain
discrete values, the spin direction of the electron has only two possible values.” (Oerter 2006, p. 91) For
an electron’s spin, there are only two directions just because the microparticle corresponds to the field
which belongs to an EDW. This correspondence imposes (indirectly, since the microparticle does not
exist for the field) those two values of the spin of a microparticle.
3 “The magnetic moment of the spin of a particle is a manifestation of special relativity, included in
Dirac’s model.” (Presura 2014, p. 345) Obviously, the special relativity could be applied to the
microparticles (entities which belong to the micro-EW). On the contrary, the general relativity cannot be
applied to quantum mechanics since there would be certain ED entities which belong to the EDWs: the
micro-EW and the field-EW.
4 “But this was another visual metaphor that was quickly found to have no foundation in reality. Today,
we interpret electron spin as a purely ‘relativistic’ quantum effect, in which electrons may take up one of
two possible ‘orientations’, which we call spin-up and spin-down. These are not orientations along
specific directions in conventional, three-dimensional space, but orientations in a ‘spin-space’ which has
only two dimensions – up or down. Each orbital in an atom was found to contain two – and only two –
electrons. This is Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli’s famous exclusion principle, which he developed
in 1925 and which states that electrons are forbidden from occupying the same quantum state. The
principle derives from the mathematical form of the wave-function for any composite state consisting of
two or more electrons. If the composite state were assumed to be created with two electrons which have
precisely the same physical characteristics, then the wave-function has zero amplitude – such a state
could not exist. For the wave-function to exist with a non-zero amplitude, then the two electrons must

85
Within the EDWs perspective, the electron spin is a property of microparticles (which
belong to the micro-EW) and has nothing to do with the macroparticles like stars or
planets (which belong to the macro-EW) just because there are just correspondences
between microparticles and electromagnetic wave.
Today we think of electron spin simply in terms of its possible orientations – spin-up and spin-down. It
is wise to resist the temptation to imagine what these different orientations might actually look like. Their
effects are real enough, however. Spin determines the amount of angular momentum carried by the
electron – the momentum associated with the ‘rotational’ motion of its spin. Spin also governs how the
electron interacts with a magnetic field, effects that can be studied in detail in the laboratory. But in
quantum mechanics we appear to have crossed the threshold between what we can know of the origin of
these effects, and what we cannot. (Baggott 2012, p. 18)

Since the electron has an “electric charge”, it will produce an “electric field”; since it
moves around the nucleus and around its axes, its motion will generate a “magnetic
field”.1 The “magnetic field”, the “electric field” and the electron (as a particle) belong

somehow be different. In an atomic orbital, this means that one electron must have a spin-up orientation
and one must have a spin-down orientation. In other words, their spins must be paired.” (Baggott 2012,
p. 17) The last sentence referred to the entanglement problem solved, within the EDWs perspective, by
“correspondence”. Pauli’s principle indicates that a single quantum state can be occupied only by one
electron, no more. In some cases, an orbits contains two electrons (or more), so there are two quantum
states. Pauli’s principle mirrors the correspondence between wave and particles (ED entites in EDWs!).
“The fact that each orbital contains in reality two states is confirmed also by the spectral of atoms in the
magnetic field. Here, the lines of absorption and emission becomes double in the presence of the
magnetic field, thing that can happen only if each orbital wold contain, in fact, two quantum different
states.” (Presura, p. 252) The new property for the electron would be the representation of these states.
Therefore, we need to generalize Schrödinger’s equation for two states not only for one. (Pauli’s
equation) The “spin” indicates the number of distinct quantum states for the particle in a spatial position.
(Presura, p. 252) (The electron, proton and neutron have two states.) Pauli’s exclusion principle has to
be re-considered within the EDWs perspective: electrons, for instance, do not exist for waves, waves do
not exist for electrons, but there are certain correspondences (no ontology) between them which have
major role in these relationships. (Pauli’s postulate: “Two fermions cannot occupy the same quantum
state, while two (or more) bosons can occupy the same quantum state.” (Presura, p. 256) The physicists
have to think about the relationship between the fermions/bosons and the electromagnetic waves in order
to understand these states of affair. “Pauli’s exclusion principle”: If one quantum state can be occupied
only by one (not two) electron, the other has to go on an “empty higher energy state”: “This is what keeps
the atom from always collapsing to its lowest or ground state and gives each element its characteristic
structure.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 99) “The fact that electrons cannot all get on top of each other
makes tables and everything else solid.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 99) Clearly, we have here the
correspondences between many microparticles and a macro-object (EDWs), but also between
microparticles and electromagnetic wave. The Pauli’s exclusion principle has to explain exactly the
correspondence between those two electrons and the electromagnetic wave.
1 Stern and Gerlach’s experiment indicates that an electron has an intrinsic magnetic momentum, i.e., a
magnetic field exists even if that electron does not move. Presura emphasizes that the physicists do not
know why this field exists. So, we cannot explain the presence of the intrinsic magnetic field around the
electron because of its rotational motion around its axes and, in this way, the speed of rotation would
surpass the speed of light. (Presura 2014, pp. 250-1) The electron is not a “small ball”, but a point-
particle, therefore, the motion around its axes is a “new quantum property”, named “spin”. (idem) “We
remark that this property has preserved its name of ‘spin’ in history through classical analogy, and this
creates more trouble because it is not a motion of a particle around its axes since the electron is
punctiform.” (p. 251) Because of different degrees of correspondences, the spin of a macro-ball is not
the same as the spin of an electron. Moreover, we cannot claim (as Presura would like to pretend) that
even the spin of a macro-ball (it is “composed” of microparticles, isn’t it?) is an illusion… “In fact, to be
more precisely, we should say that, in quantum mechanics, the electorns are placed on ‘orbitals’ and not
orbits because the motion of an electron could not be represented through a classical trajectory. Orbitals
represent quantum states in an atom…” (Presura, p. 251) The spin of the electron would be these two

86
to the EDWs. There are only correspondences between electromagnetic fields/waves
and microparticles.
With my EDWs perspective, I attest Einstein’s absolute revenge: his theory
explains some real phenomena/processes, which belong to the EDWs. Quantum
mechanics does not explain “reality”, since the “unicorn world” does not exist and,
moreover, waves and particles are not even complementary (as Bohr thought) since
these phenomena belong to the EDWs and, essentially, one EW does not exist for any
EDW. 1 So, there are not even “complementarity” here. Indeed, physicists need to
change their framework of thinking to avoid “empty” results in the future.2 The unicorn
world wrong framework has already been changed with my EDWs view since many
“professors” (particular sciences and philosohy) have plagiarized my ideas since 2006
until today.
Quite interesting, from my EDWs perspective, it is the situation with “more
particles” (not only one) and their relationship with the “multiparticle probability wave”.
For instance, we have a proton and an electron. (Presura 2014, p. 255) We have to write
the totality of classical states for all possible combinations of these two particles. (idem)
Each combination is associated with a complex number. The totality of these complex
numbers is the “multiparticle probability wave” (those two particles), i.e., the wave
function of the system (idem). This multiparticle wave is not, in general, the sum of two
probability waves, it is “something more”.3 (idem) Since there is a superposition of
two probability waves (that are associated with those two microparticle, we cannot
identify the correspondence of one wave for a particle. The microparticles are
“indiscernible”. (Presura 2014, p. 255) “It is not better to look at the ensemble of
electrons as a kind of manifestation of the entire function of multiparticle wave, and not
as a sum of the individual electrons that form it?” (Presura, p. 257) It would be here a
kind of “holism” which indicates that a system cannot be reduced to the sum of its
component parts. (idem) This holism inquires the “identity of a single electron, since it
is only a label for a particular state of the multiparticle universe as a whole, a useful
approximation in some particular cases”. (p. 257) Indeed, within the field-EW, the

quantum states (and its rotation around its axes). (Presura, p. 253) Some considered that the properties
of an electron would be “spatial properties”, that is, the “space is quantified”. (Presura, p. 253) We believe
that this magnetic field exist just because the electron corresponds to an electromagnetic wave. However,
“space” cannot exist at all. Again, its existence would produce certain strong ontological contradictions...
1 “In the EPR argument, Bell, Clauser, and Aspect showed Bohr to be right and Einstein wrong. But
Einstein was right that there was something to be troubled about. It was Einstein who brought quantum
theory’s full weirdness up front. It was his objections that stimulated Bell’s work and that continue to
resonate in today’s attempts to come to terms with the strange worldview quantum mechanics forces on
us. Bell believes that in ‘his arguments with Bohr, Einstein was wrong in all the details. Bohr understood
the actual manipulation of quantum mechanics much better than Einstein. But still, in his philosophy of
physics and his idea of what it is all about and what we are doing and should do, Einstein seems to be
absolutely admirable... [T]here is no doubt that he is, for me, the model of how one should think about
physics’.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 151) With the EDWs perspective, we showed that Einstein
was in a much better position than Bohr & Co.: Einstein was in a better position (working within a
particular EW, the macro-EW) than the physicists working in quantum mechanics (they were wrong
because they created a mixture of EDWs).
2 The title of a section of Chapter 13 from Rosenblum and Kuttner (2006) is “Is It Einstein for Whom
the Bell Tolls?” (p. 151) Einstein was right regarding the “weirdness” of quantum mechanics. I am sure
Einstein would be delighted to read about my EDWs perspective and its application to the “quantum
enigma”: In my works (2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, etc.), I have showed that this “quantum
enigma” is a “pseudo-enigma” created by many physicsts within the unicorn world the entire 20 th century
until 2005.
3 Quantum electrodynamics deals with the “multiparticle probability wave”. (Presura 2014, p. 255)

87
particles do not exist, there are only the electromagnetic waves (parts of the field-EW)
interacting everywhere (these waves being more activated parts of the whole
electromagnetic field which covers the entire “universe”). So, who is writing this book
using a leptop? From a reductionist viewpoint, one or many electromagneticwaves/field
is writing this text! From my viewpoint, the microparticle has to exist (in the micro-
EW), otherwise neither macro-object (the macro-EW) would exist. The text on the
laptop (a macro-entity) is writing by a human body (the macro-EW) through
correspondence to a human mind (an EW), and the body (a macro-entity) corresponds
to (1) a set of microparticles (the micro-EW) and (2) electromagnetic waves (the field-
EW). Computers and human bodies do not exist for microparticles, microparticles do
not exist for computers and human bodies.

88
Chapter 9

Two very famous thoughts experiments in quantum mechanics,

Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment (1935) and Einstein, Podolsky,
Rosen’s thought experiment (1935), related to the strange notion of
“decoherence” (never „observed”)
1935 Schrödinger, cat thought experiment
Schrödinger's wave function explains the behavior of a particle, but it is a „wave
function” (mathematical expression): it refers, basically, to the wave function.
However, nobody knew what would be the ontology of wave function; it was believed,
at least by Schrödinger, that this wave covered the entire “universe” and, when we
measured the particle (using the apparatus for particle, not the one for wave), the wave
function „collapsed” into particle. I do not furnish details about this thought experiment,
I just quote a paragraph:

In quantum mechanics, Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment that illustrates a paradox of quantum
superposition. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive
and dead, while it is unobserved in a closed box, as a result of its fate being linked to a
random subatomic event that may or may not occur. This thought experiment was devised by
physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935[1] in a discussion with Albert Einstein[2] to illustrate what
Schrödinger saw as the problems of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
1
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat)

1
According to the Copenhangen interpretation, „before you looked, the atom was not in one box or the
other. It was in a superposition state simultaneously in both boxes. Therefore, assuming cats are not
entities beyond the laws of physics, before you looked, the cat was in a superposition state equally alive
and dead. It was not a sick cat. It was a perfectly healthy cat and a stone-dead cat at the same time.
Though the alive or dead condition of the cat did not exist as a physical reality until observed, the
existence of the cat in the box was a reality. But only because that existence was observed by whoever
put the cat there.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, pp. 118-9) Again, all physicists had been working within the
unicorn world until I discovered the EDWs (in 2002). Just in the next page, the authors write about
Wigner’s consciousness and its role in collapsing the wave function. (p. 120) This idea is so absurd, I do
not talk about it at all… Rosenblum and Kuttner accept the view that the wave function of an atom is
interconnected with the wave function of Gieger’s counter. “The atom is therefore ‘observed’ by the
Geiger counter… the rest of the world observes the atom. Entanglement with the world constitutes
observation, and the atom collapses into one box or the other as soon as its wavefunction enters the box
pair and encounters the Geiger counter. And the cat is either dead or alive.” (p. 121) Again, this statement
is available only for the unicorn world since the authors continue, on the same page, with this paragraph:
“The Copenhagen interpretation makes it clear that the role of science is to predict the results of ob
servations, not to discuss some ‘ultimate reality.’ Predictions of what will happen are all we ever need.
You’ll find the cat alive half the time and dead half the time. Conscious observation is irrelevant. The
cat story raises a misleading nonissue… Since quantum theory admits no boundary between the small
and the large, in principle any object can be in a superposition state. He (along with Einstein) rejected as
defeatist the Copenhagen claim that the role of science is merely to predict the results of observations,
rather than to explore what’s really going on.” (pp. 121-2) The ultimate reality is the EDWs, not the
unicorn world. Indeed, there is “no boundary” between the small and the large since the micro-EW does
not exist for the macro-EW! No object is in “superposition state”: neither a macro-entity (the cat, the
table), nor the microparticle/atom. The electromagnetic wave is not in a superposition in both “boxes”
since the boxes (or amalgams of microparticles) do not exist for the wave. “Quantum theory is saying
that our later choice of observation creates the atom’s earlier history — we cause something backward
in time.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 123) Working within the unicorn world, the physicists have created
many SF stories…

89
Presura introduces an example with the „macro-statue of Liberty” (fig. 9.27): classically
(i.e., macroscopically), the statue is either with hand left or right rises up; it cannot be
in both states at the same time. However, quantum mechanics indicates that the statue
is in both states „in the same time”. (p. 243)

Quantum superpostion
For any system, the probability wave is a set of complex numbers, each attached to each posible classical
state. We claim that the quantum system is a quantum superpostion of its classical states, or the quantum
system is in all its classical states in the same time.
As we see, also the macroscopic objects are associated to the probability wave... For quantum statue,
the probability wave would contain two complex numbers, one for each classical state of statue (one with
left hand rises, one with right hand rises... In technical terms we can say that the statue is in a quantum
superposition of those two classical states, as the electron is a quantum superposition of classical states
(which are, for it, the localized states in a well defined position). (Presura, p. 243)

The postulate of quantum collapse

For a measurement of one classical characteristic of a quantum system, this system can be find in one of
its classical states. Moreover, after the quantum collapse, the system will reach, instanteneously, that
1
classical state. (Presura, p. 244)

Quantum or classical superposition is a SF story realized (and accepted by majority of

physicists) within the unicorn world: there is no superposition at all; we can talk about
correspondence between an electromagnetic wave/field (field-EW) and a microparticle
(micro-EW) or a macro-objects (macro-EW), but not about superposition... The
majority of physicists in the last 50 years have accepted this statement constructed
within the unicorn world. From EDWs perspective, Schrödinger was quite right: in fact,
the wave-function has a deterministic characteristic; nevertheless, Schrödinger had no
idea that the wave function always corresponded to a particle. (Again,
„correspondence” is a totally different notion than de Broglie „association” constructed
within the unicorn world...) There is no superposition of particle: since we really sends
one particle after another (serial order) toward those two slits, each particle does not
passes through both slits (as Feynman, for instance, believed) but only through one slit.
The screen records that serial strikes of serial particles, but the particles strike the screen
following, indirectly through correspondences, the interference pattern of the
corresponding electromagnetic wave.
Something about the famous “Schrödinger’s cat” experiment in quantum
mechanics: in the box, the cat is in a “superposition state”, both “alive” and “death”.
Opening the box, this “superposition state” collapses in one state or the other. Important
for me is Presura’s indication that, through our measurement, we “destroy” the initial
“superposition state” and we find one of those two states (for instance, “cat alive”), but

1
“… between measurements, there is a probability wave which is a set of complex numbers, each nuber
being for each classical state (for statue, there are two such complex numbers). However, after the
measurement, we always find a single classical state having the probability given by the probability wave
(square modul of complex number). In other words, we cannot measure completely the probability wave
in a direct way. It means, for instance, we cannot ‘never observe the state of quantum superposition of
statue, its quantum probability wave. Each time we ‘observe’ it, we measure it, therefore we will find it
in one of those two classical states, never in quantum superposition of those two states.” (Presura, p. 244)
Working within the unicorn world, many physicists need to appeal to “complex numbers”, “quantum
superposition” versus “measurement observations”.

90
we will not be able to find/measure/observe the “entire initial” quantum state of the
1
system (both alive and dead).
From my viewpoint, the wave does not “collapse”, the system “does not
reach/collapse in one of its classical state” since, before our measurements, the cat is
either alive OR death. Even Schrödinger thinks it would be quite absurd to believe that
cat is both alive and dead; or according to Einstein, it would be quite absurd to belive
the moon/bed is not there when you do not look at it (the standard interpretation of
quantum mechanics). In other words, the cat is not in a “superposition states” (the cat
is neither “death and alive”, nor “neither dead, nor alive”) and the Moon/bed is, indeed
there, only in one place, at one moment before our measurement. The cat is in a classical
state, but we don’t know which one just because we have not opened the box. This is
all. The particle just corresponds to the wave, but the particle cannot be found, with
different probabilities, everywhere where the field is present, the particle will be found
where it is really placed at one moment. Maybe our measurements influence,
instantaneously, the creation of a particle (through its correspondence to the wave), but
it does not mean there is a “superposition” or particle or a superposition of wave and
particle (which would be “present” everywhere); there are only correspondences (no
ontologies), nothing else.
Because making a measurement of one state of the quantum superposition, we will find the system in
one particular classical state, with a particular probability, but we will not exactly know from which
quantum superposition state the system comes. (Presura 2014, p. 297)

This statement mirrors exactly the real quantum situation: there are only EDWs but not
“quantum superpositions”. Obviously, we will not be able “to know” which quantum
state disappeared, since there is no superposition of two states in the box. The cat (and
the atom) is in one state which corresponds to the probability wave, but this is all which
exists there. “The cat is in the box” means that the cat (a macro-entity) and the box
(another macro-entity) just correspond either to two amalgams of microparticles (the
micro-EW) or to an electromagnetic field (the field-EW). Also, there is a “multiparticle
probability wave” which corresponds to these two amalgams. All the “macro-sub-
systems” are in classical states and create a “system” in a classical state, “the cat in a
box” is “either alive or dead”, but not in both states.
From the viewpoint of a particle (its “personal identity”), there is no “uncertainty”
regarding its position and impulse/speed (or energy and time). Again, we have to apply
Heisenberg’s principle only from an epistemological viewpoint (created by the
ontological limits of our conditions/tools of observing the photons/microparticles) in

1
Figure 9.31 (Presura, p. 245): “Before we close the box, the cat is alive. After we close the box (we do
not see inside the box), the cat is in a quantum superposition of two classical states: |atom-non-
desintegrated; live cat| and |atom-desintegrated; dead cat|. When we open the box, we will find only one
of these two classical states, and probability wave collapses, describing only one classical state. For us,
the cat will be live or dead, and its superposition states will disappear.” (Wikipedia in Presura, p. 245)
Presura continues: “The paradox appears if we ask what does it happen to the cat between measurements:
is it live or dead? This is Schrӧdinger’s question. A question which has no classical answer in quantum
mechanics since between two measurements, we have to take into account only the probability wave.
From the viewpoint of quantum mechanics, the cat is in a quantum superposition of those two states (live
and dead) and only our measurement brought it in one of these two classilca states, live or dead. This is
the answer of quantum mechanics, it does not matter how paradoxical is. In all times when the box is
close, the cat is in a quantum superposition.” (p. 246) Again, only somebody (Presura and many other
physicists like Bohr and Feynman) working within the unicorn world could think such SF “superposition
states”…

91
order to get certain “information” about a particle or a wave. This principle is just an
epistemological tool for us. In quantum mechanics, to get more “information” about the
micro-EW, we really need to mix the information referring to the ED entities which
belong to two EDWs: the field-EW and the particle-EW. There are no other possibilities
for us to get information about a particle because, due to its characteristics, the photon
is the smallest particle that can provide information about either the position or the
speed (not both at the same time) of any microparticle. All humans, since the beginning
of human species and later philosophers and scientists, have built “physics as science”
within the unicorn-world (“there are no experimental deviations to this rule”); they had
described the “universe”/world, but nobody until me had described the “reality”, i. e.,
the EDWs. I emphasize again that we have to avoid the transformation of an
epistemological principle into an ontological one: we cannot extend our viewpoint to
the viewpoint of a particle or a planet or an electromagnetic field (it would mean the
hyperontologization of our macro-EW).
We cannot apply the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to the nature of “space”
and “time” since spacetime could not have any ontological status (it is “nothing”). By
applying this principle to the subatomic scale (below Planck’s scale), the physicists
have postulated the existence of some quantum fluctuations (the non-local correlations
– or the relationship between the energy and the impulse/time – require fluctuations).
Moreover, some physicists believe that even space and time have these fluctuations at
this scale. We have, again, a kind of hyperontologization of an epistemological principle
available only for us as indirect observers of certain ED entities. From an EDWs
perspective, there is no uncertainty regarding the position or the impulse of a particle.
Because of our limits, we can equalize the epistemology with the ontology in describing
forever certain phenomena from the EDWs (the macro and the micro-EWs) and thus
elaborating “physics as science”, but we cannot (definitively) replace for good the
epistemological-ontological status of a particle or planet with our epistemological-
ontological status of human observers.
We have to extend the famous question “What is it like to be a bat?” to another
question: “What is it like to be a particle or a planet?” According to my principle of
“objective reality” (see above and articles 2002, 2005, etc.), waves, microparticles,
planets and human beings have the same right regarding their epistemological-
ontological conditions of observation/interaction. For instance, the micro-entities
determine their interactions which constitute the particles. I emphasize that each set of
entities which belongs to a particular EW has a particular status of “interactions”. We
can apply Heisenberg’s principle when we observe a microparticle only from our
epistemological-ontological viewpoint. At the same time, the conditions of
interactions/observations represent our epistemological limits of knowledge and thus
we construct our “physics as science”. The Heisenberg’s principle is just an
epistemological tool for us and we should not define the ontological status of
microparticles from our viewpoint but only from their “viewpoint”. The “Heisenberg’s
cut” means the separation between an “observer” and the “observed entity”.
Nevertheless, the electron does not “observe” either (interact with) human bodies nor
the classical measuring macro-apparatus, but only some huge amalgams of micro-
particles which correspond to human beings and that “apparatus of measurement”.
Again, imagine that you are an electron... or a wave…
“Of course, measurement is one of the great mysteries of the modern physics (in
the end, it is the direct consequence of the collapse of probability wave)…” (Presura
2014, p. 248) This statement is quite interestingly since it refers, from a EDWs
perspective, exactly to the correspondences between certain ED entities which belong

92
to the EDWs. Presura introduces the example of using an electronic microscope to “see”
where the electron is. A photon from the microscope light interacts with the electron;
the photon is reflected back to “us”, but the electron will have a new impulse given by
this interaction. We will know where the electron is (we see from where the photons are
coming to our eyes – mixture of EDWs), but we will not know its impulse (because of
the interaction between electron and photons). More exactly, if we want to see clearly
where the electron is, we have to send many photons toward the electron. In that
moment, we can see clearly the position of electron, but we loose its impulse (speed),
since it will be striked by many photons. If we want to get the speed, we send few
photons, therefore only these few photons will strike the electron, the impulse of
electron will be quite low (we can get the speed of the electron), but because there are
only few photons, we will not see clearly the position of electron.
Importantly, Presura indicates that the Heisenberg’s principle has serious
philosophical implications: it mirrors “a fundamental limitation of our process of
knowing the Universe”. (Presura 2014, p. 248) Presura continues: in the classical
physics, in a measurement, there was a subject of observation and an object of
observation which they were separated and the characteristics of that object being
independent of our observation. In quantum mechanics, the properties of observed
entity depends on the relationship between the observer and the object. I do not agree
with this viewpoint because it has only an epistemological status, not an ontological
one. Nobody can guarantee that, in the future, we will not be able to find certain tool of
observation which can help us in determining better and better both the position and the
speed of the particle and, in this way, we will determine its position and its speed exactly
as we determine (always with certain approximation) to the macro-objects!1
We have to remember the strong debate between Heisenberg and Schrödinger. (for
the relationship between Schrödinger’s theory and the EDWs perspective, see again
Vacariu 2008) According to Whitaker, for Schrödinger, the electron is identified with
the wave or the density distribution or the “wave-package”. Moreover, Schrödinger
restored the notion of “continuity”. In contrast, Heisenberg struggled for a theory of
particles and “discontinuity”. (Whitaker 1996, p. 143) Within the unicorn-world, we
can easy understand this conflict; in fact, the wave and the particle belong to the EDWs.
The “rigidity” of the wave reflects its continuity. 2 The equivalence between of
formalisms of both theories (it was showed by Pauli, Schrödinger and Carl Eckhart –

1 Again, we can expand the Heiseinberg’s uncertainty principle to our observations regarding the macro-
objects: we will never know exactly their positions and speeds, but this would be just an epistemological
principle not an ontological one. Maybe we will be able to use two measurement apparatus to grasp both
characteristics of a particle (its speed and position) at the same time, but we will never determine exactly
these characteristics. Nevertheless, this is an epistemological principle, not an ontological one: the
“quantum world” is not uncertain, it does not even exist.
2 In Bohm’s theory, both the particle (with precise position and momentum) and the wave always exist.
(Whitaker 1996, p. 269) With Peter Holland’s words, we want to highlight here the relationship between
de Broglie and Bohm: “Bohm’s model is essentially de Broglie’s pilot-wave theory carried to its logical
conclusion”. (Whitaker 1996, p. 246). Whitaker emphasize that “(...) while for Bohr complementarity
was the wave or the particle, for de Broglie was the wave and the particle.” (p. 246) So, de Broglie’s pilot
wave and the nonlocal hidden variabile (Bohemian mechanics) indicate that the particles are real, but
there has to be an underlying wave which pilot them, the probability of particle being given by many
places the wave covers. Rejecting the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, Bohm acceptes even a
determinism position. Nevertheless, both de Broglie and Bohm’s theories were constructed within the
unicorn-world. I emphasize again that the relationship between wave and particles is only
“correspondence” (no ontology, a concept in the human mind as indirect observer…). Even if Bohm
accepted the non-locality, obviously, within the unicorn world, he could not explained it. (about Bohr’s
ideas and the EDWs perspective, see Vacariu 2008)

93
Whitaker 1996, p. 145) indicates us, from the EDWs perspective, only the
correspondence between wave and particle. Between Heisenberg (particle) and
Schrödinger (wave) is Bohr with his “complementarity” (Whitaker, p. 152-53), but all
of them are situated within the unicorn-world and this is the reason there have been so
many debates and controversies during many decades. This is the reason that my EDWs
perspective has to be understand as the greatest Copernican revolution in human
thinking (not only in physics).
In his paper from the 1960’s (the paper from 2005 is a new version of this old
article), quoting his teacher, Reichenbach (1944), Putnam indicates some “causal
anomalies” (Bohm’s potential) in Bohm’s theory. (Putnam 2005, pp. 622–3) Because
these causal anomalies (non-locality) really occur, Putnam considers (in his paper from
2005) that these anomalies cannot be rejected. Bohm introduced “potential” or “field”
to explain “non-locality”. In Maudlin’s interpretation, this notion can be a kind of
mathematical representative of non-locality, so we do not have any reason to reject this
theory. (Putnam 2005, p. 623) As we saw above, from an EDWs perspective, Bohm’s
“potential” which represents the non-locality of particles from the micro-EW is in fact
given by the corresponding wave from the field-EW. Bohm is right in considering that
a particles has position and momenta and continuous trajectories. We already know that
the superposition of wave and particles in the unicorn-world has created this “non-
locality” and superposition (of microparticle in different locations or of wave-particle).
1
In fact, it is about the correspondence between waves and particles (two EDWs).

1935 Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, EPR thought experiment

In their article, Einstein, Podolski and Rosen introduce the case of two particles which
moves in opposite directions being correlated to a multiparticle probability wave; they
analyse the correlation between the spins of two electrons. However, in the last years,
the experiments have been realized on pairs of photons correlated to their polarizations.
(Presura, pp. 288-289) Each photon has two classical states, therefore for the system
(two particles) there would be four classical states: both photons polarized horizontal,
two states of one photon polarized vertical, the other horizontal, both photons polarized
vertical. (Presura, p. 289)

A general quantum superposition of those two photons is a superposition of all these four classical states.
In this way, the ansamble of those two photons will be, at the same time, in all these four “classical”
states. Each of these classical states will receive a complex number, its module gives the probability to
find the system of those two photons in the classical states which corresponds to the number. The
multiparticle probability wave has now four complex numbers… if we measure the polarization of
photons, we will find only two classical states: either the first photon has a horizontal polarization, the

1
“I think that a particle must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is, an
electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think the moon is
there even if I am not looking at it.” (Albert Einstein in Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 125) The next
paragraph: “Schrödinger told his cat story to show that quantum theory denied the existence of a
physically real world, that quantum theory claimed that observation created the observed reality. That
seems crazy. Indeed, if someone on trial convinced the jury that he believed that his looking created the
physical world, the jury would likely accept a plea of insanity. The Copenhagen interpretation is, of
course, more subtle. It claims only that objects of the microscopic realm lack reality before they are
observed. Moons, chairs, and cats are real — for all practical purposes. And that, according to
Copenhagen, should be good enough. But that was not good enough for Einstein, who wanted to know
‘God’s thoughts’.” (idem) Within the unicorn world, the mind and the body of a human person are real
only for “partical purposes”. Full pragmatism: even “Nobel Prizes” are given by some practical purposes
(committee) for other practical purposes (laureates), aren’t them?

94
second has a vertical one (state |01>), or vice-versa (state |10>). In other words, we always measure
opposite correlate polarizations of those two photons. (Presura, p. 289)

I introduced this long paragraph to clearly indicate the wrong paradigm in which all the
physicists have been working until 2005: the unicorn world. This was the reason, the
physicists needed to use “superposition” and “complex numbers”. Obviously,
according to the EDWs perspective, these two particles are not, at the same moment, in
all four classical states. The multiparticle probability wave (part of the field-EW)
corresponds to those two particles (micro-EW), nothing else. Therefore, for explaining
quantum phenomena, we do not need any complex numbers or superposition or collapse.
Light is represented by both electromagnetic wave (Young, Faraday, Maxwell) and
1
microparticles (Einstein) but in the EDWs. Maybe there are certain “phenomenal
properties” of these ED which depend on our measurements, but certainly their
existences do not depend on our measurements.

Einstein, Podolski, and Rosen indicate the following paradox: the multiparticle probability wave
instantaneously collapses in the entire universe. Therefore, the measurement on first photon influences
the probabilities referring to the instantaneously second measure at thousands of light-years (the distance
between those two cubs [particles]. This is what the standard interpretation of quatum mechanics teaches
us… and this is the paradox. In our special case, the polarizations of photons which are detected will
always be perpendicular one on the other. … those two photons are correlated. However, it seems also
classical mechanics explains this result. (Presura, p. 291)

There are more details about this experiment, I quote only Presura’s conclusion (the
standard quantum mechanics):

In classical mechanics, the decision which photon has a vertical polarization and which has a horizontal
polarization was already taken once the photons left the crystal. In quantum mechanics, the measurement
of first photon instantaneously influences the probabilities of the second photon at light-years distance.
The collapse of the probability wave of those two photons takes places instantenously in the entire
universe, but at thousands of light-years after the photons left the non-liniar crystal, namely, when an
observer realizes the first measurement of one of those two photons. However, in both cases, those two
observators (placed at long distance) would detect orthogonal polarizations… in quantum case, if I
measure the first photon as being polarized horizontal, then the probability wave of the system of those
two photons collapses in this state: the polarization of the first photon is horizontal, the polarization for
2
the second photon is vertical. (Presura, p. 291; see figure 10.29)

1
With his “packages of energy”, Planck was somewhere between these two groups but, I recall, even
more than 10 years after 1905 (when Einstein proposed light would be composed of microparticles),
Planck did not accepted this idea…
2
Just two pages later, Presura indicates the experiments realized by Clauser’s team, Aspect (1982), and
Zeilinger (1998) These experimentators got Nobel Prize in 2022 for their experiments which confirmed
Bell’s inequality, i.e., the nonlocality/entanglement in quantum mechanics. However, the theoretical
explanation for these experiments and Bell’s inequality are explained only by my EDWs perspective. (I
really do not care about Nobel Prize, but I do not want somebody who plagiarized my ideas to receive it
for my ideas… I would make a huge scandal against Nobel committee…) Presura also mentions the
“Geneva group” (an experiment realized in three localities, Geneva, Satigny and Jussy, the distances
between these localities being approximately 20 km): “We can see the experimental prove that the
multiparticle probability wave of those two photons preserves its coherence and instantaneously
collapses only when the measurement takes place, even if those two photons are placed at great distances
one in relation to the other. Obviously, this observation does not fit at all with so elegant of decoherence
(section 111) which is a local mechanism transmitted step by step.” (Presura, p. 294)

95
The classical mechanics fits better than the quantum mechanics in explaining the
phenomena belonging to the same EW. However, both mechanics were elaborated by
many physicists working all within the same wrong framework: the unicorn world. I
repeat: maybe there are certain “phenomenal properties” (or “second order properties”,
see Locke) of these ED which depend on our measurements, but certainly their
existences or the first order properties (i.e., certain “themselves properties”) do not
depend on our measurements. According to the standard model of quantum mechanics,
the probability wave (anyway, a mathematical tool) is spread everywhere until we
measure and, if the existences of photons depend on our measurements, then light is
not composed of photons (therefore, Einstein’s interpretation of photoelectric effect
would be quite wrong). To indicate the differences between the phenomenal properties
and themselves properties of ED entities is not my job, the experimental physicists have
1
to do it. Maybe “polarization” is a second order property, I do not know. Anyway, it
is not my job to determine what kind of property is “polarization”. The correlation
between those two photons (micro-EW) does not have a real ontology since it is just
the corresponding electromagnetic wave (field-EW) and in the field-EW, those two
particles do not even exist (there are just two concentrations of electromagnetic wave

1
“We have to notice that the ‘essence of immutable theory’ of an electron has problems in both cases,
classical and quantic. Thus, in classical case, we would never be able to measure the “edge” of the
electron, but only its property of rejecting electrostatic from distance other electric charges which are
close to it. So, in classical case, we measure only a property which we then attribute to an object which
we call it electron. In the case of quantum theory of field the situation is even more difficult. Here, the
quantum mattress has a transition from one state to another (see figure 12.10), and we interpret the result
as a motion of a package of energy! The new formulation is just an interpretation of the process of
transition. More correct would be to say that a word like ‘movement’ or ‘electron in motion’ does
represent, in fact, only a recognition of such transaction. The electron does not have, in this model, any
‘immutable essence’… The elementary particles… (quarks, neutrinos, gluons, etc.) will be described as
oscillations certain fields attached to them. The entire universe can be seen as an ansamble of oscillations
which take place similar to the surface of a mattress. Quantifying these oscillations, we get levels of
energy and discrete packages of energy which we interpret as particles…” (Presura, p. 338) We have to
make the difference between the “first order” and the “second order” properties, no more. However,
within the EDWs perspective, we cannot accept any kind of reductionism; therefore, I strongly reject
radical or even modest reductionists: there are not only electromagnetic fields/waves, but also
microparticles and macro-objects, but in EDWs. However, Presura ends this section writing: “The
universe cand be described in different mathematical models all having the same value, and we have not
to believe that one mathematical model or another indicates us what the universe is. The mathematical
models furnish us only predictions regarding the behaviors of universe, prediction which can be
experimentally tested. These predictions are only a representation of universe. Therefore, ‘what the
universe is?’ seems to be, at this moment, not a scientific question…” (p. 339) Of course, it was necessary
a philosopher (myself) to show that the universe did not even exist but only the EDWs were. “…in the
quantum field theory, the electron is seen as a quanta of energy associated to the field oscillations of
probability wave considerated classic now… The electron is not seen as a ball, but as a package of energy
associated to the field oscillations of its probability wave, exactly as the photon is seen as a package of
energy associated to the electromagnetic field oscillations.” (Presura, p. 351) Again, this is a reductionist
view that is rejected by my EDWs perspective. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is a relativistic quantum
field theory of electrodynamics describing how light and matter interact (an agreement between quantum
mechanics and special relativity. “The interactions between particles are obtained throught the
quantification of the electromagnetic field and the field of probability wave of relativistic electron.”
(Presura, p. 358) “Quantum electrodynamics is a unified theory of two fields: electromagnetic field and
the field given by the relativistic probability wave of electron… we should explain the interaction
between these two fields through its three particles: electron, positron and photon.” (Presura, p. 382) The
“world of QED” is not the unicorn world, it is an absolut reductionistic approach: only the
electromagnetic field exists. So, an author of this QED was just an ansambles of “quantum field/waves”,
no more…

96
which is part of the electromagnetic field which covers the entire “universe”). So, there
is no collapse of the probability wave (anyway, wrong notion constructed within the
unicorn world); there is only a change of measurement apparatus which indicates,
indirectly, the ED entities which, depending on our measurement apparatus, belong to
either the field-EW or the micro-EW, no more.
In their famous paper, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen concluded that the quantum
mechanics is an “incomplete” description of reality. 1 From my viewpoint, the mixture
of two EDWs cannot furnish any “complete” image. From a EDWs perspective, we can
explain the “nonlocality” of microparticles but only using the “correspondence”
between the entities/processes which belong to the EDWs. The main idea is that,
following Einstein’s idea referring to the “rigidity of objects”, we have to accept that
the entities of each EW are “rigid”, i.e., any entity − except the “I” − exists only at its
“surface”. The epistemologically different interactions represent the synthetization of
the manifolds into certain epistemologically different entities. The difference is that, in
analyzing the macro-objects, usually we ignore the micro-forces/microparticles
because these two kinds of entities have different masses (in their correspondences to
the electromagnetic waves). So, planets, microparticles and electromagnetic waves are,
indeed, “rigid” objects, but there are ED entities. Their ED interactions determined their
own ED existences only at their “surface”. The quantum states are all “rigid”
states/entities. Both a quantum wave and a quantum particle are “rigid entities”. The
“non-locality” of two rigid electrons corresponds in fact to the “rigidity” of a wave.
The “rigidity” means the indivisibility of the
- wave (which belongs to the field-EW)
- microparticles (micro-EW)
- macro-objects (macro-EW).
The wave (field-EW) or a macro-object (macro-EW) is not composed of (but
corresponds to) various microparticles (the field-EW). The movement of an electron in
the micro-EW corresponds to the oscillations of an electromagnetic wave (part of the

1 “Non-locality” (entanglement) versus EPR experiment (1935). Rosenblum and Kuttner: EPR’s article
did not indicate that quantum theory was wrong, but only incomplete. In general, quantum mechanics
(mainly Bohr and his team, but also others) reject the existence of a “physically real world”. These
proponents promoted the idea that the “observer created reality”. “EPR would show that you could, in
fact, know a property of an object without observing it. That property, they argued, was therefore not
observer created. The property was a physical reality that the ‘incomplete’ quantum theory did not
include.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 128) In other words, if “a physical property of an object can
be known without its being observed, then that property could not have been created by observation. If
it wasn’t created by its observation, it must have existed as a physically reality before its observation.
EPR needed to display only one such property to show quantum theory to be incomplete.” (Rosenblum
and Kuttner 2006, p. 135) This is a very important observation for my EDWs perspective: all the
physicists did not know about the EDWs and the correspondences between the ED entities. Within the
unicorn world, rejecting spooky action at distance, Einstein was in a better position (more realistic
position) than Bohr and company. However, quantum mechanics (all interpretations) was not
“incomplete” but totally wrong! Within the EDWs perspective, I emphasize again: the non-local
properties of those two particles do not have any ontology in the micro-EW. An entity is “observed”/it
interacts with any other entity from the same EW, so it is not necessary for a human observation (using
a measurement apparatus) to “ontologizes” the “observed” entity. It has to be clear that these
microparticles (and any other entity or phenomenon – except mental states – parts of the self, an EW)
have existed before the human beings have observed them, but there has been no entanglement (as a
“physical process”, Bohr rejected “force”) between them (which would belong to the micro-EW). Only
those two particles (all the micorparticles) belong to the micro-EW and between them is just “nothing”
(not empty space, since space(time) does not exist) (no ontology) but this “nothing” (no ontology)
corresponds to the electromagnetic wave (created in the “past”, when those two particles somehow
interacted).

97
general electromagnetic field). In the micro-EW, an action upon one electron does not
act simultaneously on the other electron, because in the micro-EW, indeed (Einstein’s
principle of special relativity) there is no signal that passes the speed of light. But an
act (made by human or by natural process, it does not matter!) realized an electron
corresponds to an act on the corresponding wave, even if we cannot observer this
process using the measurement apparatus for microparticles. Only the “rigidity”
(indivisibility) of the wave (which belongs to the field-EW) indicates that the signal
takes place simultaneously for both particles (the micro-EW). Again, I strongly
emphasize that the “EDWs” are completely different “worlds” than “parallel worlds”,
“many-worlds” or “multiverse” from the theoretical physics. (Anyway, about this
difference, see below)
In this context, let me furnish more details about EPR paradox (Einstein-Podolski-
Rosen) referring to the spin of two particles. These two particles moving in two
different directions, but their probability waves are strongly correlated. The
measurement of the spin of the first particle (let us say, “up” state) that produced a
collapse of the wave function has an instantaneous effect on the spin of the second
particle (“down” state). Under the “Copenhagen interpretation”, this instantaneous
effect represents “action-at-a-distance” or “faster than light transmission” which,
1
according to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, is not possible. Einstein and his

1
“Within a year after Schrödinger's equation, the Copenhagen interpretation was developed at Bohr’s
institute in Copenhagen with Niels Bohr as its principal architect. Werner Heisenberg, his younger
colleague, was the other major contributor. There is no ‘official’ Copenhagen interpretation. But every
version grabs the bull by the horns and asserts that an observation produces the property observed. The
tricky word here is ‘observation.’ Copenhagen softens this assertion by defining an observation as taking
place whenever a microscopic, atomic-scale, object interacts with a macroscopic, large scale object.
When a piece of photographic film is hit by a photon and records where the photon landed, the film has
‘observed’ the photon. When a Geiger counter clicks in response to an electron entering its discharge
tube, the counter has observed the electron. The Copenhagen interpretation considers two realms: there
is the macroscopic, classical realm of our measuring instruments governed by Newton’s laws; and there
is the microscopic, quantum realm of atoms and other small things governed by the Schrödinger
equation.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 100) Quite wrong: the observation does not produce the property
observed: there are both wave (everywhere) and particle (one place or one spot on the screen). “Actually,
in 1932, just a few years after Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation, John von Neumann presented a rigorous
treatment also referred to as the Copenhagen interpretation. He showed that if quantum mechanics applies
universally — as claimed — an ultimate encounter with consciousness is inevitable.” (idem) von
Neumann’s approach is even worse than Copenhagen’s interpretation since it is a mixture of three EDW:
the field-EW, the micro-EW and the mind-EW. Therefore, I do not even investigate this absurdity…
Another wrong statement: “Quantum theory has the atom’s wavefunction occupying both boxes. Since
the wavefunction is synonymous with the atom itself, the atom is simultaneously in both boxes… The
text we teach from emphasizes the correct point by quoting Pascual Jordan, one of the founders of
quantum theory: ‘Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it’… According to
Copenhagen, only when a macroscopic measuring instrument records the direction along which the
photon came away from the atom does the existence of the atom in a particular position become a reality.
More generally, Copenhagen assumes that whenever any property of a microscopic object affects a
macroscopic object, that property is ‘observed’ and becomes a physical reality.” (idem, p. 103) Jordan’s
statement (like the entire Copenhangen’s interpretation and all other interpretations) is quite wrong from
the EDWs perspective. Moreover, all the physicists have mixed EDWs until I discovered the EDWs in
2002. The authors continue the previous paragraph with this one: “Strictly speaking, of course, a
macroscopic object must still obey quantum mechanics and — if isolated from the rest of the world —
merely joins the superposition state of the microscopic object that affected it. It would thus not ‘observe.’
But for practical reasons, it is not possible to demonstrate that a large object is in a superposition state.
Though we have talked only of an object’s position, in the Copenhagen interpretation no property of a
microscopic object exists until it is produced by observation.” (idem, p. 103) “The Copenhagen
interpretation generally adopts the simple view that only the observed properties of microscopic objects

98
colleagues claimed that quantum mechanics would be “incomplete” because it does not
1
take into account certain “hidden variables” of reality .
The EPR paradox is that the “multiparticle probability wave” (associated with those
two electrons, for instance) collapses instantly in the entire universe. (Presura 2014, p.
291) The measurement on one particle influences the probabilities of the second
measurement instantly at thousands of light-years (which would contradict Einstein’s
principle, the maximum speed is c). The most important aspect is here the indivisibility
(rigidity) of the electromagnetic wave/field. According to the EDWs perspective, those
two particles are in the micro-E. I strongly emphasize here that the “space” of this EW
is the whole of cosmic “space” (space being just a pragmatic notion since spacetime
could not have any ontological status – see our work 2016). In this “space”, the micro-
particles interact/“observe” other micro-particles and nothing else. In the micro-EW,
the property of “non-locality” of those two particles does not exist, i.e., it has no
ontology. However, there has to be a correspondence between those two particles
(micro-EW) and a wave (field-EW). The nonlocality is exactly this correspondence
between those two particles and a wave. In other words, the “space” between those two
particles is “nothing” (i.e, the distance (no ontology) between those two particles in the
micro-EW) which corresponds to that indivisible electromagnetic wave (the field-EW).
The “multiparticle probability wave” of those two microparticles is an indivisible entity,
the electromagnetic wave (which it has no components). Acting on the wave, the
collapse does not spread step-by-step in the entire “space” (“Universe”), the collapse
does not exist, there is only a switch between one indirect observation (given by one
measurement apparatus) to another indirect observation (given by another measurement
apparatus) just because the field-EW corresponds to the particle-EW, i.e., the entire,
continuous wave (with two peaks/nodes) corresponds to those two particles.

“Decoherence”
Some physicists believe that the collapse of probability wave happens continuously
because of its interactions with the external environment, and we only notice the
selection already made by the environment. (Presura 2014, p. 261) Because of these

exist. Cosmologist John Wheeler puts it concisely: ‘No microscopic property is a property until it is an
observed property’. If we carry this to its logical conclusion, microscopic objects themselves are not real
things.” (idem, p. 104) It was possible for the authors to write this statement only working within the
unicorn world, i.e., an “illegal” mixture of three EDWs. Rosenblum and Kuttner quote Heisenberg’s
statement claimin that the atoms or elementary particles are not real; these microparticles represent an
world of potentialities or possibilities, not the world of things or facts. (p. 104) Then, they indicate that
Schrӧdinger rejects Copenhagen interpretation. However, they quote a very important paragraph from
Heisenberg: “After all, we are not dealing with a special property of electrons, but with a property of all
matter and of all radiation. Whether we take electrons, light quanta, benzol molecules, or stones, we shall
always come up against these two characteristics, the corpuscular and the undular.” (p. 105) In fact, this
statement sends directly to my EDWs. “In refuting EPR, Bohr claimed that what happened to one object
could indeed ‘influence’ the behavior of the other instantaneously, even though no physical force
connected them. Einstein derided Bohr’s ‘influences’ as ‘spooky interactions’.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner
2006, p. 141) Again, this “non physical force” is an empty notion from a bad SF story…
1
The „hidden variable theory”: Those two particles have certain „hidden variables”. I throw a coin, I
catched it with my both palms, I don’t know if it is head or tail, but the coin is head or tail. That is, the
particle has a well defined position and speed/momentum, I do not know if it is head or tail until I
„measure”/observe it. I close my eyes, therefore, I do not know if my body exists (I feel something, but
I do not see it); I open my eyes: I see my body, therefore, I exist! (Not Descartes with his „I think,
therefore, I exist”, but something worse: the empiricists (Locke...) and the Copenhagen Interpretation
(and many others physicists until 2006...)

99
continuously interactions, the probability wave evolves continuously and fast and it
becomes localized. (Presura, p. 262)
In the theory of decoherence, the macroscopic objects, a grain of sand or a ball, have apparently classical
and not quantum behavior just because their probability wave was continuously localized through their
interactions with the environment. Or, in other words, even if we close the eyes, the probability wave
suffers continuous and fast processes of evolution which determine its localization. When we open the
eyes, we will just make a notification of the probability wave already localized. (Presura 2014, p. 262)

Obviously, there is a mixture of EDWs, even if the EDWs perspective supports the idea
that there have always been the ED interactions between the ED entities and their
environment: (1) waves in the field-EW (2) microparticles in the micro-EW and (3)
macroparticles in the macro-EW.
After furnishing more details about Zurek’s approach on decoherence theory,
Presura informs us that if we can generalize the “localization” process from the
microscopic to the macroscopic objects, then “at the macroscopic level, the world
remains quantum”. (Presura 2014, p. 263) Only because of such interactions with the
environment, we cannot notice the quantum processes: the macroscopic objects are
localized immediately, continuously through their interactions with the environment.
1
(Presura 2014, p. 263) From my viewpoint, there is no such “decoherence” processes ,
since there is no real “collapse” (it would be available only within the unicorn world).
In my works, I have indicated that we could judge the similarity between the human
vision of external environment and the interactions between two entities from that
“environment”. A human being “observing/seeing” an entity in her environment is,
somehow, similar with the interaction between two particles. (see Vacariu 2005, 2007,
2008, for instance) Before “our measurements”, the entities from a particular EW
observe/interact only with the entities from the same EW. Therefore, when we “observe”
(indirectly, through correspondence) the particle, the “collapse” of the wave does not
even exist. Bohr believes that the laws of the “micro-cosmos” and the “macro-cosmos”
are different because the sizes of their entities are different. 2 (Greene 2004, p. 2003)
Greene’s question is “Where exactly is this border?” Placing both kinds of micro and
macro-particles within the same world, you cannot have a correct answer to this
question. The “decoherence” is the “bridge between the quantum physics of the small
and the classical of the not-small by suppressing interference – that is, by diminishing
sharply the core difference between quantum and classical probabilities.” (Greene 2004,
p. 209) The initiator of decoherence is Zeh (1970) followed by Joos, Zurek, etc. Before
our observation, there is a superposition of various states for a particle (let us say, the

1
Decoherence “refers to a now well-studied process in which the wave-function of a microscopic object
interacts with the macroscopic environment to produce the result the Copenhagen interpretation describes
as collapse. Let’s go to our box-pair example. Consider an atom whose wavefunction is simultaneously
in two boxes. We now send a photon through tiny holes in one of the boxes. Were the atom in that box,
the photon would bounce off the atom in a new direction. Were the atom in the other box, it would go
straight through unchanged in direction. Since the atom is actually simultaneously in both boxes, the
photon does both things. The atom’s wavefunction becomes entangled with that of the photon. The parts
of the atom’s wavefunction in each box would no longer by themselves have a coherent phase
relationship; they would have ‘decohered’.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 158) Again, there is a mixture
of EDWs, nothing else…
2 “Bohr’s view that quantum mechanics and classical physics are complementary aspects of nature”
(Dyson 2004, p. 76) means, within the EDWs perspective, that quantum mechanics and the classical
physics are just “descriptions” of the EDWs since “nature”/world/universe does not even exist.

100
spin of a particle is “up” and “down” simultaneously). So there is a quantum uncertainty
regarding the spin of that particle. Again, there is here a mixture of EDWs…
Tegmark and Wheeler explain how “the quantum gets classical”. (Tegmark and
Wheeler 2001, p. 73) In their example we replace the quantum card with a microparticle,
its spin being either “up” or “down”. The quantum uncertainty is given by the
superposition of positions of two states (“up” and “down”) of a particle and their
corresponding wave. Schrödinger’s equation predicts this coherent superposition which
is mathematically illustrated by a “density matrix”. The wave function of the particle
corresponds to a density matrix with four peaks (two peaks indicate 50% probability of
the particle to be either “up” or “down”, the other two peaks indicate the interference
of these two states). In other words, the Schrödinger’s equation describes both the
classical states (alive and dead) of the cat using the probability for each state x.
[…] in the quantum case, we have to consider both classical states and we need to construct a probability
wave which is quantum superposition of these both states. The wave of probability would contains two
complex numbers, one for each classical state… The quantum superposition is necessary if we realize
that the atom itself is in a quantum position (being a microscopic system...). (Presura 2014, p. 245)1

In this state, “[t]he quantum state is still coherent. (Tegmark and Wheeler 2001, p. 73)
According to Tegmark and Wheeler, the quantum uncertainty is different from the
uncertainty of classical probability, for instance, a coin toss. The density matrix of a
coin toss has only the first two peaks which represents the coin is either “tail” or “head”,
but we have not looked at it, yet. There are no peaks for the interference process. The
tiniest interaction with the environment transforms the coherent density matrix into the
“classical” density matrix with only two peaks which represent either “tail” or “head”.
The interference pattern of those two states (”up” or “down”) or the “coherent state”
accomplishes decoherence. “The Schrödinger equation controls the entire process.” (p.
73) Again, we have here a “superposition” of EDWs, not of real “quantum states”.
Regarding Schrödinger’s box,
[…] when we close the box, the system is in situation |atom-nondisintegrated; cat life>. In other words,
the first complex number of probability wave is one and the second is zero, which corresponds to situation
|atom-nondisintegrated; cat death>… In time, however, the probability wave evolves (through a
Schrödinger’s equation that fits the context), while the second number becomes non-null, increasing the
probability of finding system in the second state, |atom-nondisintegrated; cat death>. (Presura 2014, p.
245)

If we open the box, we accomplish a “measurement”, the probability wave will

“collapse” in one of those classical states. One complex number will be equal to 1, the
other to 0. Therefore, the cat will be in only in one state, alive or death (Presura 2014,
p. 245).

The paradox appears if we inquire what does it happen with the cat between our measurements. Is the
cat dead or alive? This is Schrödinger’s question. It is a question for which quantum mechanics has no
classical answer, because between two measurements we have to take into account only the probability
wave. From the viewpoint of quantum mechanics, the cat is in a superposition quantum state of those
two states (alive and death) in the box and only our measurement have brought in one of those states,
alive or death. (Presura 2014, p. 246)

1 No, any “quantum superposition” is not necessary within the EDWs perspective; it had been necessary
within the unicorn world until I discovered the EDWs...

101
It is clear, Presura explaines all concepts, empirical fact, and interpretations of quantum
mechanics working himself in the unicorn world framework of thinking. The “paradox”
(as many others) have appeared only for those (everybody until me) working within the
unicorn world. Not accidentally, de Broglie appeals to that “association” between a
wave and a particle which, in fact, represents a mixture of two EDWs. In reality, the
particle just corresponds to the entire wave and there are two EDWs (one does not exist
for the other), not the unicorn world.
The standard interpretation is that the measurement process means an interaction
between the observer and the observed particle. At this moment, the person cannot
perceive this superposition because the interference pattern accomplishes
“decoherence”. Within the unicorn world, we can suppose that the macro-things which
we encounter in our daily life are not isolated but interact with other entities. For
example, the book that you read now is struck by photons and air molecules. Those
microparticles disturb the “coherence” of the big objects’ wavefunction and thus
interference effects are not possible. (Greene 2004, p. 210) “Once environmental
decoherence blurs a wavefunction, the exotic nature of quantum probabilities melts into
the more familiar probabilities of day-to-day.” (Greene 2004, p. 210) Obviously, this
thought was constructed within the unicorn world. Because of decoherence,
Schrödinger’s cat cannot be both dead and alive. However, Greene and other physicists
are not content with this alternative, their question being “how one outcome ‘wins’ and
where the many other possibilities ‘go’ when that actually happens.” (Greene 2004, p.
212) Since the debate between Newton and Leibniz, the question “What really exists,
the particle or the wave?” has not received a decisive answer. And this situation has
been quite normal because of the framework of thinking which dominated human
thinking until now: the “unicorn-world framework”. From an EDWs perspective, I
strongly emphasize that the “superposition” of various states of a particle before
measurement is a mistake created by extending the “superposition” of a wave and a
particle. Putnam reminds us that Schrödinger’s equation shows us a state given by the
“vector sum” or “superposition” of a vector which represents both states of a particle
(in our example, “up and “down”) mathematically expressed by an abstract space called
“Hilbert space”.
And Problem One is what are we to make of a state which is a superposition of two states like this, two
states in which a macro observable has different values? ... If we never observe such a state, why don’t
we? All interpretations of quantum mechanics are required to give an answer to that question. (Putnam
2005, p. 620)

Because the wave and the particle belong to the EDWs, there is no superposition of
them and, consequently, no superposition of various states of that particle. The abstract
space, the “Hilbert space”, was necessary for those physicists working within the
unicorn world. Also, there is no “decoherence” of the wave in measuring the
characteristics of a particle. Working within the unicorn-world, the physicists in the
1920’s created the “unobservable” superposition of two states of a particle before our
observation.1

1 As we saw above, for those working within the “Copenhagen interpretation” and other physicists (like
Wheeler, for instance), the role of the observer had become very important in explaining the quantum
world: using one or the other tool of measurement, a human being observes and creates the “world”.
From my EDWs perspective, this “essential role” is rejected. The EDWs are already there, we are just
simply indirect observers, no more; we are not “God” creating the quantum world. (God cannot even
exist, anyway: https://filosofie.unibuc.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015-Vacariu-God-cannot-even-exist.pdf)

102
 Putnam relates the above “Problem One” with “Problem Two”, “the problem of
Einstein’s bed”, the existence of superposition of states in which the macro-observables
have different values. Einstein’s words are: “Look, I don’t believe that when I am not
in my bedroom my bed spreads out all over the room, and whenever I open the door
and come in it jumps into the corner.” (Einstein in Putnam 2005, p. 624) It means that
Einstein rejected von Neumann’s “collapse” hypothesis.
We return again to the “Young’s experiment” (1800-3). From the EDWs
perspective, we do not have any superposition of two states of a particle. Nevertheless,
there is a superposition of two waves since one wave passes through those two slits
which produces two waves; these two waves interact (constructive and deconstructive
interferences) and produce the interference pattern. As we saw at point (1), these two
waves belong to the wave-EW. The screen-detector “measures”/indicates the
interference of the two waves. The particle (which corresponds to the wave before the
two-slit screen) enters only through one slit, not both. There is no “interference of two
particles” (superposition of two particles), since the apparatus sents only one particle
(or electrons in a serial order). There are no “shadow” particles or superposition of two
states of a particle at all. The density matrix of a “coherent superposition” after the
double-slits screen can represent the superposition of the two waves but not the
superposition of two states of one particle. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the
measurement produces the collapses of the wave function violating Schrödinger
equation. (Tegmark and Wheeler 2001, p. 71) In both Bohm’s and the “many worlds”
interpretations there is no collapse: the state evolves following Schrödinger equation.
From my perspective, there is no collapse of wave function, either, but the wave and
the particle belong to the EDWs and not “one universe” (almost all interpretations),
“parallel universes” (for tangible and “shadow particles”), there is no “split in different
worlds” (Everett’s many worlds for each measurement)…
Let me analyze in detail one article written by Zeh about the nature of wave
function. (Zeh 2004) This analysis can be extended to the majority of papers referring
to quantum mechanics. Following Wheeler (“it” means a physical reality and “bit” is a
1
kind of “information” , Zeh 2004), the title of his article offers us the topic: “[T]he
2
wave function: it or bit?” Because of the unicorn-world, in Wheeler’s framework, we
can see an amazing turn in physics (that is usually characteristic to some philosophers):
the use of “metaphor” (i.e., physicists transformed in poets). Wheeler is forced to
introduce a “metaphorical dualism” (poetry, of course): “physical reality” and
“information”. This metaphor is just to avoid the contradiction created by the existence
of two entities within the same world within the same “spatio-temporal” framework.
As many other physicists, Zeh has no other alternative. The introduction of Zeh’s paper
consists in a very short “historical remarks about the wave function”. (Zeh 2004, pp.
104–6) The inventor of wave function, Schrödinger (great scientist, anyway – not only
my opinion) believed that this mathematical function described electrons. 3 Born

1
When I read physicists/philosophers using this very dubious notion, “information”, I suggest them to
see some “cartoon games” for children…
2
Maybe, the author would have been in a better position if he were a poet…
3 “What was this quantity, the ‘wave function’, that Schrödinger’s equation described? This central
puzzle remains a potent and controversial issue to this day... Wave functions could describe combinations
of different states, so-called superpositions. For example, an electron could be in a superposition of
several different locations.” (Tegmark and Wheeler 2001, p. 71) Just a bad SF story! We have seen above

103
introduced the “probability” interpretation which became, under de Broglie’s wave-
particle duality 1 , an association of wave to a particle. Following Heisenberg’s
“uncertainty relations”, Pauli proposed the wave function as the “probability amplitude”
for positions or momenta of a particle. Zeh supports Pauli’s idea that the “appearance
of a definite position of an electron during an observation is a creation outside the laws
of nature”. (Pauli in Zeh 2004, pp. 104-5, Zeh’s translation)2 After mentioning Bohr
and Wigner, Zeh denies Ulfbeck and Aage Bohr’s approach from 2001. These two
authors consider that when the wave hits the counter of the measurement apparatus, the
wave function “loses its meaning”. (Zeh 2004, p. 105) Accepting the decoherence
process, Zeh contests this affirmation, replacing it with “[T]he quantum state changes
rather than losing its meaning”. (Zeh 2004, p. 105)
From an EDWs perspective, in both cases, the authors are forced to reduce the
existence of wave or particle to one quantum state either through losing its meaning or
changing its state (decoherence). The short story finishes with Bohm’s perspective
(both electron and wave exist) and Bell’s approach3 (the global wave function has to
be regarded as real). The “entanglement” (according to Schrödinger, “the greatest
mystery of quantum theory” – Zeh, p. 106) presupposes the “superposition” of different
quantum states. I recall, there are three classical examples of superposition:
- the spin of a particle can be “spin-up” and “spin-down” at the same time,
- the superposition of “wave” and “corpuscle”,
- the particle is in many places at the same time (superposition of many places for the
particle).
Zeh mentions that, in the 1920s and 1930s, none of those great physicists rejected
the idea that “reality must be local (that is, defined in space and time)”. “It is this
requirement that led Niels Bohr to abandon microscopic reality entirely (while he
preserved this concept for the apparently classical realm of events).” (Zeh, p. 106)
About the superposition of wave and electron, Zeh writes that
“General one-particle wave functions can themselves be understood as superpositions of all possible
“particle” positions (space points). They define “real” physical properties, such as energy, momentum,
or angular momentum only as a whole.” (Zeh 2004)

that this “superposition” in several locations of an electron is just a human mind’s imagination based on
superposition of electromagnetic waves recorded by the screen-detector (Young’s two-slit experiment
and other experiments).
1 In 1927, using Einstein’s special relativity, de Broglie showed that any particle had wave-properties
and wave had particle-properties. Of course, a mixture of EDWs…
2 On the same line, Heisenberg claims that the “particle trajectory is created by our act of observing it.”
(Heisenberg in Zeh, p. 105) Again, SF within the unicorn world…
3 “Bell’s theorem has been called ‘the most profound discovery in science in the last half of the twentieth
century.’ It rubbed physics’ nose in the weirdness of quantum mechanics. As a result of Bell’s theorem
and the experiments it stimulated, a once ‘purely philosophical’ question has now been answered in the
laboratory: There is a universal connectedness. Einstein’s ‘spooky interactions’ do in fact exist. Any
objects which have ever interacted continue to instantaneously influence each other. Events at the edge
of the galaxy influence what happens at the edge of your garden.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 139)
Again, within the EDWs perspective, this sort of “universal connectedness” between two microparticles
has no ontology in the micro-EW: it means, there is no real, physical force/connection between these two
microparticles (by “direct, real connection”, we refer to any physical phenomenon which woulb belong
to the micro-EW). The wave just corresponds to those two microparticles and “nothing”/“space” (no
ontology) between them and this correspondence (no ontology) mirrors this sort of “connectedness” (an
empty/no ontology notion, anyway). We have to remember that any wave does not exist for any
microparticle (electron, photon, etc.) and microparticles do not exist for wave. Moreover, microparticles
do not exist for a macro-table (or for a macro-stick, see below), table (or stick) does not exist for the
microparticles.

104
Zeh emphasizes that such superpositions have been confirmed “to exist” by various
experiments (superconducting quantum interference devices, mesoscopic Schrödinger
cats, Bose condensates, superposition of a macroscopic current running in opposite
directions and microscopic elements for a quantum computer). “All these
superpositions occur and act as individual physical states. Hence their components
‘exist’ simultaneously.” (Zeh, p. 108) Obviously, Zeh works within the unicorn world.
An important detail for the EDWs perspective is Zeh’s following: “entanglement”
requires “superposition”. However, “superposition” requires certain nonlocal states.
Zeh stresses the distinction between kinematical nonlocality (nonlocal states) and
dynamical nonlocality (“Einstein’s spooky action at a distance” or superluminal
actions). (p. 109) Zeh considers that most physicists assume certain nonlocal states as
dynamical nonlocality.
In contrast, nonlocal entanglement must already “exist” before any crucially related local but spatially
separated events would occur. For example, in so-called quantum teleportation experiments, a nonlocal
state would have to be carefully prepared initially – so nothing has to be ported any more. After this
preparation, a global state “exists but is not there.” (Joos and Zeh 1985) Or in similar words: the real
physical state is ou topos (at no place) – although this situation is not utopic according to quantum theory.
A generic quantum state is not simply composed of local properties (such as an extended object or a
spatial field). (Zeh, pp. 109–110)

Zeh is correct when he claims that this property must already “exist” before any
spatially separated events take place (or in quantum teleportation “nothing has to be
ported”.) However, within the unicorn-world, Zeh could not really explain this
“nonlocal entanglement”. He simply appeals to Greek words “ou topos” to explain a
“real physical state”. Like all interpretations until I discovered the EDWs, Zeh’s
statements are meaningless. Even if “entanglement” (or “quantum correlations”, Zeh
2004, p. 110) presupposes “superposition” 1 , within the unicorn-world, this
superposition cannot be explained even if “quantum correlations” were, within the
unicorn world, somehow partially similar to my “correspondence”. From an EDWs
perspective, the “superposition” is not a “real superposition”; it means only that the
wave and the particle belong to the EDWs and we can check for their correspondence
within the “same spatio-temporal framework” (no ontology). Indeed, the nonlocality is
a kinematical state between two particles and not a dynamical state which would require
“Einstein’s spooky action at a distance”. However, this kinematical state of a wave
cannot be fully explained within the unicorn-world. Only the “correspondence”
between wave and particle can explain this “kinematical state”, the non-locality. The
whole wave is not “simply composed of local properties” (such as an extended object
or spatial field), but it corresponds to those “local properties” (let us say, those two
electrons). As we mentioned above, the quantum wave is not “divisible” like an
extended object or a classical wave. This property (the correspondence between wave
and particles without any ontology) explains that so unfamous “non-locality” of
particles. I recall again that, according to Bohr’s principle of “complementarity”, we
cannot observe, using the same measuring apparatus, a particle and a wave at the same
time. We can translate this idea in my EDWs framework: a particle cannot “observe”
its corresponding wave (and vice-verse) because these ED entities belong to the EDWs.
The wave (as a “global state”), “exists” not in ou topos, but in a particular EW, the field-
EW. To avoid the above mentioned contradiction, like many physicists before him, Zeh

1 I repeat again: from my perspective, a microparticle cannot be in many places, at the same time. It
would be a very simple ontological contradiction or, better, a bad SF story.

105
just believes that the wave “decoheres” into a particle. Within the unicorn-world, we
cannot relate the “nonlocality” with that wave because the wave did not collapse at all.
The “nonlocality”, as a global property, between two (or more) particles has no ontology,
but there is just the correspondence between those ED entities. The problem is that the
superposition has
[…] not been confirmed thus far in the macroscopic realm, a Heisenberg cut for the application of the
collapse may be placed anywhere between the counter (where decoherence first occurs in the
observational chain) and the observer – although it would eventually have to be experimentally
confirmed.1 (Zeh 2004, p. 113)

The question is where does the “collapse” take place? Zeh believes that, without any
empirical evidence, we cannot determine where a collapse really occurs. From an
EDWs perspective, we can clearly understand that “there is no empirical evidence for
where a collapse occurs” just because there is no such “collapse”. The superposition is
the correspondence between the wave and the particles which belong to the EDWs.
Also, we have to reject the superposition of the same particle in “different places”
(where the electromagnetic field is extended).
The title of the last section from Zeh’s article “[t]hat itsy bitsy wave function” and
the following first paragraph both reflect the power of the unicorn-world in physics:
“Reality became a problem in quantum theory when physicists desperately tried to
understand whether the electron and the photon ‘really’ are particle or waves (in space).”
In his paper, Zeh concludes that he has argued not for particles or for spatial waves, but
for “Everett’s (nonlocal) universal wave functional”, a consistent kinematical concept
(proposed by Wheeler 1957) that describes the reality. (Zeh 2004, p. 118) However, he
mentions that this approach implies a multitude of separately observed quasi-classical
universes in one huge superposition. For me, the “itsy bitsy wave function” is a notion
2
that reflects the history of the last century of quantum mechanics. Again, from the
EDWs perspective, the wave and the particles do not belong to the “various multiverses”
in one “superposition”, but to particular EDWs. (Again, a particle cannot be placed in
different places at the same time).
The last paragraph of Zeh’s paper is “However, you turn it: In the beginning was
the wave function. We may have to declare victory of the Schrödinger over the
Heisenberg picture.” (p. 119) Indeed, we supposed that after the Big Bangs, firstly the
electromagnetic waves appeared, but we have to translate Zeh’s statement in the the
following statement: “In the beginning was the unicorn-world”. However, no beginning
of the unicorn-world really existed.

1 [my footnote] The “Heisenberg’s cut” means the separation between a human observer and observed
(indirectly) physical entity which can be, using different measurement apparatus, a wave or a
microparticle.
2
“Quantum theory has an atom being either a spread-out wave or a concentrated particle. If, on the one
hand, you look and see it come out of a single box (or through a single slit), you show it to be a compact
particle. On the other hand, it can participate in an interference pattern that shows it to be an extended
wave — an apparent contradiction. But the theory is protected from refutation by the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle, which shows that looking to see through which slit an atom comes kicks it hard
enough to blur any interference pattern. So you thus can’t demonstrate a contradiction.” (Rosenblum and
Kuttner, p. 126) Within the unicorn world, it is a very serious ontological contradiction. Again,
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is an epistemological principle, not an ontological one (even if many
great or less great physicists had believed in it until I discovered the EDWs).

106
 Another step in defending the EDWs approach is pointing out few ideas from an
article written by Dyson (2004). Dyson suggests that DeWitt (1992) explains the notion
of “decoherence” in quantum cosmology very clearly: “massiveness” and not
“complexity” is the key for decoherence. (Dyson 2004, p. 77) As a massive object,
Schrödinger’s cat accomplishes “decoherence”. From an EDWs perspective, DeWitt is
evidently correct regarding “massiveness”. However, the “massiveness” is represented
by the macro-objects1 which belong to the macro-EW rather than the microparticles
and, moreover, we do not have any “decoherence”. 2 We have here, again, certain
“degrees of correspondence” and the “massiveness” of macro-objects indicates us that,
in relationships to the macro-objects we have to “ignore” (in a much stronger spirit than
Einstein, i.e., being aware about the existences of EDWs) the existences of
microparticles and waves even if the macro-objects have “organizationally different
parts”.
Dyson introduces four thought experiments which support his conclusion:
“quantum mechanics cannot be a complete description of nature”. (Dyson 2004, p. 74)
Based on two of his thought experiments, Dyson considers that the distinction between
classical (which include microparticles) and quantum (waves) notions is reflected by
the distinction between past and future. (Dyson 2004, p. 83) The past cannot be
described using the quantum-mechanical notions, but only some classical terms. Dyson
quotes Bragg: “Everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle.”
(p. 83) (Obviously, this statement is constructed within the unicorn world.) Therefore,
quantum mechanics is a small part of science which describes a “part of nature”. More
than this, Dyson contradicts the Copenhagen interpretation which declares that the “role
of the observer” causes an
… abrupt “reduction of the wave-package” so that the state of the system appears to jump discontinuously
at the instant it is observed. This picture of the observer interrupting the course of natural events is
unnecessary and misleading. What really happens is that the quantum mechanical description of an event
ceases to be meaningful as the observer changes the point of reference from before the event to after it.
We do not need a human observer to make quantum mechanics work. All we need is a point of reference,
to separate past from future, to separate what has happened from what may happen, to separate facts from
3
probabilities. (Dyson 2004, p. 84)

1 I emphasize again that the “massiveness” of any macro-object mirrors exactly my different “degrees
of correspondence” for the correspondences between waves, microparticles and macro-objects.
2 “How the evolution of the probability wave depends on the size of classical system? In general, bigger
the system (…), slower the evolution of probability wave. This is one of the reasons the effects of
quantum mechanics are not visible for the macroscopic systems.” (Presura 2014, p. 259) It is again clear
Presura works within the unicorn world. In reality, the probability wave is not a real notion for describing
the field-EW. That field/wave exists without our measurements and both particles and waves do not have
a “statistical” status. These ED entities have such “statistical status” only in relationship to our
measurements… So, the EDWs perspective indicates that, in his debates with great physicists accepting
quantum mechanics, Einstein was right.
3
Presura: “The 3rd postulate of quantum mechanics: After each measurement, the probability wave of a
quantum system collapses (quantic). The wave suddenly changes because of measurement, depending
on the result which happens in measurement, in a way that for an identical measurement as the previous
one the result would be the same. This postulate is the most controversial one of quantum mechanics
since it indicates that we cannot “visualize” the quantum universe, what we can observe are just classical
aspects.” (259) Presura uses a wrong notion like “quantum universe” and epistemological notions
(Spinoza, Kant, Bohr) like “classical aspects”.

107
So the “role of the observer” is “solely to make the distinction between past and future.”
(p. 83). From an EDWs perspective, the role of the observer is not to make this
distinction between “past” and “future” (anyway time/spacetime has no ontology!) but
the distinction between certain EDWs. Dyson introduces “time” as being the only
solution to avoid this “quite strange” ontological role of “human observer”. Evidently,
Dyson introduces this solution because he works within the unicorn-world. In fact,
changing the conditions of observation (“point of reference”), the observer observes
certain EDWs. In this case, Dyson’s distinction between past (facts) and future
(probabilities) is meaningless since spacetime could not have any ontology.
In support for my EDWs perspective is Dyson’s hypothesis of denying the
existence of “gravitons” (at the end of his article). (Dyson 2004, pp. 88–9) The majority
of physicists accept that the “gravitational field” must be a quantum field with
associated “gravitons”. Dyson remarks that there are no arguments (empirical or
theoretical, not even “thought experiments”) which support the idea of “gravitons”. The
detectors can detect only the classical gravitational waves produced by massive entities.
If we do not have even a thought experiment for supporting “quantum gravity”, then
the gravitational field is a “pure classical field” and “gravitons” do not exist. This
hypothesis promotes directly the EDWs approach. The “gravity” (even in the macro-
EW, it has no ontological status!) is “produced” only by the massive objects and if we
think that a planet is “composed” of microparticles, then we have “microgravity”, there
are “gravitons” which produce gravity. However, these notions like “microgravity” and
“gravitons” are empty notions. Apparently, gravity should “exist” only in the macro-
EW (the “world” of macro-objects). Without any object, the “space” has no curvature1
but we can observe the curvature only as produced by the macro-objects. It is
“impossible” for us to introduce “curvature” at quantum level (the micro-EW), but it
does not have any ontological status even for the macro-EW.2 Nevertheless, gravity
(empty notion being only a pragmatical description for motions of macro-objects) could
not have any ontology since it is a pragmatical notion only for describing the motions
of macro-objects. In the EDWs, gravity (empty notion for the macro-entities)
corresponds to curved electromagnetic field (the field-EW). (see Vacariu and Vacariu
2016, 2017, 2019, 2023) The general view about the articles/books written by
scientists/physicists which I have analyzed above is that physicists accept various
(sometimes contradictory) alternatives/interpretations (using odd, “empty” notions/) in
explaining some “weird” phenomena within the unicorn world.
In figure 9.43, Presura introduces those three postulates of quantum mechanics
(presented in previous pages):
1. The probability wave indicates us the probability that we can find the particle in a
place or another.
2. The probability wave evolves in the absence of measurement, according to
Schrӧdinger’s equation. In the case the particle is static (not in motion), the probability
wave becomes, in time, de-localized.

1 “Cosmic microwave backgroung observations show that space has almost no curvature.” (Tegmark
2004). Space/spacetime could not have any ontological status…
2 We mention Hanna’s comments on Kant’s paragraphs (A239/B298-9 and A248/B305): “… empty
concepts cannot be meaningfully applied by us either to noumenal objects or to objects of our sensory
intuition, and in that sense they are ‘impossible’ – that is, impossible to use.” (Hanna 2001, pp. 90–1) I
emphasize that even if they are “thinkable”, the old framework of thinking had been wrong, therefore, it
would be impossible for us to use these notions since there are EDWs and not “many worlds”, “different
worldviews”, “different paradigms of thinking”, etc.

108
 1
3. If the particle is in one place, then the probability wave has a quantum collapse , a
sudden change in a way it describe a particle placed in that place where it was found
(the probability wave becomes localized). (p. 259)
As a summary, I would like to furnish investigate, under the EDWs perspective, all
these postulates (even if I have already analyzed them above).
1. There is a mixture of EDWs: probability wave is, in reality, a wave which
corresponds to a particle (micro-EW) (this wave is part of the entire electromagnetic
field (field-EW). The probability, in this case, is just an epistemological notion.
2. The probability wave evolves just because it is a small part of the field-EW (but it
corresponds to that particle!). When the particle is not in motion, there are no
interactions between that particle and other entities from the same EW (micro-EW), but
this particle corresponds to the entire wave. In this way, the wave is de-localized.
(Anyway, the wave/field is always “delocalized”.)
3. When the particle is in one place, it means we measured it. Measuring the particle,
we could identify its position or speed (recall Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, an
epistemological principle, from my viewpoint, but an ontological principle for many
physicists working in quantum mechanics). There is no “collapse” of the wave: using a
particular measurement apparatus, we observe indirectly, the particle. If we change the
measurement apparatus, we can see again the corresponding wave. Using different
2
apparatus, we observe (indirectly) ED entities (EDWs).
At the end of their article (2001), Tegmark and Wheeler introduced the results of
an informal pool at a conference on quantum computation at the Isaac Newton Institute
(Cambridge, July 1999). Out of 90, 8 accepted wave-function collapse, 30 preferred

1
Next page, Presura indicates that the “modern physics considers that the collapse of wave function is
an instantenuous process. “When does the collapse happen? When the photon intercat with the electron,
when my brain becomes aware about the new value of the position of particle? We do not know precisely
yet when or how this process happens. The physicists describe it as a ‘black box’ and they see it as a
result of the process of measuring… Does the collaps take place, suddenly, in the entire universe, even
passing the speed of light? Paradoxically, the collapse takes place instantenously in the entire universe,
even if it would require a speed greater than the speed of light.” (p. 260) It is quite interesting how Presura
informs us about the “collapse”: he uses “modern physics considers…” Wait a moment: few paragraph
above, he presented that experiment with a very small vibrant lamella being in superposition and when
it is measured, it collapses in one state or another. So, that experiment clearly shows us the superposition,
don’t it? Why then Presura needs to use this expression (which indicates, the information is not very
clear…)? Because everybody has been working within the unicorn world, and this experiment was
interpreted exactly as the experimentators wanted to interpret it… Moreover, the collapse does not
happen at all: there is only a change of measuring apparatus and depending of this macro-apparatus, an
experimentator (a human mind, an EW) “measures” (indirectly) either a wave (field-EW) or a particle
(micro-EW). Presura: “It is a paradox that, after almost 100 years since the construction of elements of
quantum mechanics, we stil do not know, for instance, how does the collapse of probability wave take
place. It is a provocation and maybe some of you would have a better explanation thatn the generations
until now.” (p. 261) Yes, I am the one who discovered the EDWs; my EDWs perspective is the best
explanation for quantum mysteries in this period. (This is one reason so many “professors” have
plagiarized my ideas… it is quite clear, isn’t it?)
2
“Of course, when we talk about the macroscopic bodies (like a fir of sand) it is quite difficult to imagine
either it could be in different places at the same time, or the probability wave has a quantum collapse at
each measurement. However, the exact this thing has been recettly verified for a vibrant lamella with
dimension of a fir of sand (therefore, macroscopic one).” (Presura, p. 260) Then Presura is a lucky man:
his brain is in different places at the same time or following Everett’s many worlds, his body
(macroscopic, evidently) is in different “parallel worlds”… SF story, again.

109
“many-worlds or consistent histories (with no collapse)” and 50 accepted “none of the
above or undecided”.

Rampant linguistic confusion may contribute to that large number. It is not uncommon for two physicists
who say that they subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation, for example, to find themselves
disagreeing about what they mean. (Tegmark and Wheeler, p. 75)1

Tegmark and Wheeler mention that the quantum theory “is probably just a piece in a
larger puzzle”. Theories from physics can be organized in a family tree. At the top of
the tree, we can see the general relativity and quantum field theory. However,
“[p]hysicists know something is missing at the top of the tree, because we lack a
consistent theory that includes both gravity and quantum mechanics, yet the universe
contains both phenomena.” Therefore, the “ultimate goal of physics” is to find the
“theory of everything” that “would have to contain no concepts at all”. (Tegmark and
Wheeler 2001, p. 75) As we saw above, the theory of everything has a “meaning” only
within the unicorn-world. As a summary of our analysis from the EDWs perspective,
we claim that the persistence of this “peculiar” picture of quantum mechanics for 100
years is due to the extension, within the unicorn-world, of the correct idea of a waves’
superposition to the pseudo-“superpositions” of (1) waves and particles and (2) several
states of a particle. Working within the unicorn-world paradigm, scientists and
philosophers have obviously been forced to create such weird, empty notions.
Some physicists even started their book about the “elementary particles”
mentioning the Ancient Greeks’ efforts in defining the “atoms” as “indestructible
particles”, particles that are not composed of anything else. As we already know from
our previous works (2002, 2007, 2008, 2010, etc.), the “decomposition” of the “whole”
in “parts” is quite complicated and, in some cases, quite wrong. In fact, in some cases,
the whole-parts relationship is a pseudo-relationship since either (a) even if the whole
and the parts belong to the same EW, the whole does not exist for its parts and the parts
do not exist for the whole, or (b) the whole and the parts belong to the EDWs.2
Following theoretically and empirically Ancient Greek’s view, physicists “have
decomposed” matter in “elementary particles” in the 19th, 20th, and 21st Centuries. At
one moment, some physicists even believed that they had reached the “elementary
particles” (both theoretically and empirically). However, later, other physicists
discovered (sometimes, first theoretically, later empirically) that the previous
“elementary particles” were composed of “smaller elementary particles”. After several
cases of such “failures”, the physicists became quite suspicious and actually they avoid
to believe they finally discovered (theoretically and/or empirically) the “elementary
particles”. In fact, quarks (up and down) and electrons are believed to be such

1 Along the same lines, see Putnam’s example with his friend, a “world-famous physicist”. (Putnam
2005, 619) Putnam tried to convince his friend that there was a problem in quantum mechanics. Before
several talks with Putnam, the physicist accepted the Copenhagen interpretation. After these talks, the
physicist accepted there was “a problem”. Fourteen years later, at a conference he said: “There is no
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Bohr brainwashed a generation of physicists.”
(Putnam, p. 619) From my viewpoint, Bohr is not guiltier than other physicists (proposing/acepting other
“interpretations”). Everybody had been working within the unicorn-world paradigm and it had been the
greatest mistake which “brainwashed” the minds of all scientists and philosophers for such a long time
(several milleniums of “thinking”).
2 For certain philosophical details about the whole-parts relationship, emergence and reductionism, and
other approaches/concepts of the mind-brain problem, see van Gulick’s article (2001) (a very good
synthesis/presentation of all these philosophical problems). I investigated these notions, from my
viewpoint, in Vacariu (2008).

110
elementary particles which constitute all matter (composed “normal matter”) (baryonic
matter which composed stars, planets and all other macro or micro-entities) that we
observe or not in our “universe”. There are other particles which compose the “stable”
or the “unstable” matter (it disintegrates quite fast). Among the “standard particles”,
there are three forces which relate these microparticles (quarks and electrons):
1
electromagnetism force, strong force, and weak force. These forces are “transmitted”
by certain bosons: photons for electromagnetism, gluons for strong force, W+, W-, and
Z0 for weak force. To these particles, we have to add the Higgs bosons/field that gives
masses for all the elementary particles. Moreover, in analogy to other known “physical
forces”, we have to add the forth force, “gravitation” which require would require,
within the Standard Model, “gravitons” (the microparticles which transmit this force).
Any physical theory has its limits. Maxwell’s equations work beautifully to describe electromagnetic
phenomena, but only up to a certain point. When dealing with the physics of the very small, electrons in
atoms or photons in high-energy scattering experiments, Maxwell’s equations fail; they must be replaced
by the equations of the Standard Model. (Oerter 2006, p. 196)

Both Maxwell and Einstein were correct, but only within the EDWs. Within the unicorn
world, there has been many ontological contradictions which we can be avoided only
by using the EDWs perspective. Also, since it was constructed using the notion of
“infinite” (which cannot even exist - see Vacariu and Vacariu 2029), also the notion of
“singularity” is quite wrong. The invention of “infinite” has to be connected with one
main feature of human thinking as the property of human mind: mind does not have
those illusory “spatial-temporal” dimensions as any macro-object apparently has them.
The “process of interactions” constitutes the final state of an electron/any microparticle.
The electromagnetic wave does not collapse into the electron: both the wave and the
microparticle always exist but in EDWs. 2 This “wave-particle duality” could be
explained within the unicorn world. Nevertheless, within the EDWs perspective, de
Broglie’s “wave-particle duality” means that the particle is in the micro-EW, the wave
is in an EDW, the field-EW.3 Essentially,

1
Since 1960-70, quarks (gluoni) (which compose protons si neutrons) and electrons have been the
„fundamental particles” until now. The electrons are very important in chemistry since chemical
interactions are explained by changes of electrons. Different atoms can share the same electrons. When
the electrons become „free” (escape from their orbits), the electrical current appears. When an electron
is disturbed, it generates distubances in the electromagnetic fields (light and other electromagnetic
radiations). It is know that stronger the acceleration of an electron, stronger the intensity of
electromagnetic field.
2 “De Broglie’s wave–particle ‘duality’ implied that the electron was to be regarded as both wave and
particle. But how could this be? Particles are localized bits of stuff, waves are delocalized disturbances
in a medium (think of the ripples in a pond caused by the throw of a stone). Particles are ‘here’, waves
are ‘there and everywhere’. One of the physical consequences of wave–particle duality is that we cannot
measure the simultaneous position and momentum (specifically the speed and direction) of a quantum
particle precisely. Think about it. If we can measure the precise position of a wave-particle this must
mean that it is localized in space and time. It is ‘here’. For a wave this is only possible if it is formed by
combining a large number of wave forms of different frequencies, such that they add up to produce a
wave which is large in one location in space and small everywhere else. This gives us the position, but
at the cost of complete uncertainty in the wave frequency, because the wave must be composed of many
waves with lots of different frequencies.” (Baggott 2012, pp. 29-30) This is, indeed, the Heisenberg’s
uncertainty principle, but I recall this is, within the EDWs perspective, an epistemological principle not
an ontological one…
3 “De Broglie was inspired by Einstein’s suggestion that light might have particle-like properties, even
though the interference effects ‘proved’ it was a wave. If a wave could act at times like a particle, de

111
Born realized that the quantum field can’t be the electron itself: An electron never splits up. You never
find half an electron in each box. What you find instead is that, if you repeat the experiment many times,
half of the time the electron ends up in one box and half of the time in the other box. (Oerter 2006, p. 74)

This idea would mirror the EDWs: the electron is indeed in one box, only the
electromagnetic wave spreads throughout the entire “space” (space is a pragmatic
notion); in reality the wave “covers” the entire field-EW, i.e., parts of the
electromagnetic field have different values and the changes of these values correspond
to the “movement in space” of a microparticle.

Broglie reasoned, why couldn’t a particle, the electron for instance, act like a wave? According to de
Broglie, every particle has a wavelength associated with it that depends on the mass and the velocity of
the particle. The faster the particle moves, the shorter its wavelength. Just as for photons, a smaller
wavelength means more energy.” (Oerter 2006, pp. 61-62) In order to avoid any ontological
contradiction, “association” requires the existence/being of EDWs. Some physicists have always
constructed these “associations” within the unicorn world, and therefore, their works have been always
surrounded by strong ontological contradictions and paradoxes.

112
Chapter 10

Other four interpretations of quantum mechanics: Bohr’s

„complementarity” (1927), Feynman’s “sum over histories” (1948)
Bohm’s “hidden variables theory” (1952), and Everett’s “many
worlds” (“parallel worlds” and “multiverse”) (1957)
1927 Bohr, „complementarity”
Starting with a letter received from Heisenberg regarding his „uncertainty principle”
applied to position and momentum of a particle, but following Spinoza (mind and brain
are different aspects of the same thing-in-itself) and Kant (phenomena-noumena
distinction), Bohr indicates the complementarity of wave-particle duality: waves and
1
particles are different aspects of the same thing-in-itself. From my viewpoint, this
„complementarity” is an epistemological principle since the existences of both particle
and wave are just “phenomenal aspects” furnished by different “measurement
apparatus”. The existences of particles and waves are given by our measurement
apparatus, but these existences do not have ontological but only epistemological status:
according to Bohr, in the definitions of their “existences”, we have to include those
measurements apparatus! Therefore, their existences represent just „phenomenal
aspects” of the thing-in-itself, but we do not have access to it. What it really exists is a
kind of thing-in-itself but the human being does not have (empirically) access to it.
EDWs: particles and waves are not just phenomenal aspects of the thing-in-itself;
particles and waves are the ED entities which belong to EDWs. The existence of each
set of entites which belongs to an EW depend on their interactions. “Whether an object
behaves as a particle or as a wave depends on your choice of apparatus for looking at
it.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 160) However, working within the unicorn world,
Bohr’s brought together different aspects of Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics and
uncertainty principle, Born’s probability of the Schrödinger’s wave equation and this
complementarity:
Even more radically, I concluded (with Heisenberg, Pauli and Born) that the description of a state of an
atomic system before a measurement, is undefined, having only the potentiality of certain values with
certain probabilities. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 161)

Obviously, the idea of “undefined” is just an abstract concept constructed within the
unicorn world. This “Copenhagen Interpretation” was a SF story, not only for Einstein
(and Schrӧdinger) but also for me. Within the unicorn world, Bohr believes that the

1
“Complementarity was a central feature of Bohr's reply to the EPR paradox, an attempt by Albert
Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen to argue that quantum particles must have position and
momentum even without being measured and so quantum mechanics must be an incomplete
theory. The thought experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen involved producing two
particles and sending them far apart. The experimenter could choose to measure either the position or the
momentum of one particle. Given that result, they could in principle make a precise prediction of what
the corresponding measurement on the other, faraway particle would find. To Einstein, Podolsky and
Rosen, this implied that the faraway particle must have precise values of both quantities whether or not
that particle is measured in any way. Bohr argued in response that the deduction of a position value could
not be transferred over to the situation where a momentum value is measured, and vice versa. ” (McEnvoy
and Zarate 2013)

113
properties of wave and the properties of particle are not contradictory, but
complementary: “since the evidence was obtained under different experimental
conditions, it cannot be combined in a single picture but must be regarded as
complementary”. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 162) The image of the world/Universe
could be an ontological contradiction to Bohr’s complementarity (which could not get
its own ontology just because of the framework of unicorn world). Many years, Einstein
expressed his disagreement regarding Born’s probability, Heisenberg and Bohr’s views
and finally introduced “Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) paradox”: two electrons are
“in a single state”, their spin cancel each other, if particle A has spin “up”, electron B
1
must have the spin “down”. According to the Copenhagen interpretation:

1
“To argue that quantum theory led to an inconsistency and was therefore wrong, Einstein attempted to
show that even though an atom participated in an interference pattern, it actually came through a single
slit. To demonstrate this he had to evade the uncertainty principle. (Ironically, Heisenberg attributed his
original idea for the uncertainty principle to a conversation with Einstein).” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p.
126) From the EDWs perspective, on this point, Einstein was right and Bohr (and Heisenberg) was
wrong. “The paper, now famous as ‘EPR’ for ‘Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen,’ did not claim that
quantum theory was wrong, just that it was incomplete. Quantum theory supposedly denied a physically
real world, and thus required an observercreated reality, only because it was not the whole story. EPR
would show that you could, in fact, know a property of an object without observing it. That property,
they argued, was therefore not observer created. The property was a physical reality that the ‘incomplete’
quantum theory did not include.” (idem, p. 128) Indeed, any particle has both a position and a momentum
before a human being (indirectly) observes it. “EPR had to say what constituted a ‘physical reality.’
Defining reality has been a philosophical issue at least since Plato’s day. But EPR did not need to define
reality in general, they merely needed a sufficient condition for something to be a physical reality. If that
physical reality were not described by the theory, the theory would be incomplete. Here’s the condition
offered by EPR: If without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty . . . the value of
a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical
quantity. Let’s say the same thing in other words: If a physical property of an object can be known
without its being observed, then that property could not have been created by observation. If it wasn’t
created by its observation, it must have existed as a physically reality before its observation. EPR needed
to display only one such property to show quantum theory to be incomplete. Quantum theory has twin-
state photons in a state of identical polarization but with no particular polarization. Observation of the
polarization of one photon supposedly creates the physically real polarization of both photons.”
(Rosenblum and Kuttner, pp. 134-5) Bohr’s reply: “Let’s analyze this refutation of EPR. First of all,
Bohr did not fault the logic of the EPR argument. He rejected their starting point, their condition for
something being a physical reality. EPR’s reality condition tacitly assumes separability: If two objects
exert no physical force on each other, what happens to one cannot in any way “disturb” the other.” (idem,
136) In reality, the conditions “for something being a physical reality” are the EDWs, not the unicorn
world (in which both Einstein and Bohr worked). “Bohr agreed that there could be no ‘mechanical’
disturbance of Bob’s photon by Alice’s observation. (All physical forces are included in Bohr’s term
‘mechanical.’) He nevertheless maintains that even without a physical disturbance, Alice’s remote
observation instantaneously ‘influences’ Bob’s photon. And, according to Bohr, this constitutes a
disturbance violating the EPR condition for reality. Only after Alice observed her photon as, say,
polarized parallel was Bob’s photon polarized parallel.” (pp. 136-7) Einstein was right regarding the
separability of microparticles within the micro-EW, but he did not know that this separability (“distance”
between particles with no ontology) and those two particles correspond to an electromagnetic field
spreads in the entire “universe”. So, this separability is neither a “pure separability” (because of this
correspondence – no ontology), nor a “physical process/force” between particles; it is only a
correspondence (no ontology). In the macro-EW, a car is separable from another car just because the
correspondence between those two cars has a “very low degree” in relationship to the corresponding
electromagnetic wave. In this context, I recall Bohr’s assumption: “To defend quantum theory in spite of
its ‘nonphysical’ aspect, Bohr redefined the goal of science. That goal is not, he later claimed, to describe
Nature, but only to describe what we can say about Nature. In his earlier debates with Einstein, Bohr
argued that any observation physically disturbs what you observe by an amount enough to prevent any
experimental refutation of quantum theory. This has been called a ‘doctrine of physical disturbance.’

114
[…] the spin of A has no definite value until it is measured at which point it must produce an
instantaneous effect at B, collapsing its spin wave function into the opposite or “down state”. This bizarre
situation demands action-at-distance or faster-than-light communication, neither of which is acceptable.
(McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 167)

Therefore, there has to be certain “hidden variables, (elements of reality)”, so quantum

theory is incomplete. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 167) This is clearly the
“locality”/“separability” principle, based on the special relativity (nothing travel faster
than light): one change in a system produces no instantaneous changes in a separate
system. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 167) However, “locality” was strongly rejected
by Bohr and this team:
Quantum mechanics does not permit a separation between the observer and the observed. The EPR
experiment does not demonstrate the incompleteness of quantum theory, but the naivete of assuming
local conditions in atomic system. The two electrons and the observer are part of a single system… Once
they have been connected, atomic system never separate.” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 168)

Clearly, from my EDWs perspective, both Einstein and Bohr were partially right and
partially wrong (due to the unicorn world): the electrons are really separated in the
micro-EW, BUT when two electrons are placed together (the particles, somehow,
interact), their corresponding electromagnetic waves become one, therefore, the atomic
system (those two coupled electrons) corresponds to one electromagnetic wave. When
we measure the spin of an electron A, through correspondence, we act on the whole
electromagnetic wave therefore, and thus, we act on the electron B. Obviously, there is
nothing “faster than light” since the electromagnetic wave is an indivisible entity.

1948 Feynman, “sum over histories”

Feynman’s approach supposes that, in two-slits experiment, it is possible that an
electron travels through both slits before reaching the screen. Therefore, we have to
take into account all the possible histories for any individual electron. “Feynman
showed that each such history would contribute to the probability that their common
outcome would be realized, and if these contributions were correctly added together,
the result would agree with the total probability predicted by quantum mechanics.”
(Greene 2004, p. 180) Again, working within the unicorn-world framework, Feynman
could introduce a radical notion, the “sum over histories” (against the classical view).
The beam-splitter experiment supports such an abstract, mathematical, picture of

Since Alice’s observation changes what can be correctly said about Bob’s photon, Bohr’s response to
EPR has been called a ‘doctrine of semantic disturbance’.” (idem, p. 137) This “nonphysical aspect”
means, according to my EDWs perspective, just the correspondence between the electromagnetic wave
and those two particles. This correspondence has no ontological background! (For me, it was not a
surprise, in the context of great debates of quantum mechanics (and other complicated scientific theories
in physics), to appear an “empty philosopher”, Wittgenstein, with his “empty” “philosophy of
language”.) Rosenblum and Kuttner: Einstein rejected Bohr’s response. Einstein believed in a real world
which science had to explain directly. A photon has a particular polarization not because the human
observer “”observes” other entities, but because any photon has a physical property which determines its
polarization. Later, this property was called the “hidden variable”. So, Einstein believed quantum
mechanics is incomplete; he labeled Bohr’s “influences” as those “voodoo forces” or “spooky
actions/interactions at distances”. Einstein di dnot dare to realize that the entire quantum mechanics was
not only “incomplete” but totally wrong… Einstein: “The Lord God is subtle, but malicious He is not.”
(Einstein)” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 137) We have to recall, later, working within the unicorn world,
Einstein changed this believe: “maybe God is malicious…” or even he rejected the existence of God.
(see below)

115
“reality”.1 It is understandable that if a beam of light is split into two beams and then,
with the help of two mirrors, the beams are detected by a single detector, we can see
the „interference pattern” of those beams. When an individual photon is fired toward
the splitter, the result is the same. However, the photon (any microparticle) cannot be
split (as it is possible for an electromagnetic wave). Then what produces the
interference? Borrowing this property of splitting from waves, some physicists
2
introduced different notions. For Feynman, we need to combine those two possible
histories “in determining the probability that a photon will hit the screen at one
particular point or another.” (Green, p. 181) For Feynman,

the particle passes through each slit at the same time. When it passes through first slit, the particle „takes”
with itself an associated wave which is in fact the first mentioned component of the probability wave (as
we saw, it split in two when it passes through the slit). The same it happens with the second slit. (Presura,
p. 365)

... the particle passes, at the same time, through both slits, and it means that those two pilot-waves
interfere.... So, in Feynman’s method, the particle follows, at the same time, both classical trajectories
(named virtual trajectories), each particle (on each trajectory) being attached to a wave (the pilot wave).
Finally, these pilot waves of those two virtual trajectories will interfere, in this way, getting the
3
probability to find the particle in tis final position on the screen. (Presura, p. 366)

In fact, each particle from the micro-EW has a corresponding wave in the field-EW.
When the apparatus fired the photon, we measured that particle (the micro-EW) which
corresponds to “its” wave (field-EW). The screen detector measures the interference of
the wave in the field-EW which corresponds to the particle in themicro-EW. At every
time a particle has a corresponding wave but these entities are ED physical entities in
their EDWs.
The classical electrodynamics deals with the classical interactions between the
electric charges through the electromagnetic field. The theory of interactions between
electrons, positrons, and photons is “quantum electrodynamics”. (Presura 2014, p.
364)4 We have to deal here with the “multiparticle probability wave”. Therefore, let

1 “Although we have described the merging of possible histories in the context of only a couple of
specific examples, this way of thinking about quantum mechanics is general.” (Greene, p. 181)
2
We saw above that, decades after Feynman, Deutsch uses an empty notion, “shadow electrons”, to
explain the “interference pattern”.
3
“Those two fundamental elements of Feynman’s method are the notion of virtual trajectory (any
possible trajectory which can be followed by particle) and that of amplitude of probability. All virtual
trajectories are followed by particle in the same time, and the amplitude of probability gives us the
contribution of virtual trajectory in the final result… The notion virtual particle can create confusions, as
we have to expect as being another particle. However, … it is the same particle, and the notion virtual
has to recall us each time that the same particle simultaneously participates to different virtual processes.”
(Presura, p. 390)
4 Presura recalled that, at the beginning of quantum mechanics, there were these approaches:
Heisenberg’s matrix, Schrödinger’s probability wave, and Dirac’s operators (which describe all
mathematically the same physical processes). (p. 364) Feynman introduced a new mathematical
interpretation’s of the same physical processes. (Presura 2014, p. 364) The “standard model of elementary
particles” has two quantum theories of fundamental fields: the “quantum chromodynamics” (the quantum
field associated with quarks which compose protons and neutrons) and the “electroweak theory”
(disintegration of nucleus, quantum electrodynamics, electromagnetism). We should pay attention that
even a great physicist like Feynman (in fact, all the great physicists of the past) worked within the

116
me introduce the interpretation of Feynman’s “sum over histories” from my viewpoint.
(see again Vacariu 2007/2008) In Young's experiment, when an individual electron
(which belongs to the micro-EW) is shot toward a double-slit apparatus, the screen
measures the interference of two waves (the field-EW). Esentially, for Feynman, the
electron travels through both “slits” before reaching the screen. Therefore, we have to
take into account all the possible “histories” for any individual electron. “Feynman
showed that each such history would contribute to the probability that their common
outcome would be realized, and if these contributions were correctly added together,
the result would agree with the total probability predicted by quantum mechanics.”
(Greene 2004, p. 180) So, we need to combine all the possible histories “in determining
the probability that a photon will hit the screen at one particular point or another.”
(Greene 2004, p. 181) The electron passes not only through both slits but also through
all the possible trajectories from the apparatus (which sent it) until the screen (which
measures it) during our entire “time” of measuring. And these possible histories are
“infinite”. (Greene mentions that this state of affair seems to be crazy. (Greene 1999, p.
128)
The “standard interpretation” indicates that, between our measurements, there is
the wave, but in our process of measuring, we “localize” the particle. Feynman goes
beyond this “framework of thinking”: in reality, in the double-slit experiment, the
electron passes through both “slits” at the same time. Obviously, based to the
“association” between and the particle and the entire electromagnetic wave, it was
possible for Feynman to think of this alternative. In his view, because the
electromagnetic field is shared through the “entire space”, the electron passes through
the “entire space” at the same time. There are the “virtual particles” everywhere
following the “virtual trajectories” at the same time. (Presura 2014, p. 366) “The action
S is minimum for the real trajectory of classical particle in relationship to all others
virtual trajectories which can be imagined between initial and final events.” There are
an infinity of virtual trajectories 1 , but the particle follows the classical trajectory
because it has the greatest contribution to the probability transition from one place to
another.2 (Presura 2014, p. 369)
Feynman mentions that quantum mechanics offers an absurd description of nature
for our common sense: because this description fits with experiments, we have to accept
“nature” exactly as it is, i.e., “absurd”. (Greene, p. 130) How does this view fit with the
classical world? Feynman specifies that for the classical macro-objects, all such
trajectories cancel each other except one. We can clearly see here a “Ptolemaic epicycle”

“unicorn world”. This is the reason many of them were able to create quite implausible “states of affair”
(SF stories) for quantum mechanics.
1 (My footnote) In Feynman’s approach, there is a problem created by these “infinities”. See sections
146-7, Presura 2014) To “save the phenomena”, the physicists introduced “quantum renormalization”.
From my viewpoint, there is no such correspondence between an “infinite” number of microparticles and
the probability of wave. There is only the correspondence between a particle and, indeed, the entire wave.
Moreover, the “infinity” is a mathematical notion without any ontological status (see Vacariu and Vacariu
2019). (Even the physicists know this… but see Aristotle’s very good argument against the existence of
“infinity”.)
2 The two fundamental elements of Feynman’s method are the notions “virtual trajectory” (any
trajectory can the followed by the particle) and “probability amplitude”… that is the trajectory’s
contribution to the final result. Some physicists interpret this process saying that the particle becomes
virtual traveling on these virtual trajectories at the same time.” (Presura 2014, p. 391) The particle is in
all the spatial points in a superposition state because it travels virtual on all virtual states. (Presura, p.
393) Just a SF story… In reality, the particle (the micro-EW) is in one place but it corresponds to the
entire field/wave (the field-EW).

117
applied only to the micro-EW, but not to the macro-EW. Again, only within the unicorn-
world, Feynman had “correctly” introduced this radical notion, the “sum over histories”.
In reality, the wave from the field-EW corresponds to the particle from the micro-EW
and this correspondence would allow Feynman to introduce his “sum over histories”
which are “infinite” because it is believed that the electromagnetic wave is infinite.
When the apparatus fired the photon, we measured that particle (the micro-EW) which
corresponds to “its” wave (the field-EW). The screen measures/shows the interference
pattern of two waves which passes through those two slits (the field-EW) which
corresponds to the particle (the micro-EW) which passes through only one slit.
“Shooting” the electron (the micro-EW) with a macroscopic apparatus (the macro-EW),
we measure the interference of two waves (field-EW) with a macroscopic apparatus
(which indicates indirectly the phenomena of waves or particles.

1952: Bohm’s “hidden variables theory”

According to Presura, de Broglie’s interpretation immediately lost the battle with
Copenhagen interpretation; de Broglie gave up to his interpretation quite soon after
releasing it. However, after 25 years, Bohm reinvigorated it. (p. 284)

… Bohm introduced the notion of quantum force which acted on the classical electron, this force being
given by the pilot wave of electron (being as real as the electron). This force produce the electron to
move on certain trajectories little different than those classical… In Bohm-de Broglie model, the electron
is a complete classical particule which it moves according to the Newtonian mechanics, but on this
particle acts the quantum force (a force different than electric, magnetic force, etc.). The quantum force
is generated by the probability wave of electron (pilot wave, de Broglie), which is, in these models, as
real as the electron is. (p. 284)

Clearly, both de Broglie and Bohm (“quantum force” or a kind of physical entity,
pseudo-notions) worked within the unicorn world: they places both the wave and the
microparticle in the same world, their main notion being the interaction (“pilot”)
between the wave and the particle! They believe that, using a powerful microscope, we
would be able to observe both the momentum and the position at any moment. (p. 235)
Obvisouly, the particle has a postion and a momentum well-defined, but because of any
1
actual instrument, we are unable to observe, completely, these characteristics.

1
The same observation is available for any macro-object: in any condition, we perceive, indirectly, a
macro-object just with an approximation. The image of that object is always a mental perceptual in one
mind (an EDW than micro-EW and field-EW) and, moreover, there could not be “perfect” conditions of
observation for any kind of entities (micro, macro, field) since our body, the electromagnetic waves and
the microparticles belong to the EDWs. However, it does not mean my computer and my body (and the
corresponding amalgams of microparticles/waves) are not in a precise position having a precise speed.
“In time, David Bohm became a promotor of holistic theories (versus reductionistic approaches) which
indicate a composed system could be more than the sum of its components. In other words, the behavior
of the system depends on something larger which caanot be described through the individual properties
of its components. Is this the entire universe, asked Bohm… In quantum mechanics, the whole (the
probability multiparticle wave) is prior [previously] to its parts, understanding that its parts (the particles)
appear as particular manifestations of the whole.” (Presura, p. 287) Indeed, the electromagnetic field
appeared 380,000 years after Big Bangs and has extended/revealed until now with speed c (see Vacariu
2023, Vacariu and Vacariu 2016); later (very short moments), because of the interactions among many
waves (field-EW), the corresponding particles appeared in the micro-EW. Therefore, the whole (the
electromagnetic field which covers the entire “universe”) is not “prior” to its components since there are
EDWs: the whole remains the whole (field-EW), its “components” are certain micro-entities in the micro-
EW.

118
1957 Everett, “many worlds” (“parallel worlds”) (and “multiverse”)
I dedicate this short section to illustrate the completely different frameworks for the
“many worlds” (see Presura, section 113) and the EDWs. (more details in Vacariu and
Vacariu 2017, Vacariu 2023, etc.) There can be a huge confusion between Everett’s
“many worlds”, “parallel worlds”, “multiverse” and my EDWs. The “multiverse”
approach indicates the existence of many “universes” within the same “spacetime”
framework, the “universe” (the macro-EW). These “universes” (related to Guth’s
“inflation”) are like “islands of universes”. (Presura, p. 528) The “many worlds”
approach (or “parallel” approach), created by Everett (1957), and followed by Zeh,
Zurek, Deutsch and Tegmark seems to be quite close alternative to the EDWs
perspective. The many-worlds interpretation was created by Everett as an alternative to
the collapse of the wave function into a particle during the measurement (the
Copenhagen interpretation). According to Tegmark and Wheeler (2001), the
Schrödinger’s equation predicts that the person seeing a particle will “enter” a
superposition of two possible states. (p. 72) There are two parts of the total wave
function (of person plus the particle) that work completely independently in two parallel
worlds. In each world, there is also a person and a measurement apparatus and observed
entity. In reality, Everett’s many worlds (and parallel worlds) is another SF story created
within the unicorn world:

In the many-worlds interpretation, when you look into one of the boxes, you entangle with the atom’s
superposition state. You go into a superposition state both of having seen the atom in the box you looked
in and also of having seen that box empty. There are now two of you, one in each of two parallel worlds.
The consciousness of each one of you is unaware of the other you. Nothing we actually experience
1
conflicts with this bizarre view. (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 160)

1
Presura, figure 10.8, about Everett’s “many worlds”: In a box, there is Schrӧdinger’s cat in
superposition of two states: the state in which its color is naturally brown and a state in which the cat is
colored in blue. When we open the box, our universe effectively split in two parallel universes according
to Everett’s theory. Each universe has the cat and the person: in one universe, is the cat still brown and a
happy person, in another universe is the cat colored in blue and the person unhappy. Even if, those two
universes shared the same space and time, they do not interact one with the other at all. (Presura, p. 269)
Obviously, SF story, no more… Moreover, Presura discusses about the “soul” of that cat, but he
emphasizes that he presupposes the soul is something material, a consequence of brain’s organization of
cat. (p. 269) So, after measuring, the soul and the body of that experimentator is in two parallel universes.
Before measuring, the soul and body is in a superposition state. “As much as we do not look inside the
bod, both the entire universe and our soul are united in a single quantum superposition… the entire
universe is in a quantum superposition of its two possible states.” (p. 269) Everett emphasizes that there
is no collapse and the probability wave of the entire universe continuously evolves with its two
components. The entire universe rests in a quantum superposition of those two states which Everett calls
them, parallel universes.” (Presura, p. 270) Again SF: in reality, within the EDWs, there is the
electromagnetic field (field-EW) everywhere in “universe” which corresponds to the entire micro-EW,
macro-EW and the mind-EW. See here Everett’s quite absurd SF: according to Everett’s theory, “surely
it always exists a component of universes in which our soul never die, it becomes immortal (that is,
Everett’s quantum immortality)”. (Presura, p. 271) I believe, probably being a religious person (I do not
know this fact), Everett is now in paradise trying to convince God about his “many worlds”; the problem
would be, in each world, there would be one God, so, many worlds, many Gods; we return somehow to
the “Greek religion”, don’t we? “The story has a tragic final which mirrors the confusion which appears
when we really believe a particular concept is just the reality. Everett’s daughter, who suffered of mental
diseases, sinucided herself 15 years after the dead of her father. She left a message in which she indicated
he was sure she would meet her father in one of multiple universes in which none of them were dead.”
(p. 271) Unfortunately, this is also an “absurd” SF story, nothing else…

119
So, in this SF story, being in one “world”, if I measure one time, I will be in two “parallel
worlds”. If I measure 20 times, I will in a lot of parallel/many worlds. In reality, there
are not “many/parallel worlds” but EDWs. It has to be very clear, Everett’s many worlds
(a bad SF story) are totally different than my EDWs! If somebody consider that both
concepts refer to the same thing, it means that person understands nothing from both
theories.
In 1927, Dirac relates the electric and the magnetic fields with the quantum “level”
(the quantum field theory): the particles are excited states of the electromagnetic field.
Born introduced a “statistical interpretation” of wave: the wave function is a complex
number for each place, at each time for the particle. Born introduces “probability” just
because the particle does not have a “clear trajectory”. There are possible different
trajectories for this particle before someone measures where the particle is placed.
Obviously, after the measurement, the observer finds the particle in a particular position,
but before the measurements, there would be certain probabilities to find the particle in
a place. Before measuring, the microparticle has the probability of being in each point
which corresponds with the electromagnetic wave (the Schrödinger’s equation), some
points having greater probabilities the particle to be there. However, it is possible to
exist another wave function (solution to the same equation) which corresponds to the
particle in another point. If there are different wave-functions at the same time, their
“sum” is the solution for that particle. So, according to the solution of Schrödinger’s
equation, the particle can be in several places at the same time (“quantum superposition”
of a particle). However, when we realize the measurement, this superposition suddently
1
“disappears”. In reality, nobody could observe this superposition. Some physicists
believe that the wave function “collapses” into the particle, other physicists believe that
the world splits into different “worlds”. Again, SF stories…
Everett considers that we have to preserve the postulate of probability wave and its
evolution, but we have to reject the postulate referring to its “collapse”. Everett extends
this idea to the entire universe and we get those many worlds (“parallel universes”).
(Presura 2014, p. 268) Even if it was a mathematical concept, many physicists believed
that the wave-function described a real phenomena, it described nature/reality. Again,
before measuring, it is in superposition in many places, the wave function describes this
superposition. According to Everett, when we realize one measurement of a particle,
these state of superposition split in two worlds. If we realize another measurement,
other two worlds appear: in each world, there would be the observer, the particle and
the detector. In this way, Everett wanted to reject “probability”: if, before our measure,
it was 30% the particle to be in one place and 70% in another place, when we measure,
those two probabilities become 100% in two different worlds. Again, a SF story.
Let my analyse Everett’s approach in relationship to the “Schrödinger’s cat”.
Classically, if the radioactive atom disintegrated, the cat would be dead. If the atom has
not disintegrated, the cat is still alive. When, at one moment, we open the box, we will
see either one state or the other. Quantum mechanics: “Before opening the box, the cat
is in a quantum superposition between the above two states. When we open the box,
the probability wave of the entire system from the box (the cat and the atom) will suffer
a quantum collapse in one of those classical states” (Presura, p. 268), the cat is both
alive or death. The Schrödinger equation’s indicates the superposition of these two

1
I recall, nobody could have clearly explained “superposition” and “collapse”. Moreover, nobody have
identified empirically certain phenomen which would correspond to these notions. Why? Because these
notios have been just “empty notions”.

120
states, and following Presura (he writes the equation for other two states, blue cat and
brown cat), we can write:

1/√2 |disintegrated atom, alive cat> + 1/√2 |disintegrated atom, death cat>

Presura emphasizes that the sign “+” indicates the two classical states form a “quantum
superposition”. (Presura 2014, p. 268) Each of this classical state receives a complex
number, and its “module” gives us the probability to find the system in that state. The
symbol | > indicates each classical state, the complex number is in the front of this
symbol. (idem) Everett rejects the collapse of the probability wave. In his example,
Presura introduces the “soul” of the cat. Therefore, his equation becomes “1/√2
|disintegrated atom, blue cat, soul of this cat> + 1/√2 |disintegrated atom, brown cat,
soul of this cat>”. There are two souls in the box, before opening it. Moreover, in the
equation, we have to introduce “the rest of the Universe” and “our soul” (in each
component). We get “1/√2 |disintegrated atom, blue cat, soul of this cat, our soul, rest
of Universe> + 1/√2 |disintegrated atom, brown cat, soul of this cat, our soul, rest of
Universe>”. So, there is a “superposition” of the entire Universe. (Presura, p. 269) The
standard interpretation is that when we open the box, the superposition “collapses” in
one of those two states. Everett believes that there is no collapse, but there are two
parallel Universes. For him, the entire Universe is a sum of these both states that is of
two components, in each being a cat in one state and a soul. (Presura, p. 270) Therefore,
“I” see a blue cat, for instance, just because that “I” belongs to the first component. In
a parallel world/Universe, another “self”/“I” see the cat brown. (Presura 2014, p. 271)
There is no collapse of the probability wave, but two “parallel Universes” which, after
opening the box, evolve in parallel. This evolution is furnished by the Schrödinger’s
equation. If we have more measurements, there are more “parallel universes”. “We
notice that the parallel universes are representations of the quantum superposition
components. They share the same space and time, but they do not interact one wit,
another because of the linearity of probability wave.” (Presura, p. 270) It seems to be
quite paradoxically if those two universes share the same space, but “those two
components of probability wave remain independently in their later evolution”.
(Presura, p. 271)
From my viewpoint, Everett’s approach is totally wrong, meaningless, or better,
his approach is really an absurd SF story. First of all, there is no space and time (or
spacetime). Our EDWs do not share the same spacetime, since one does not exist for
the other. This is the main reason the interactions between one EW with an EDW is a
meaningless notion. Then, essentially for my view, not only the “collapse” is rejected,
but also the “superposition”: there are no “parallel souls”. Moreover, the “soul” (the
mind) does not exist for the body, so it is meaningless to consider the interaction
between “soul”/mind and brain. Obviously, Presura’s example illustrates the image of
quantum mechanics until I have discovered the EDWs.
It has to be clear that Everett’s “many-worlds” approach is constructed within the
unicorn world. These “many-worlds” exist within the same macro-EW, there are
“universes” situated in different “places” within the same “framework”. For instance,
in his book 2011, Greene introduces different theories involving the “Multiverses”:
Parallel (or Many) Worlds (Quantum Multiverse), Quilted Multiverses, Inflationary
Multiverses, Brane and Cyclic Multiverses, Landscape Multiverses, Holographic
Multiverses, Ultimate Multiverses and String Theory. Constructed within the unicorn
world, all these “multiverses” are quite complicated and “difficult to be proved”. Again,
from my viewpoint, these alternatives are all “SF stories”. For instance, see Figure 8.12

121
(Greene 2011) to understand different frameworks for Everett’s “many worlds” and the
EDWs. The following paragraph is written below Figure 8.12: “In Everett’s approach,
the measurement of a particle whose probability wave has two spikes yields both
outcomes. In one world, the particle is found at the first location; in another world, it is
found at the second.” (Greene 2011) Really, we would not be able to understand what
Everett’s wanted to illustrate with his “many worlds”. Anyway, all the alternatives of
the “parallel worlds” are constructed within the unicorn world, and therefore these
theories are in a totally different framework than the EDWs perspective. For me, there
is no superposition of any states, since the wave and the particle belong to the EDWs.
So, it is not a split in two “worlds” and other two worlds and so on.
The EDWs approach is much more adequate to explain the “reality” just because
my perspective mirrors the “reality” much better; my EDWs perspective is much
simpler that any “multiverse” or the “many/parallel worlds”. We recall the main rule
for the EDWs (which indicates the huge difference between my EDWs perspective and
all other alternatives) is that, in principle, the EDWs (more exactly the ED entities and
interactions) are situated in the same “spatiotemporal framework” (empty notion,
anyway), but one EW does not exist for any EDW. So, only from this aspect, we can
notice the HUGE difference between the EDWs perspective and Everett’s “many worlds”
or “multiverse”: these approaches are constructed within totally different paradigms
of thinking. (see Vacariu 2022, Vacariu 2023) I discovered the existence of EDWs
working firstly on the mind-brain problem. Everett’s “many worlds” cannot even be
applied to the mind-brain problem; on the contrary, its application to this problem
would produce absurd results. I repeat, Everett’s “many/parallel worlds” and
“multiverse” approaches are, in principle, quite absurd theories constructed within the
wrong framework, the unicorn world by physicists with strong (but wrong)
“imagination”. In my previous works, I have applied the EDWs perspective not only to
the mind-brain problem, but also to the main problems of quantum mechanics and to
the relationship between the quantum mechanics (microparticles, waves) and the
Einstein’s general relativity (macroparticles). Only these applications would indicate
the total different frameworks for Everett’s “many worlds” (the “multiverse”), on one
side, and the EDWs, on the other side.
I mention once more that the idea of the superposition of two waves and that of the
pseudo-“superposition” of the wave and the particle led the physicists to the idea of the
“superposition” of various states of a particle before measurement. From an EDWs
perspective, because the wave and the particle belong to the EDWs, there is no
superposition of various states for a particle. As a consequence, there is a totally
different relationship between the “parallel universes” (“many-worlds” or “multiverse”)
and the EDWs. The “parallel universes” ontologically exist within the unicorn-world
simultaneously, while EDWs epistemologically exist in the “hyperverse” (i.e., one EW
does not exist for any EW.).
Davies dedicates one chapter in his book (2006) to the “multiverse” alternative in
quantum mechanics. He mentions some problems for this interpretation: “many
scientists hate the multiverse idea”, this theory cannot be tested and it imposes the
duplicate problem and the idea of the “fake universe”. The number of parallel worlds
can be huge, “I repeat, on the Many Worlds interpretation, there will be 230 Einstein-
‘histories – parallel worlds’; science fiction is literally right.” (Putnam 2005, p. 630)
The number of different types of EDWs is very limited given by the epistemologically
different interactions and the corresponding ED entities. Everett tried to solve the
problem of superposition as a reply to the Copenhagen interpretation about the “wave
function that ‘collapses’ into a definite classical outcome wherever the observation was

122
made, with probabilities given by the wave function.” (Tegmark 2004, p. 473) For
Everett, this “controversial collapse postulate was unnecessary”. (Tegmark, p. 473) In
fact, quantum theory alone predicted that one classical real scene would split into the
superposition of many. Interesting for the EDWs perspective is Tegmark’s remark that
Everett could not solve two essential questions:
1) Why we do not perceive macrosuperposition and
2) “What physical mechanism picks out approximately classical states (with each object
in only one place, etc.) as special bewilderingly large Hilbert space?” (Tegmark 2004,
p. 474)
The “decoherence” answers both questions. But as we saw in my previous works
(and above), decoherence is a wrong notion constructed within the unicorn-world. The
“cat” is not both dead and alive before our observation. The physicists needed such
“decoherence” only because they have been working within the unicorn-world. They
consider that certain superpositions are available only for isolated systems. When such
systems have contacts with other entities (a photo or molecules), these “superpositions”
split in “parallel universes”. Surprisingly, Tegmark wrote that decoherence “is now
quite uncontroversial and has been experimentally measured in a wide range of
1
circumstance.” (p. 474) In reality, the world does not exist, but only the EDWs are.
Everett showed that it is mathematically consistent to say that when a scientist measures the position of
an atomic particle, he splits into numerous copies of himself. Each copy resides in a different universe.
And each copy sees the particle in a different position. The set of all copies covers the set of all possible
particle positions inside a multiverse. According to Everett, each universe inside the multiverse is
constantly branching, like a tree, into separate but parallel worlds that cannot communicate with each
other. Each parallel universe records a self-consistent history drawn from a range of physically possible
histories. (Byrne 2010, p. 5)

According to physicist, Bryce DeWitt, Everett showed that ‘This universe is constantly splitting into a
stupendous number of branches, all resulting from the measurement like interactions between its myriad
of components. Moreover, every quantum transition taking place on every star, in every galaxy, in every
remote corner of the universe is splitting our local world on earth into myriads of copies of itself. . . .
Here is schizophrenia with a vengeance.’ (DeWitt, B. S. (1970)161. (Byrne 2010, p. 5)

Again, a SF story written within the unicorn world. The problem is that many physicists
have embraced this SF story many decades… They have to either go to church or to
become absurd SF writters… In my previous books and this work, I have indicated that
it would be very clear that Everett’s “many worlds” is completely different than my
EDWs perspective. I repeat: I discovered the existence of EDWs working on the mind-
brain problem (next year, I applied my approach to quantum mechanics). It would mean
that the discovery of EDWs rested on the dichotomy subject-world (external), and it
was quite impossible somebody to discover the EDWs working on the “wave-particle”
duality just because the terms of this dichotomy “wave-particle” (the main problem in
quantum mechanics) refer to the ED entities which belong both to the “external world”.
It would mean that it would not be possible for someone to discover the existence of
EDWs working on certain ED entities which belong to the “external world”. I believe
this was the main reason Everett needed to invent “many-worlds” and he did not have
any idea about the EDWs. His “many/parallel worlds” are within the unicorn-world,
therefore, they are are completely different than the EDWs: there are “parallel universes”

1
This expression “special bewilderingly large Hilbert space” (just an abstract mathematical notion)
mirrors the framework of the unicorn world in which all physicists have been working until 2005.

123
within the unicorn world, no more. Also, David Lewis’ logical “plurality of worlds”
(somehow, related to Everett’s “many worlds”, but Lewis worked in logic/tautology
according to Kant and myself) has nothing in common with our EDWs:
Multiple universes were now a palatable topic for academic discussion. Philosophers started to pay
attention. David Lewis, who was in the process of developing a theory of multiple worlds based purely
upon philosophical concepts, signed Everett’s dissertation out of the Princeton library.40 Lewis’ well-
known ‘modal’ construct of a plurality of worlds based on ‘counterfactuals’ is purely philosophical, and
not quantum mechanical,41 but his work has influenced modern interpretations of how probability fits
into the Everett worlds. (Byrne 2010, pp. 310-311)

The multiverse (or many worlds) means many “universes” placed all in parallel within
the unicorn world. “In parallel” means that one universe is placed near to the other
within the “Universe”. The EDWs are not placed “in parallel” within the same macro-
EW at all. On the contrary, for the EDWs perspective, one EW does not exist for any
EDW, while for the “parallel Universes/worlds” perspective, the universes are placed
all in parallel within the same EW, the macro-EW.
Everett’s many/parallel worlds is related to “multiverse”. In order to avoid such
kind of “possibility” the proponents of the multiverse introduced the notion of “parallel
universes”. Deutsch believes that the single-particle interference experiments illustrate
that the “multiverse” (i.e., “parallel universes”) exists. (Deutsch 1997, p. 96) To explain
Young’s experiment, Deutsch introduces the distinction between the “tangible or real”
and “shadow” photons that exist in the parallel universes. These “shadow” photons are
“affected by tangible particles only through interference phenomena”. (Deutsch 1997,
p. 405) In what sense? In the split-beam experiment, before the single photon enters the
interferometer, the photon and its “shadow” travel the same path, so the universes are
identical. However, after the tangible photon passes through a special mirror, the
“initially identical universes become differentiated”. (Deutsch 1997, p. 205) Then each
photon (one tangible and one shadow from the parallel universes) bounces off the next
ordinary mirror and finally both photons simultaneously reach the semi-silvered mirror.
So, “... the detection of interference between any two universes requires an interaction
to take place between all the particles whose position and other attributes are not
identical in the two universes.” (p. 49) I want to emphasize that we have to avoid
confusing EDWs with “parallel universes”, since there are completely two different
notions. To explain the split-beam experiment, we do not need any “shadow” particles
belonging to some “parallel universes”. We can see that Deutsch (and other physicists
who follow Everett’s many worlds) have been working within the unicorn-world, even
if they “created” “many worlds” or “parallel universes” (which are totally different than
the EDWs). For Deutsch, these parallel universes exist at the same time in the unicorn-
world. As we saw above, I explained this experiment considering that the wave and the
particle belong to the EDWs not to the “parallel universes”. An absurd ideas since, in
such parallel universes, the observer exists in all these parallel universes…
Wheeler extended this delayed-choice experiment to the whole “Universe”. Almost
like a bad science-fiction story, Wheeler’s main idea is that we, as “participators in
shaping physical reality”, influence the past that created us. 1 There is a loop of
cosmos→life→mind→cosmos. (Davies 2006, p. 281 or Greene 2004) He believes that
“only a universe containing observer-participators could exist – a version of the strong

1 “Observer-participancy in turn gives what we call tangible reality to the universe… Of all strange
features of the universe, none are stranger than these: time is transcendent, laws are mutable, and
observer-participancy matters.” (Wheeler 1979 in Dyson 2004, p. 73)

124
anthropic principle.” 1 (Davies 2006, 291) Regarding the wave-particle duality,
Wheeler considers that the human observer “participates in deciding whether light is
made up of waves or particles”. (Davies 2006, p. 9) From a EDWs perspective, we
replace “observing” with “interacting” and can say that an EW is only when there are
2
epistemological-ontological interactions between entities which belong to that EW .
We just observe, always, indirectly the ED entities from the EDWs and this is the reason
why Wheeler’s anthropic principle and many other notions like “many worlds” or
“parallel universes” become empty notions constructed within a wrong framework.

1 “Wheeler would make all physical law dependent on the participation of observers.” (Dyson 2004, p.
72) Following Bohr, Wheeler is very close to Spinoza and Kant’s approaches. However, I consider that
all the physical laws depend on the “participation” (interactions) of epistemologically different entities
(in the frameworks furnished by the EDWs), not on the participations of human observers. We are just a
class of entities (macro-objects for our bodies in the macro-EW, while each mind/life is EW, an EW does
not exist for any EDW, i.e., a mind does not exist for the corresponding body – see my previous works)
among the epistemologically different entities which belong to the EDWs.
2
I recall, some EDWs (like micro-EW and macro-EW) do not really exist, but only their ED entities
(microparticles and respectively macro-objects) and their ED interactions really exist, each set of entities
(like microparticles) really exists only in a particular EW (like the micro-EW, a label without ontology;
only the microparticles, in this case, have ontology).

125
Chapter 11

Bell’s inequality (1964) and

the strange Wheeler’s “delayed-choice experiment” (1980)
(related to Young’s experiment)
1964 Bell, inequality
Bell’s inequality assumes Einstein’s condition of “locality” as true. The experiments
which involve the measurement of correlated photons (their polarization is detected)
show that Bell’s inequality is violated. The consequence of these experiments is that
1
the system of those two particles has a nonlocality property.

Bell’s theorem in a nutshell: Suppose that objects in our world do have physically real properties that are
not created by observation. And further suppose that two objects can always be separated from each other
so that what happens to one cannot affect the other. For short, we’ll call these two suppositions “reality”
and “separability.” From these two premises, both denied by quantum theory, Bell deduced that certain
observable quantities had to be larger than other observable quantities. This experimentally testable
prediction of Bell’s theorem is “Bell’s inequality.” (The most common, experimentally observed
quantities here are the rates at which twin-state photons display different polarizations when their
polarizers are set at different angles.)
If it is found that Bell’s inequality is violated, one or both of the premises that lead to the inequality
must be wrong. In other words, if Bell’s inequality is violated in actual experiments, our world cannot
possibly have both reality and also separability. (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 142)

“Separability” means there is no physical process applied to a microparticle which can

influence, instantenously, another particle. However, Bell’s inequality and certain
experiments (Nobel Prize in 2022 for three experimental teams led by Alain Aspect,
John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger) indicated that this inequality was violated.
2
Therefore, we cannot accept both “separability” and “reality”. I recall again: Bell and

1
“As a result of Bell’s theorem and the experiments it stimulated, a once ‘purely philosophical’ question
has now been answered in the laboratory: There is a universal connectedness. Einstein’s ‘spooky
interactions’ do in fact exist. Any objects that have ever interacted continue to instantaneously influence
each other.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 139) In reality, there are just certain correspondences
between the ED entites which belong to the EDWs: the two particles belong to the micro-EW, the
electromagnetic wave belongs to the field-EW.
2
“In the EPR case, Einstein’s ‘hidden variables’ and Bohr’s ‘influences’ led to the same experimental
outcome; the disagreement between Bohr and Einstein was only a difference of interpretation. In the
stick model, and in the actual Bell’s theorem experiments, the outcome for Einstein’s ‘hidden variables’
and Bohr’s ‘influences’ will be different.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner, p. 144) Both Einstein and Bohr were
working within the unicorn world. “Clauser’s experiments ruled out, in physics terminology, ‘local
reality’ or ‘local hidden variables.’ The experiments showed that the properties of objects in our world
have an observation-created reality or that there exists a universal connectedness, or both. In these
experiments, quantum theory survived its most serious challenge in decades.” (idem, p. 148) This
“universal connectedness” represents the electromagnetic field presents in the entire juniverse; it
represents an electromagnetic wave (part of this electromagnetic field) which corresponds to those two
particles and the distance (no ontology) between them. “We talk in terms of twin-state photons because
that situation is readily described and subject to experimental test. In principle, however, any two objects
that have ever interacted are forever entangled. The behavior of one instantaneously influences the other.
An entanglement exists even if the interaction is through each of the objects having interacted with a
third object. In principle, our world has a universal connectedness.” (idem, p. 150) This influence means
“correspondence” (no ontological status), no more. So, there is not a mysterious influence between two

126
all the members of these teams (and many other teams) of quantum experiments have
been working within the unicorn world. In their framework of thinking, the most
important notion from my EDWs perspective was missing: the correspondence.
John Bell introduces his “inequality principle”: his test was on two correlated
photons (“polarization” of light instead of “spin” of electrons), but this test grasped the
relationship between two microparticles (in this case, photons) and assumed “Einstein’s
locality” to be true (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 169): “if the experiments showed
that the inequality was violated, this would mean that one of the premises in his
derivation was false. Bell chose to interpret this to mean that nature is non-local”.
1
(McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 169). Theoretically (mathematically), the inequality
was violated. Few years later, John Clauser and this team (1978) and Alain Aspect’s
team (1982) proved experimentally the violation of Bell’s inequality.
This means that in spite of the local appearances of phenomena, our world is actually supported by an
invisible reality which is unmediated and allows communication faster than light, even instantaneously.
Interactions under Non-locality Reality
1. The interaction does not diminish with distance.
2. It can act instantaneously (faster than the speed of light).
2
3. It links up locations without crossing space. (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 170)

What an amazing picture of EDWs constructed within the unicorn-world!3 From my

perspective, there is no “invisible reality” which allows instant communication, but
there is only the correspondence between two microparticles and their correspoding
electromagnetic wave, nothing else. Points (1) and (2): when we act on one particle,
because of its correspondence to an indivisible electromagnetic wave, we act on a part

particles which interacted in the past; there is a correspondence between them: the electromagnetic wave
established between them when those two particles interacted. We have to follow, partially, Bell’s advice:
“In his arguments with Bohr, Einstein was wrong in all the details. Bohr understood the actual
manipulation of quantum mechanics much better than Einstein. But still, in his philosophy of physics
and his idea of what it is all about and what we are doing and should do, Einstein seems to be absolutely
admirable. . . . [T]here is no doubt that he is, for me, the model of how one should think about physics.”
(idem, p. 151) Einstein was not wrong; it was wrong his framework of thinking, the unicorn world. In
the micro-EW, there is indeed a separability (no ontology) between those two particles in the micro-EW;
however, this separability corresponds (no ontology) to an electromagnetic wave (the field-EW). Nor
surprisingly, the next section in Rosemblum and Kuttner’s book has this title: “Does Quantum Mechanics
Support Mysticism”. (p. 152) Working within the unicorn world, many scientists have introduced, in the
last years, religion (especially Buddhism) in explaning the quantum entanglement/nonseparability. “You
know something’s happening here, but you don’t know what it is.” (Bob Dylan) (idem, p. 153) Until
2005, the physicists/thinkers did not know about the EDWs; they had been working within the unicorn
world for many centuries/milleniums…
1
Bell’s inequality (Bell’s theory): The hidden theory and quantum mechanics predict different
probabilities: 55.5% versus 50%. Bell’s inequality indicate that quantum mechanics is correct. When
some teams realized certain experiments, the results were in accordance to those indicated by quantum
mechanics and not by the „hidden variables” theory, that is, those two particles were correlated. Bell’s
proved started wtih certain axioms (one being for locality). If we partially reject this axiom, we can
introduce the correspondence between the ED entities (EDWs). However, this hidden nonlocality has no
ontology since there are only certain correspondences (no ontology) between the ED entities (EDWs).
2
“… John Bell succeded to re-written total state of first two photons as superposition of four total
special states, called Bell’s states.” (Presura, p. 297)
3 The “nonlocality” is compared with “voodoo” interactions of Haitian-African folklore. (McEnvoy and
Zarate 2013, p. 170) Within the unicorn world, such comparisons are unavoidable.

127
of electromagnetic wave, but since the wave is an indivisible entity, we also act on the
entire wave; in this way, we act indirectly through correspondence, on the second
particle. Point (3) refers exactly to the indivisible electromagnetic wave which
corresponds to those two electrons.
The Copenhagen’s standpoint on the measurement problem makes the same major
error, assuming the existence of the unicorn-world. Between two measurements, there
is only the probability wave of electron, but not the electron itself. (Presura 2014, p.
284)1 In this interpretation, at one moment, using one tool of observation a human
subject can observe the wave. When the observer changes the measurement apparatus
for observing an electron, the wave function “collapses” at a certain location. The
measurement apparatus produces this collapse. Bohr always emphasized that before the
measurement of the position of an electron, it is meaningless to ask where that electron
is. For Bohr, “the electron simply does not have a definitive position before the
measurement is taken.” (Greene 2004, p. 94) Again, “there is either a probability wave
(between measurements), or a particle (at a measurement position), but never both in
the same time”. (Presura, p. 284)
From my viewpoint, it is quite impossible both entities (one particle and an
electromagnetic wave) to be present in the same place, at the same time. In reality, there
are both the wave and the particle present in the same “place”, at the same “time”, but
in the EDWs. Moreover, if we postulate superposition of a particle in different places
(Feynman, for instance), we reach a greater error. Anyway, the error was postulating
three physical types of ED entities within the unicorn world. To avoid this paradox,
Bohr’s stratagem was to negate the existence of the particle until that particle is
observed/measured, but in that moment, the wave function “collapses” into the electron
2
in a certain location.
Bohr’s approach represents one extreme position. The other extreme position for
the quantum measurement problem is the “many-worlds interpretation” (Everett, De
Witt, Deutsch, etc. – see below). Between these extremes there are other approaches,
but all these theories assume the existence of the unicorn-world.
So the postulates of Bohr’s Copenhagen school, loosely speaking, can be summarized as follows:
a. All energy occurs in discrete packages, called quanta. (The quantum of light, for example, is the photon.
The quanta of the weak force are called the W- and Z-boson, the quantum for the strong force is called
the gluon, and the quantum for gravity is called the graviton, which has yet to be seen in the laboratory.)
b. Matter is represented by point particles, but the probability of finding the particle is given by a wave.
The wave, in turn, obeys a specific wave equation (such as Schrödinger’s wave equation).
c. Before an observation is made, an object exists in all possible states simultaneously. To determine
which state the object is in, we have to make an observation, which “collapses” the wave function, and
the object goes into a definite state. The act of observation destroys the wave function, and the object
now assumes a definite reality. The wave function as served its purpose: it has given us the precise
probability of finding the object in that particular state. (Kaku 2005, p. 153)

Point (a): I recall the essential difference between Planck (following Maxwell’s
equations describing the electromagnetic fields/waves) and Einstein (light is also
microparticles/photons). We have “quanta”, the smallest discrete entity (the

1 We have to recall that a human body corresponds to an amalgam of microparticles. According to this
idea from quantum mechanics, the body would not exist until it is measured. This error would be another
very serious argument against any interpretation of quantum mechanics, but in favor of the EDWs
perspective.
2
We now clearly understand why many physicists needed “collapse”, even if nobody really observed
or had a clear explanation. If you work within the unicorn world, inevitable, you create SF stories…

128
microparticle in the micro-EW), but we also have to take into account the corresponding
electromagnetic wave (the field-EW).
Point (b): Within the quantum mechanics, matter is indeed represented by the “point
particles” but these “abstract entities” exist only in mathematics, not in reality/EDWs.
The “probability” furnished by the relationship between particles and waves mirrors, in
reality, the correspondences between the ED entities which belong to the EDWs.
Point (c): Before an observation, an object does not exist in all possible states
simultaneously (for instance, Feynman’s supporting the superposition of electron in
many places spread in the “entire universe”). It is only the wave which exists
everywhere, while the microparticle is always only in one single place. The
electromagnetic wave does not “collapse” into the electron and the act of observation
does not “collapse” the wave function. Changing the measurement apparatus, we see
indirectly certain ED entities (EDWs). Esentially, if we replace
“observations”/measurements with “interactions”, immediately we can deduce that
human beings are not the only “observers”: any entity interacts with/observes other
entities, that is, its existence is constituted by these interactions. (In this sense, the entity
is an “observer”.)
‘Observation’ is a loose, ill-defined concept. Moreover, it relies on the fact that there are actually two
types of physics: one for the bizarre subatomic world, where electrons can seemingly be in two places at
the same time, and the other for the macroscopic world that we live in, which appears to obey the
commonsense laws of Newton. According to Bohr, there is an invisible “wall” separating the atomic
world from the everyday, familiar macroscopic world. While the atomic world obeys the bizarre rules of
the quantum theory, we live out our lives outside that wall, in the world of well-defined planets and stars
where the waves have already collapsed. (Kaku 2005, pp. 155-156)

Indeed, “observation” is a “loose, ill-defined concept”. This is the reason why, in my

previous works (starting with articles from 2002, 2003, and 2005), I replaced
“observation” with “interaction”, a much more real, objective process. With
“interactions”, we reach Einstein’s “objective reality”, that is, according to Kaku, “the
idea that objects can exist in definite states without human intervention”. The
macroscopic world is the macro-EW, while the “atomic world” does not strictly exist,
there is only the microparticle-EW and the field-EW. The “invisible wall” between the
microworld and the macroworld refers to particular EDWs. Thus, within our EDWs
perspective we return to Einstein’s “objective reality” (and partially to Newton’s
determinism), but we reject Bohr’s idea that, according to Kaku, “reality existed only
after an observation was made”. In fact, we reject Bohr’s “observation” by extending
this act to all the ED entities. In this way, within the ED interactions/observations of
ED entities (EDWs), the “human observation” becomes a very small class of
1
observation/interaction . Contrary to Bohr’s idea, “reality” (ED entities in EDWs) has
existed without the need of human observation. The “entangled particles” correspond
to the wave and this is the reason we have the “illusion” that these microparticles are
somehow “entangled”. The “quantum entanglement” is only the correspondence (no
ontology) between those two particles and the electromagnetic wave/field.

1
I emphasize here that the notion of “human observation” is not quite similar to a “real interaction”:
any “human observation” regarding any “external perception” is always an epistemological/indirect
process, while ED interactions are ED (physical) proceses. I strongly emphasize, for me, the relationship
between “observation” and “interaction” has been just an analogy (not “equivalent notions” with “similar
meanings”).

129
Bohr’s model postulated that electrons could only occupy certain specific orbits around the nucleus, and
when in them, they neither emitted or absorbed radiation. They only emitted radiation when they jumped
from a higher to a lower orbit, and absorbed it when they jumped from a lower to a higher orbit. The
wavelength or frequency of the emitted or absorbed light was proportional to the energy difference
between the levels. (Sheehan and Conselice 2015, p. 161)

From my viewpoint, such “jumps” of a particle from one orbit to another correspond to
the proportional energy of each orbit. Again, as I showed in this book (and others works
in the past), the particle just corresponds to the peak of wavelength or frequency and all
particles and waves/field belong to the EDWs.
The existence of energy in empty space - the discovery that rocked our cosmological universe and the
idea that forms the bedrock of inflation - only reinforces something about the quantum world that was
already well established in the context of the kinds of laboratory experiments I have already described.
Empty space is complicated. It is a boiling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a
time so short we cannot see them directly. Virtual particles are manifestations of a basic property of
quantum systems. At the heart of quantum mechanics is a rule that sometimes governs politicians or
CEOs-as long as no one is watching, anything goes... These “quantum fluctuations” imply something
essential about the quantum world: nothing always produces something, if only for an instant. (Krauss
2012, p. 154)

Many physicists believed in that exactly the same answer can be applied to that
(un)famous nonlocality problem in quantum mechanics. As I showed in my previous
works, the “non-locality” between two particles is a wrong notion constructed within
the unicorn world. In fact, the non-locality of two particles (micro-EW) corresponds to
the indivisible electromagnetic wave (field-EW). The same answer can be used for the
problem mentioned by Hooper in the paragraph above: two “regions”, for instance, are
not connected to each other, but they correspond to an indivisible entity which belongs
to an EDW. Krauss is “right”, the “empty space” is indeed “complicated” since it does
not even exist.
Whitaker considers that, for Bohr, the complementarity of position and momentum
of a particle was the “fundamental example of complementarity”. (Whitaker 1996, p.
177) The next example of complementarity is the angular momentum and only the last
one is the duality wave-particle. (pp. 177-78) In Whitaker’s view, Bohr believed that
the position and the momentum (kinematic-dynamic complementarity) are necessary
for a classical description, but it is unclear the necessity of wave or particle in the
description of light and matter. “So analysis of complementarity should always
concentrate on the kinematic-dynamic, not on wave-particle case.” (Whitaker 1996, p.
178) It is obviously that, within the unicorn-world, we have to concentrate on the
“kinematic-dynamic complementarity”. In fact, “kinematic” corresponds to the rigidity
of wave, “dynamic” to the relation between those two particles. So, inevitable, we have
two EDWs. 1 Replying to the EPR thought experiment, Bohr sustains that the

1 “Bell liked to replace the word complementarity by contradictoriness.” (Whitaker 1996, p. 179) Bell
was right because, within the unicorn-world, we have to eliminate the existence of either wave or particle.
Searching for the fundamental “level” of reality (the unicorn-world), many physicists accept the
existence of wave and reject the existence of particles (among them, see Penrose 2004). In 1970’s,
realizing certain experiments, Closer and later Aspect (early 1980’s) “proved” the “entanglement”
between quantum particles, i.e., they supported “quantum nonlocality” (“spooky action at a distance”)
and rejected the “local hidden variable theory” proposed by Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen. This position
reminds me about the elimination of “mental states” realized by supporters of “eliminative materialism”
like Patricia and Paul Churchland (philosophy of mind). (Against this approach, see Vacariu 2008)
Obviously, from the EDWs perspective, I prefer to replace “complementarity” by “correspondence”. (a
chapter (article free on Internet) about the great difference between Spinoza’s “double aspects” (mind
and brain/body) (phenomenal aspects) and my EDWs, see Vacariu 2023) Bell called Bohr’s

130
measurement on particle 1 cannot “mechanically” disturb particle 2. (Whitaker 1996,
p. 229) Nevertheless, according to Whitaker, the effect of the EPR (thought experiment)
on Bohr was “quite dramatic”. The EPR “forced some change in Bohr’s approach from
‘disturbance’ to the idea, (…), of wholeness and the phenomenon.” (idem) Again, from
an EDWs perspective, we can much easier understand Bohr’s recoil to “wholeness”. In
fact, this wholeness is represented by the rigidity of the wave from the field-EW which
corresponds to those two particles from the micor-EW. I strongly emphasize that we
have to avoid the extension of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to the viewpoints of
all the ED entities (i.e., to hyperontologize it). In other words, we have to apply the
“conceptual containment” (see Vacariu 2005, 2007, 2008) and the “complementarity
principle” (plus Kant-Hanna's rule, see Vacariu 2005, 2007, 2008) to stop this
“hyperontologization of the unicorn-world”. As we will see below, “gravity” apparently
exists for planets and stars (without “gravitons”): in reality, it is “nothing” which
corresponds to the curved electromagnetic field. (see Vacariu and Vacariu 2016, 2019,
or Vacariu 2023) Moreover, nobody can offer a final definitive argument for sustaining
that the field (or the wave) is more “elementary” than the “elementary particles”.
According to de Broglie, a wave is “associated” to (in fact, it corresponds to) each
particle.1 But the photon cannot be split as it is possible for a wave. Then what produces
the interference? Some physicists imagine that an electron “interferes” with itself, i.e.,
it is a kind of reconstruction of the interference “associated” to wave. In Greene’s words,
we are forced to conclude that each electron, as a particle, has certain characteristics of
a wave. (Greene, p. 121) In my opinion, it is completely wrong to think that an “electron
interferes with itself”. Only in the unicorn-world, many physicists have been forced to
think such SF stories. Within the unicorn-world framework, the “micro-level” (the
“ultimate reality”) is indeed a very strange notion for our common sense.
In other words, said de Broglie, the electrons always exist, they have speed and positions well-defined,
and we see them in one part of the other only because they are guided there by the pilot-wave attached.
In de Broglie’s interpretation, both the pilot wave and the particle (the electron, for instance) are real,
both existing in any moment of time. Notice the difference between the Copenhagen interpretation where
only one of those states manifests at one moment, either the probability wave between the measurements
or the point electron (classic) at one measurement of position. (Presura 2014, p. 284)

Because the electron has position and speed at any moment, de Broglie’s approach is a
theory with “hidden variables”. (Presura, p. 284) We have to notice that de Broglie
abandoned his approach quite soon after releasing it. Later, Bohm became one of its
proponent: he introduced “quantum force” (given by the pilot wave, a different force
than the electric or magnetic forces/fields) which acts on the electron. The electron, the
wave and this quantum force really exist. (idem) The spin is not an intrinsic property of
the electron, but a property of “quantum force” (a result of the pilot wave). (Presura
2014, p. 286) In fact, for a better alternative, both de Broglie and Bohm would need to
change their paradigm of thinking, i.e., to replace the unicorn world with the EDWs
perspective. The problem is that, until me, nobody discovered the EDWs. This was the
reason, Bohm introduced this very strange “quantum force” (recall Bohr!) as one of

complementarity one of the “three romantic world views” in the field of quantum theory. The other two
romantic views are Wigner’s approach (Whitaker, p. 201) and deWitt’s “many worlds” interpretation.
(Whitaker 1996, p. 282)
1 The wave is “attached” to the electron as “pilot-wave” which “guides” the movement of classical
electron. (Presura 2014, p. 284) From our viewpoint, what does it mean “attached”? Obviously, it mean
that the electron and the pilot wave are both in the “same world”, the unicorn world. From my viewpoint,
the electron corresponds to the wave since these ED entities belong to the EDWs.

131
those “hidden variables”. Indeed, both the electron and the wave really exist, but in the
EDWs. Again, working within the unicorn world, de Broglie and Bohm (and even
Bohr’s with his entanglement as being not a “physical force”!) were forced to introduce
such “hidden variables”. This “quantum entanglement” is just the correspondence
between the wave and the particle, but any “correspondence” between the ED entities
(which belong to the EDWs) cannot have any ontology. Therefore, in reality, this
“quantum entanglement or even “quantum force” is nothing than the electromagnetic
wave which belongs to an EDW.
Essentially, however, is that Bohm believes that an ensemble of electrons is more
than than the sum their properties, because in this equation we have to introduce also
the multiparticle pilot wave (which really exists); the particle “depends” on the wave.
(Presura, p. 287) Later, Bohm became a proponent of “holistic view” (versus
reductionism): the system cannot be describe by the properties of its components. “Is
the whole Universe in the same situation?’ asked Bohm” (idem).1 Again, Bohm was
quite close to the EDWs, but he did not have the imagination necessary for changing
the old paradigm, the unicorn world with the EDWs perspective. The great difference
between Bohm’s background and my background is that the first was a physicist, while
I am a philosopher who discovered the EDWs working on the mind-brain problem. The
micro-EW and the wave-EW are both the external EDWs for the human subject. I has
changed the unicorn world paradigm with the EDWs just working on the mind-brain
problem: the brain belongs to the “external” macro-EW, while the mind is an EW. I am
quite convinced that it would be quite impossible for a physicist to discover the EDWs
working only on the microparticle-wave duality or on the micro-macroparticles duality
to discover the EDWs just because these pairs of ED entities are all “external entities”
(to our bodies).2

1 “Thus, in Newtonian mechanics, the whole is the sum of its parts. In quantum mechanics, however,
(the multiparticle probabilistic wave) is before its part, meaning that the parts (particles) appear as
particular manifestations of the whole. This thing will become clearer for the theories of quantum
field…” (Presura 2014, p. 287) The part (the microparticle) and the whole (the electromagnetic field)
belong to the EDWs. Even the microparticles (the “parts”) and the planet (the “whole”) belong to the
EDWs, since an essential property of the macro-entity (the planet), the “gravity” (i.e., that “nothing
curved”) cannot be reduced to the properties of the parts (the microparticles). Obviously, the mind and
the brain/body have totally different properties just because the mind is an EW, while the brain/body is
an entity which belongs to the macro-EW.
2 Weatherall (2019) indicates that the “equivalence theories” which refer to the “dualities” in physics do
not preserve the same “empirical content”: “Dualities are not (generally) theoretical equivalences.3 The
reason is that dualities do not preserve empirical content.” (p. 2) As an example, Weatherall investigates
the electromagnetic duality which “do not preserve empirical content”. (p. 3) His last paragraph: “They
are not (in general) empirically equivalent in the sense usually required for theoretical equivalence: they
do not necessarily preserve ‘prior’ empirical content. They are empirically equivalent in a weaker sense,
where we permit re-interpretations that force the equivalence. In other words, a theory is, in general,
equivalent to its dual theory only with a compensating ‘anti-dual’ empirical interpretation. How well-
motivated this re-interpretation is will depend on context.” (p. 13) Obviously, Weatherall’s view needs
the ontology furnished by the EDWs perspective. In some cases, these “different empirical contents”
means nothing else than ED entities/processes which belong to the EDWs. Only if the dualities refer to
contents which belong to the EDWs, we can consider that these dualities “do not preserve the empirical
content”. Such claims are quite impossible to be constructed within the unicorn world; they would lead
to strong ontological contradictions. The same verdict is available for other dualities in physics like
microparticles-macroparticles or microparticles-electromagnetic waves: there are EDWs. (More details
about the electromagnetism and the EDWs, see Vacariu 2007/20087, Vacariu and Vacariu 2017, for
instance) Such “empirical equivalences” have been possible to be constructed only within the unicorn
world. In reality, a planet is not even equivalent to a huge amalgam of microparticles. Also, there is not
an “identity” between a planet and an huge amalgam of microparticles (within the unicorn world) since
there are two EDWs and one EW does not exist for any EDW.

132
 I want, again, to highlight the huge difference between “association” and
“correspondence” regarding the duality “particle-wave”. The notion of “association”
requires the unicorn-world and a causal relationship between particle and wave. The
“correspondence” excludes any such relationship just because these two ED entities
belong to the EDWs: the wave cannot “influence directly” the particle, in any way,
since the wave does not exist for the particle. When we observe/act on a wave in one
EW, we act but not observe, at the same time, the particle which corresponds to the
indirectly “observed” wave. In a very small part of the wave, there are certain
characteristics (concentration of electromagnetic field) which are different than the rest
of the wave (more straight electromagnetic waves) and these characteristics
(“concentration”) correspond, with great probabilities, to the particle. Within the
unicorn-world, we would have had the impression that these characteristics influenced
somehow the “associated” particle. Nevertheless, those characteristics correspond to
the particle and are not “associated” to it.
After presenting various “interpretations” of quantum mechanics, using “collapse”
as a criterion, Putnam makes a classification of the main interpretations: the von
Neumann, Everett’s many-worlds, Bohm and Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber. As I have
emphasized above many times, one of the main problems in quantum mechanics has
been not only the relationship between waves and microparticles, but also between
microparticles and macroparticles and between human observer (consciousness) and
observed entity. Putnam reinterprets the Copenhagen interpretation in the following
sense:
[T]he macro-observables have sharp values at all times… while micro-observables have sharp values
only when measured, where measurement is to be defined as a certain kind of interaction between a
micro-observable and the macro-observable. (Putnam 1965, pp. 149–55 in 2005, pp. 624–5)
And I said (Putnam [1965], p. 157) that the remaining problem for quantum mechanics was to say
what is so special about macroobservable: “The result we wish is that although micro-observables do not
necessarily have definite numerical values at all times, macroobservables do.” (Putnam 2005, p. 625)

Later he wrote that the first alternative in his classification (Von Neumann − “collapse”
produced by something external) presupposes the collapse as “something external to
the system and not subject to superposition” and this case is an unsolved problem.
“Macro-observables” is not the sort of term that can be an irreducible primitive in an ultimate physical
theory, so I called for some future extension of quantum mechanics that would explain why
macroobservable do not go into such states as 1/√2(Live Cat) + 1/√2(Dead Cat). (Putnam 2005, p. 628)

Again, from a EDWs perspective, I consider that, within the unicorn-world, the
scientists have been forced to introduce the “collapse” of the wave. Otherwise, they
could not accept that two physical entities (the superposition of “wave” and “particle”)
exist in the same place, at the same time (or the superposition of an “electron” in many
places) within the unicorn-world. Evidently, without the difference between the
1
“epistemological-ontological” threshold and the “organizational” threshold (see
Vacariu 2005, 2007, 2008), the “irreducible primitives in an ultimate physical theory”
(the so-called “theory of everything”) could not be certain macro-objects. In other
words, the planets, for instance, could not be irreducible primitives. Therefore, the
scientists have been working to find the “gravitons” which would represent this force

1
These two thresholds are, somehow, related to the “first-order properties” and “second-order
properties”…

133
at the “quantum level”. (Howver, we know that “gravitons” cannot even exist...) From
the EDWs perspective, the planets are indeed “irreducible primitives” because,
according to the Einstein’s general theory of relativity, gravity is caused only by
massive objects which “warp” the surrounding “spacetime”, therefore, gravity being a
property of “spacetime”. As we saw above, ignoring the microphysical forces, Einstein
adopted a perspective on the relationship between this necessary geometry and the
entities as “practically rigid bodies”. (Friedman 2001, p. 114) Within the EDWs, we do
not “ignore any forces” and each EW has its own irreducible primitives. The planets,
the macro-objects are the irreducible primitives in the macro-EW and the microparticles
are irreducible primitives in the micro-EW. Nevertheless, the “gravity” between the
planets (certain macro-entities) does not even exist: it is neither a “mysterious force”,
nor the “curved spacetime” (since spacetime has no ontology). Gravity is “nothing”
among planets/galaxies (the macro-EW) which corresponds to the curved
electromagnetic field (field-EW). It has to be VERY clear that the “theory of everything”
is the “theory of the unicorn-world”.

1980 Wheeler, “delayed-choice experiment” (related to Young’s experiment)

We have to remember that before, during and after our “measurements” of the whole
experiment of observation, there are the EDWs and not the “unicorn-world”. In the
“hyperverse” (an empty notion since it refers to all the EDWs), there are always waves
and particles, but in the EDWs. Our indirect observation (always indirect and imperfect!)
depends on our specific tool of “measurement” at a one moment. Within the unicorn
world, we could not understand why we observe the “interference on a screen”, if we
fire electrons towards those two slits. We can now understand the interference pattern
of waves “produced” by the “electrons”. In fact, in the double-slit apparatus in Young’s
experiment, even if we fire electrons (the micro-EW), the screen measures the
interference of two waves (the field-EW). When one slit is closed, the screen can
measure only the electrons, not the wave. In this case, the very troubling question in
quantum mechanics of the last century, “Does this electron know whether the other slit
is open or closed?” is a pseudo-question. In fact, the wave passes through both “slits”
and the electron through only one “slit”.1 Even if the human observer believes that he
(Young or Bohr or even de Broglie) fires an electron, in reality, he fires both electrons
and waves but in EDWs and, depending if one slit or both are open, Young’s apparatus
(the screen) “measures” either microparticle (one slit open) or a wave (both slits are
open). If the human observer sends a huge number of electrons (in serial order) toward
both open slits, the screen would indicates each particle hitting the screen in
correspondence to the interference pattern of two waves (these two waves interact and
produce the interference pattern). Again, there is only a correspondence between waves
and electrons.
We can say that the electromagnetic wave of light (the oscillation of electric field) is, in fact, a wave of
probability for photons. Where the amplitude of oscillation of electric field is greater (lighter areas), we
will find more photons, while where the wave is smaller (dark areas), less photons. We have to notice
that not the values of electric field in one point determines this probability, but the amplitude of oscillation.
In other words, the electric field can have null-value, during the oscillation, because it is the size of
oscillation (amplitude) which determines the number of photons we find there. (Presura 2014, p. 226)

1 Evidently, the notion of “slit” is used here only from a pragmatic reason. For instance, an electron does
not pass through a slit but through an amalgam of microparticles which corresponds to that macro-slit
(part of that macro-plate with those two slits).

134
According to the EDWs perspective, the “probability wave” (having an “ontological
status” in some interpreatations of quantum mechanics) is the result of a mixture of ED
entities which belong to the field-EW and the particle-EW. Essentially, it is the
“relationship” between a photon and a wave:
[…] the photon has no dimension (it depends on measurements). For instance, the photon can be
considered as being a point particle (if we measure exactly its position). We associate the electromagnetic
wave, in this case, to the probability wave to find the photon in one place or another.” (Presura 2014, p.
227)

Within the EDWs perspective, the “probability wave” indicates exactly the
correspondence between the electromagnetic wave and the photon. Presura writes that
the “probability wave (electromagnetic wave) split in two when it passes through those
two slits” but what does it happen with the photon? (Presura 2014, p. 227) “The photon
can be regarded as a particle, its behavior is not classical, but compulsory described by
a probability wave (electromagnetic wave).” (Presura 2014, p. 227) Also, we have to
remember that Feynman’s approach considers that the photon passed through both slits
(and many other routs which spred in the entire universe until it reaches the screen in
1
one place). Again, we see here the importance of EDWs perspective: we do not need
to eliminate the existence of photon; the photon does not pass through both slits, only
the electromagnetic wave passed through both “slits” (the field is spread in the entire
“Universe” and these slits do not exist in the field-EW, there are only concentrations of
waves (which correspond to that plate – macro-entity with two slits) in the field-EW,
while the photon passes only through one “slit”. If we use a measurement apparatus for
“microparticles” placed near one slit or the other, we will identify that the microparticle
passes through one slit (in reality, the microparticle passes not through a “slit”, but
through an amalgam of microparticles that is, for us as observer, a “slit” in that macro-
plate). If we use an apparatus for the waves, we will identify the electromagnetic wave
2
passing through both slits.
This is the correct explanation of so (un)famous Young’s experiment within the
EDWs perspective. Wheeler introduces a main concept: “mutability of laws”.
Following Wheeler, Davies emphasizes the role of the experimenter/observer in
determining the “nature” of quantum reality in Young’s experiment. Davies asks “When,
exactly, did nature ‘decide’ to opt for wave or particle?” (Davies, 2006) “Nature” does
not decide only because we are the observers and “nature”, i.e., the unicorn-world, does
not exist. Although available for the majority of physicists, Davies’ inquiry is possible
only within the unicorn-world. Someone can talk about the “decision of nature” only
when “nature” is the unicorn-world. The main idea of Wheeler’s delayed-choice
experiment is that the past depends on the future. (Greene 2004, p. 186)
Again, in the split-beam experiment a new photon detector is inserted immediately
after the beam splitter. (Grene, p. 187) When the new detector is switched off the
photons produce interference patterns on a photographic screen. When the new detector
is switched on, it indicates which path each photon travels. “Such ‘which-path’

1
Other pysicists believed that our act of measurement transformed “potentiality” in “actuality” (just
empty notions within the unicorn world).
2
It can be seem absurd, but I repeat the same statement twice in the same page: that plate with two slits
from the macro-EW corresponds to a concentration of electromagnetic field in the field-EW.

135
information, as it’s called, compels the photon to act like a particle, so the wavelike
interference pattern is no longer generated.” (idem, pp. 187-8) If the distance between
the beam splitter and the new detector is much larger,

the new weirdness comes from the fact that the which-path measurement takes place long after the photon
had to ‘decide’ at the beam splitter whether to act as a wave and travel both paths or to act as a particle
and travel only one. (Greene 2004, p. 188)

The “anomaly” seems to be that the which-path measurement influences the past, i.e.,
the status of whatever entity passed through the beam splitter. Again, within the
unicorn-world, we can find many such “anomalies”. It is quite natural to consider that
the wave and the particle cannot be both in the same place, at the same time. In fact,
the photon does not “decide” at all its situation before passing the slit. Depending on
our conditions of measurement, we can observe either the wave or the particle that both
exist but in the EDWs before our observations take place.
Davies presents Wheeler’s experiment in its original format. After the two slits,
there is a “Venetian blind” followed by a pair of telescopes, each directed at one of these
slits. In Davies’ words, the conclusion of the experiment is as follows:
The experimenter can delay the choice – wave or particles – right up to the moment the photon arrives
at the Venetian blind. The mystery we then have to confront is when the photon adopted the form – wave
or particle – chosen by the experimenter. How could a photon know, in advance of the measurement,
whether the blind would be opened by the experimenter or not? Does it defer a decision – wave or particle
– right up until the experimenter makes the choice? That can’t be quite right, because if the photon is a
particle it passes through only one slit, whereas if it is a wave it passes through both. (Davies 2006, pp.
278–9)

Within the unicorn-world, the majority of scientists have been disturbed by such “empty”
questions/problems. To explain this strange situation, Davies considers that
[...] we have to regard the photon as in some sense less than real in the absence of an observation. I don’t
wish to give the impression that the photon doesn’t exist at earlier times; the point is that, in the absence
of an actual observation or measurement process, its state – which can be precisely specified by quantum
mechanics – does not define a wave or particle nature or even a “bit of both”. The particle/wave
1
designations come only in the context of an actual experiment. (Davies 2006, p. 280)

More than this, Davies emphasizes that the action of the experimenter influences the
past. It has been compulsory for the researchers from physics to believe that the “which-
path measurement” influences the past. However, there are no such influences at all,
but only a mixture of measurements that take place within the EDWs: the field-EW and
the micro-EDW. Within the unicorn-world, Davies is right in writing that, before our
observation, we cannot “define a wave or particle nature or even a ‘bit of both’” (p. 280)
and “we have to regard the photon as in some sense less than real in the absence of an
observation”. Again, within one unique world, I had been very difficult for all physicists
to define and accept the existences of both entities, the wave and the particle in the same
place, at the same “time”. These ED entities (wave and particle) are not given by the
“context of an actual experiment”, since it is about the ED entities which really exist in
the EDWs.

1
Then Mr. Davies, your body do not exist until other person “observes” it, isn’t it? But if your eyes are
closed, the body of the other person would not exist, does it? Strange/spooky/dam (in reality, completely
wrong) questions created within the unicorn world…

136
Chapter 12

A few details about some phenomena of quantum mechanics:

quantum tunneling, laser and bulb light, the electromagnetic field
(the field-EW), from “micro” to “macro”, the brain and quantum
mechanics, Einstein’s special relativity and EDWs, Penrose’s
reductionism, other approaches in quantum mechanics
Quantum tunneling
If we want to have a teleportation of a macro-object, we need to have a teleportation
for each atom which composed that object. „Thus, we have to do something in which
each atom dissapears from inital place and it appears in another place.” (Presura, p.
295) According to classical physics, this phenomena would be in contradiction to the
laws of energy conservation.

In quantum mechanics, the particle can be found everywhere where its probability wave is spread. If, for
instance, the probability wave is spread behind the door, than the particle can be found in the other room
in the next moment. This is the effect of quantum tunneling... Or, if the probability wave evolves and it
is spread from the Moon to the Earth, then the particle can be find found both on the Moon and on Earth
1
in the next moment. (Presura, p. 295)

An electron „passes” through a wall. The physicists had explained this process through
the “association” between the particle and „its” wave function: it is the wave function
which passes through the wall (its amplitude is reduced), but the wave function appears
on the other side of the wall. Therefore, when we measure with the specific apparatus
for particles, there is the probability to find the electron in one place or another on the
other side of the wall.
EDWs: The wall (the macro-EW) does not exist either for particle nor for wave.
The wall (the macro-EW) corresponds to an amalgam of particles (the micro-EW) and
a concentrated electromagnetic field (the field-EW). The electromagnetic wave
corresponding to the particle interferes with the electromagnetic wave corresponding
to the wall (“passes through wall”). If, on the other side of the wall, there is already an
electromagnetic wave (in its field-EW), a particle could be detected there (in its micro-
EW). It means the particle did not cross the wall (amalgam of microparticles); just the
electromagnetic waves interfere and the particle disappears and then appears on the
other side of the wall. It is exactly the same process regarding the jumps of an electron
from one orbit to another: the microparticle does not physically pass the space between

1
“I used the word ‘teleportation’ between inverted commas, because for those kind of experiments,
there is a missing element: that of intentional choice. Therefore,… we cannot choose where to find the
particle… once the probability wave is delocalized. Quantum mechanics indicates us that there is a
chance to find the particle in one place or another, but it does not indicates where the particle exactly is.”
(Presura, p. 296) (It is clear, as all physicists (except those who have plagiarized my ideas, so many)
Presura still works within the unicorn world.) In this context, Presura recalls Schrӧdinger’s cat in a closed
box. In the box, its state is in a quantum superposition of live-state and dead-state. If we open the box…
we see the cat either live or dead, but not in its state of quantum superposition. Moreover, as a result of
our measurement, the probability wave of the cat suddenly changes and it becomes what we have
measured, either ‘live’ cat or ‘dead’ cat.” (idem)

137
orbits; it dissapears from one orbit and appear on the other orbit just because the
corresponding electromagnetic wave changes its wavelenght.

A direct consequence of evolution of probability wave is the efect of quantum tunneling... a particle can
be find everywhere where its probability wave spreads in space. If the wave is spread from the Earth to
the Moon, then the particle can be find in the next moment on both the Earth the Moon... the particle can
be find in both places. (Presura, p. 237)

Working within the unicorn world, Presura (as many other physicsits) accepts the
Copenhagen interpretation or Feynman’s view (the superposition of particle in different
places).
For explaining the “quantum tunneling” (an effect of the evolution of “probability
wave”), Presura introduces the analogy with a macroscopic “ball” hitting a macroscopic
wall: always a ball which hits a wall will return back (it is quite impossible for the ball
to pass through the wall). If we send an electromagnetic wave through the wall, a part
of this wave will be reflected, a part of it will pass “through the wall”. Essentially, it
“has to be remarked that the wavelength of the package of the wave transmitted (which
give us the impulse of the ball, that is, its energy) remains unmodified.” (Presura 2014,
p. 238, fig. 9.23)

The third postulate of quantum mechanics

At each measurement of an electron, its probability wave has a quantum collapse (a sudden change). In
the case we measure the position of electron, the probability wave becomes, after measurement, localized
1
in the area where we have found the electron. (Presura, p. 240)

This process can be described much better using the EDWs perspective. From my
viewpoint, there is no collapse at all: with our different measurement apparatus, we
measure, indirectly, the ED entities (EDWs). The amplitude of wave is modified and
there are ED entities/processes/interactions which belong to the micro-EW, the macro-
EW, the wave-EW:
(1) the ball interacts with the wall (both macroscopic entities),
(2) the microparticle (which correspond to the ball) interacts with an amalgam of
microparticles (which corresponds to the wall),
(3) the package of the wave (which corresponds to the microparticles which correspond
to the ball) interacts with an amalgam of waves (which correspond to the microparticles
which correspond to the wall).
The wavelength of the “package of the wave remains unmodified” just because the
wave does not exist either for the wall or for the microparticles (which correspond to
this wall). The microparticle can be found everywhere because of its probability wave.
(Presura, p. 295) “If, for instance, the probability wave is beyond the door, then the
particle can be found in the other room, in the next moment.” (idem) This is “the effect
of quantum tunneling”. If there is a “probability wave” between the Earth and the Moon,
it is possible a particle to be found, in the next moment, either on the Moon or on the
Earth, with the same probability (idem). From my viewpoint, essentially, the electron,

1
“A thing is clear: the quantum collapse happens for each measurement, but not between measurements!
Between measurements, the probability wave evolves continuously, according to Schrӧdinger’s equation.
However, when measurement takes place, a quantum collapse happens with this wave.” The electron has
not be conceived as a macro-ball between two measurements but only as a “probability wave”. (Presura,
p. 240) Again, a mixture of EDWs… “… the quantum behavior of macroscopic objects is difficult to be
observed because the evolution of probability wave is less evident for them…” (p. 242)

138
for instance, corresponds to the entire electromagnetic field which is spread in the entire
“universe”. Moreover, the electromagnetic wave is an indivisible entity, therefore, the
electron corresponds to something which exists in the entire “universe”. Because of its
correspondence, we can find the particle either on the Earth or on the Moon, with
different probability (obviously, there are greater probability the microparticle to be in
the place where it is the corresponding “node” of the wave). Presura emphasizes an
essential detail: an electromagnetic field can be associated with more particles (not only
one), but these microparticles are not classical balls, but discrete packages of energy
placed in different places. (Presura 2014, p. 334) 1 Presura uses Planck’s notion of
“discrete packages of energy” (Planck’s empty notion); in reality there are photons but
in an EDW. From the “theory of the field”, we move to the “theory of particles”. (p.
336)
In reality, however, the particle is just a package of energy of the field which represents it, the package
of energy that moves from one place to another… If we look with more attention, the “movement” of the
particle does not happen, it is, better said, an illusion. The “movement” of the particle is then, in reality,
the successive observations of the energy of this field in different places in space. All that exists is the
field, according to Steven Weinberg…” (Presura 2014, p. 338)

Obviously, Weinberg and all other “radical reductionism” physicists have been working
within the unicorn world. According to their reductionist viewpoint (see also Penrose’s
reductionism below), I can claim that Weinberg’s mind and corresponding body do not
exist; his “personal identity” is given neither by his “mind” or his “brain/body” (not
even by an amalgam of microparticles), but only by some parts of amalgam of
electromagnetic waves which spread in the entire “universe”. If true (in other words, if
“strong reductionism” is true) Weinberg has, of course, to change his card identity. If a
policeman (an amalgam of waves) see the physical macro-figure of Weinberg in the
photo of his identity card (a “false document”, anyway, for radicalists), he cannot
compare the photo with Weinberg’s face (a “false” entity for any electromangnetic
wave.). Let us suppose the policeman asks Weinberg to tell him his name. Weinberg
would use false entity (his mouth, part of the body that belongs to the macro-EW + his
mind, an EDW) to tell to the policeman a false information (his name), since his “name”
would describe nothing like a “human person” (false entity). So, this discussion would
be between two “illusory entities” (Weinberg and the policeman) within the wave-EW.
I would not be able to reject the radicalists since they believe their minds and bodies do
not exist; however, I don’t believe I am just an electromagnetic field/wave, i.e., I am
not radicalist.
I mention here an essential detail: it is quite possible, the quantum tunneling (and
2
other quantum phenomena) involves the disappearance of a microparticle before the

1 “The electron is not seen as a ball, but as a package of energy associated with the oscillations of its
probability wave, exactly as the photon is seen as a package of energy associate with the oscillations of
electromagnetic field.” (Presura 2014, p. 351) Again, if the microparticles do not exist, then the body of
human being also does not exist. “The electron will become now the particle associated with the
quantified oscillations of its probability wave.” (Presura, p. 352) What does it mean “associated” in this
statement? Within the unicorn world, this notion has no correct explanation, and usually it leads to certain
strong ontological contradictions. This is the reason, working within the unicorn world, many physicist
have been forced to accept the “strong reductionism”, i.e., only the electromagnetic waves really exist.
2
Because of its “interaction” with the wall, the concentration of the electromagnetic wave (which
corresponds to the particle) changes its properties, therefore, the particle can disappear before the wall

139
“wall” (i.e., an amalgam of microparticle) and its appearance after the “wall”. Anyway,
the electromagnetic wave exists everywhere in that “room”, but in its EW (field-EW,
1
i.e., it does not exist for the wall or the microparticles).

Laser and bulb light

Another important topic in Presura’s work is “laser”. Very shortly, I introduce some of
his details about this topic: light of a laser is “coherent”, i.e., all the emitted photons are
synchronized in time and space, they have the same phase, frequency, and polarization.
Because of this fact, we can make the sum of all probability waves of photons (given
by the electric field of electromagnetic oscillation). “In this way, we get almost an
electromagnetic field classic macroscopic.” (Presura, p. 276) This kind of
electromagnetic field is “classical”, while that emitted by the Sun or an electric bulb is
not. 2 “This is because the emission [of the photons] is thermal, and there is no
relationship between the photons emitter by the atoms. They have only accidentally the
same frequency, but their phases are not synchronized.” (Presura, p. 276) Therefore, we
cannot sum their probability waves. 3 Presenting the quantum field theory, Presura
insists in emphasizing that the microparticles are certain “packages of energy” (my
observation: we recall Planck) of “relativistic probability wave” (but not Born). These
microparticles are
[…] transferred to the electromagnetic field of which packages of energy are called photons… We get a
familiar representation of a process through which an electron and a proton interact and disappear
nowhere leaving behind them a photon. In this case, the process can be seen as one of the transfer of
energy from one field to another. (Presura, p. 358)

and appears after the wall. Quantum tunneling is a quite similar process to Bohr’s jumps of an electron
from one robit to another…
1
I recall here that 380,000 years after “Big Bangs”, the light as electromagnetic waves appeared and
spreaded in all directions. As immediately consequence, there were many interactions between these
waves and exactly these interactions created concentrations of electromagnetic waves which
corresponded to the photons. Because of these interactions, the electromagnetic waves hanged their
properties (intensity, frequencies, wavelengths) and, therefore, other kinds of corresponding particles
appeared in the micro-EW. (see Vacariu 2023)
2 “… the laser produces a macroscopic electromagnetic field, while the electric bulb not.” (Presura 2014,
p. 276)
3 The same thing we can say about the polarization of light. Explaining this phenomena, Presura
introduces both electromagnetic wave and photon into discussion. “The electric field can be linearly
decompose as a sum of two electric fields, corresponding to some horizontal and vertical polarized
waves. The same thing we can say about the probability waves of the photon (which are here exactly the
electric field). Therefore, we will consider the photon |45º> as being in a quantum superposition classical
states |0º> and |90º>.” (Presura 2014, p. 277) That is, the photon polarized at 45º is in a quantum
superposition of two classical states: the photon has the polarization 0º and 90º. These paragraphs mirror
exactly the framework of unicorn world in which the image is constructed. There is no superposition
(any kind) there. Moreover, we have to take into account that the field is everywhere but it belongs to the
wave/field-EW, while the photon (in one place) belongs to the microparticle-EW. Later, describing a
“separator” of polarized fascicles (which splits the “light” (that is the electromagnetic wave) in two parts
having opponent polarizations (one vertical, the other horizontal), Presura writes: “The initial state of the
photon (that in which it is polarized at 30º) is in a quantum superposition of those two polarized states
which get out of the box of fascicles separator (polarization at 0º and 90º).” If we try to detect the photon
with a special apparatus, we will see it on one polarized wave not on both since the “photon is
indivisible”. (Presura, p. 278) There is again a mixture of EDWs, the particle-EW and the field/wave-
EW: any photon corresponds to the electromagnetic field (two polarized waves).

140
We can get these kind of interactions quantifying the electromagnetic field and the field
of probability wave of relativistic electron (“quantum electrodynamics”). It is clear the
above sentences are written within the unicorn world framework.
The power of physics is not so much in the equations of the Universe which it indicate us, but in its
principles… We can say that, in the future, not the particular form of the equations will play so much an
important role, but more important there will be the principles behind these equations. Maybe we will
not be able to find the final equation of the universe, but a set of final principles. A set of principles which
can be satisfied only by a limited number of equations. Therefore, paraphrasing Einstein, we can say that
we will get closer to the mind of Creator. (Presura 2014, p. 248)

In my works (2016, 2019, 2022, 2023) and this work, I have already inserted some
principles of my “Hypermetaphysics” which describe not the “Universe” (it does not
exist), but the EDWs (which really “are”). To find the equations, it is the duty of
physicists, not of philosophers. However, with these principles, we do not get closer to
the “mind of the Creator” (which anyway cannot even exist – see our work 2019, last
chapter), but we have become closer to understand the “Hypernothing” (which it is not
the “Supreme intelligent creator” (it cannot even exist), but just an EW, the first one1).

Few more words about electromagnetic field (the field-EW)

Presura writes:
If we were seeing the quantum world with our eyes, we would have an image very unfamiliar, in which
the particles seems to jump suddenly from one to to another: if we find the electron on the Earth, after
few moments we can find it on the Moon (with small probabilities, of course) and after one minute back
on Earth. We cannot talk at all about continuous movements, the evolution of trajectories, etc., but only
about a probability wave which evolves, and we will find the particle in different places, as the probability
wave informs us.” (Presura 2014, p. 329)

“The electron is, in the same time, in all its places.” (p. 330)

If we agreed with Presura (and the majority of physicists – the radicalists like those
working on the QED are included), we can say that our bodies do not really exist, since
the particles do not really exist. Therefore, there is, a very small probability indeed, our
bodies to be on Earth (all microparticles that “composed” it) and then, after few
seconds, our bodies can be on the Moon. Nothing can stop us to believe in such things
(SF stories) working within the unicorn world, in the old paradigm of thinking for all
physicists working on quantum mechanics until me. “In its essence, the universe is in
a quantum superposition of all of its possible classical states” (Presura 2014, p. 331),
but if we investigate the macroscopic bodies, and the collapse of the probability waves,
the lent evolution of the probability wave for the macroscopic objects will determine
that the classical states that we observe to be dominant in the probability wave of the
universe. (idem) Again, a SF story: there is a mixture of three EDWs: the field-EW, the
micro-EW and the macro-EW.
All micro-entities and macro-objects correspond to electromagnetic field (having
always speed c). Each microparticle is “associated”/corresponds to a particular
electromagnetic wave (part of the field-EW). According to the standard intepretation of
quantum mechanics, the probability wave continuously evolves (see Schrӧdinger’s
equation) only in the absence of a measurement. Following Presura, let us take the

1 We can talk about the naturalization of “God”, but not about a “Supreme Being”: “God” hyperis an
EW, no more or less, which even it is does not exist for us… How then, the EW0 can be a new “God”?
No, it is just an EW...

141
“universe” (an ansamble of microparticles) as a system; then there is only one wave
function. There are many quantum possible states, and the universe is in a quantum
superposition of all these possible states. (Presura, p. 331)

There is not a set of probability waves, one for each particle, but there is only one probability wave for
the entire universe and it represents the quantum superposition of all classical states. (Presura, p. 331)

Then what is this multiparticle probability wave which describes the state of quantum position of
universe? Of course, it is a huge wave since it has attached a complex number for each of classical states
illustarted above!... Moreover, if we were living in the spirit of quantum mechanics, we should say that
the universe is, at the same time, in all these classical states… the probability wave would evolve after
an equation equivalent to Schrӧdinger’s equation… (Presura, p. 332)

How do I interpret these statements from my viewpoint? There is an electromagnetic

field which is spread in the entire “universe”: it is the electromagnetic field which has
spread/revealed (see Vacariu 2023) in all directions 380,000 years after the Big Bangs
1
until now.
All the micro-entities and the macro-objects have the speed c, but the speed is
shared in “spacetime”: according to Einstein (in Greene 1999), all the macro-objects
travel with the speed c, but for the micro and the macroentities, the speeds are shared
much more in “time” than in “space”. According to my EDWs perspective, since space
and time (spacetime) could not have any ontology, all the micro-entities (except
photons) have speeds less than c and the macro-objects have the speed much less than
c, but all these ED entities correspond to the electromagnetic field (speed c). Gaining
masses, the speeds of microparticles and mainly macro-objects shared more in time
than in space, that is, the distances travelled by the microparticles and mainly by the
macro-objects become shorter and shorter in “distances”, but longer in their “physical
processes”.
The microparticles (the micro-EW) and the macro-objects (the macro-EW) (except
photons with speed c, because they do not have mass) correspond to an electromagnetic
waves/fields (the field-EW) which always have the speed c. This is the reason, because
they correspond to the electromagnetic field, all the ED entities travel with speed c in
“spacetime” (in fact, longer processes (for “time dilation”) and shorter distances (for
“space contraction”). Independent of “spatiotemporal framework”, the speed of light
(the speed of the electromagnetic field) is always c. Therefore, all the ED entities which
correspond to the electromagnetic field have the speeds c (but their speed is shared
more in “time”/longer processes than in “space”/shorter distances).
- Electromagnetic field has the speed c.
- Corresponding photons (no masses) have speed c (there is no “time” for photons, i.e.,
the photon do not interact with the down-mirror if the mirrors have the speed c).

1
Again, in quantum physics, there have been some radicalists who have believed only the
electromagnetic waves/fields really exist. For instance, Weinberg considers that the entire “universe” is
just the manifestations of the totality of qauantum fields which exist in this universe. (Presura, p. 338) In
this case, a particle is just a package of energy of field energy, and this package of energy moves from
one place to another. The particle es a manifestation of a greater package of energy of the field. The
motion of particle is, then, in fact the successive observed energy of the field, according to Weinberg.
“This observation rises a fundamental philosophical problem related to the nature of objects.” (idem)
Obviously, it was necessary a philosopher (myself) to find a new solution to the mind-brain problem, i.e.,
to discover the EDWs, and then to apply it to all these “mysteries of quantum mechanics” (created within
the unicorn world) and to dissolve all of them.

142
- Microparticles (except photons) have the speed c, but these speed is shared more in
“time” and less in “space”. (Mass increases with speed: if an entity having mass reaches
the speed c, its mass becomes infinite). If the speed of a microparticle increases, its
motion is distributed more in space (the microparticle travels a longer distance) than in
time (its internal processes are slower).
- The macroparticles have the speed c, but most of their speed is shared in time, much
less in space. The distances travelled by the macro-entities are much shorter and their
times have much more frequencies (time moves faster).
Indeed, all the ED entities moves with speed c in “spacetime” (no ontological status
1
for me) just because all the ED entities correspond to the electromagnetic field. This
idea is constructed within a new framework of thinking, the EDWs perspective. I recall:
the electromagnetic field has the sped c (there is no “time” for it, i.e., there are no
“interactions” with other entities - see Greene’s example of clock with photon between
two parallel mirrors…) So, when something has the maximum speed, the speed of light,
c, there are no “interactions”. Without interactions, there are no other entities, neither
in the same EW, nor ED entities (belonging to EDWs). However, the Big Bangs did not
produce all matter and energy: I recall, since the Big Bangs, the electromagnetic field
has been “revealed” not “produced” in correspondence to the pre-Big-Bangs-EW (see
Vacariu 2022 or 2023). In this way, the matter-antimatter distinction is totally rejected
since “anti-matter” is just a pseudo-notion created within the unicorn world. (against
anti-matter, see my previous works) Obviously, there are certain ED entities (which
belong to EDWs) which have been reveled in correspondence to the nothing (the EW0).
The ED entities like micro- macro and life-entities are in the “chain of correspondence”
(see my previous works) to the field-EW: without the existence of field-EW, other ED
2
entities would not have appeared through correspondence of this field).
We can extrapolate these correspondences: the EW0 corresponds directly to the
EW1a-n, and indirectly to the EW2b-m, etc. All the ED entities (belonging to many
EDWs, but not infinite EDWs - since “infinite” could not have any ontological status)
correspond to the Hypernothing: it means, all the ED entities do not exist for the
Hypernothing, they are nothing for the EW0. In this way, the property (nothing, with
no ontological status) is preserved: exactly as all the ED entities moves with the speed
of light (shared in different quantities in “space” and “time”), all the ED do not exist
for the EW0, they are nothing for the EW0. In the same way, it did appear only the
EW1a-n and we do not need to introduce “antimatter” (or “the EW-1a-n”). Being more
EDWs that appeared in the hypercorrespondences to the EW0, we do not need
antimatter…

1
As I wrote in other works, there is a “chain of correspondences” between the field-EW, the micro-EW,
the macro-EW and the life/mind-EW. It means that, without the field-EW, the micro-EW would not have
appeared; the macro-EW would not have appeared without correspondence to the micro-EW; the
life/mind-EW corresponds directly to the macro-EW and indirectly to the micro-EW or the field-EW.
2
Because of this “chain of correspondence”, we can consider the electromagnetic field (with constant
speed independent of the framework of observation/measurement) as being, through correspondences,
the “absolute framework” of ED entities like micro-entities and macro-entities; this is the reason, Einstein
was right: all entities have the speed of light, c. But, as we know, light (the electromagnetic wave and
also the photon, so two EDWs) has no “time”/processes; also, because of “revealing”, light has no
“space”, it does not “move in space”, it is just “revealing” itself in correspondence to the Hypernothing
(but not in “space” because we would have a strong ontological contradiction: there can be either “space”
or electromagnetic field, both entities could not exist in the same “place”, in the same “moment”). (see
Vacariu and Vacariu 2016)

143
 I introduced the “revealing” of electromagnetic field (against the classical view of
its appearance from that supposed “infinitezimal point” (after the Big Bangs) just
because it is quite impossible an “infinitezimal point” to exist (to have an ontological
status) and to contains the “entire” energy/matter of “universe” (see Vacariu 2023).1
Moreover, many physicists presuppose that “matter” was separated from “antimatter”,
2
but nobody has found any “antimatter” yet. I believe, antimatter could not even exist
(see Vacariu 2022, 2023); within the latest alternative of the EDWs perspective, I reject
3
the existence of antimatter (see Vacariu 2022b and below).

1
Obviously, after 380,000 years after Big Bangs, the macro-entitites could not have appeared; the
electromagnetic field appeared (it has been “revealed” until now, see Vacariu 2023) and the
macroparticles appeared much later in correspondences to the microparticles and the electromagnetic
field.
2
For instance, electron and positron are not “matter” and, respectively, antimatter: if one electron
interacts with a positron, the microparticles do not disappear, they are both “transformed” in energy. So,
these microparticles do not represent “matter” and “antimatter”.
3
In the article 2022b (and other works), I rejected the Big Bang and the antimater: “My new idea is the
following: in correspondence to the EW0, there appeared many EDWs (the EW1a-n), therefore, we do
not need to introduce any EW-1 (or antimatter); on the contrary, in this article, I reject completely the
existence of antimatter (any kind of antimatter)… It would be completely WRONG to consider there was
only ‘one Big Bang’ and only ‘one universe which appeared (13.82 billions years ago). I was also
convinced (no proof) that there were many Big Bangs at the same time (13.82 billions years ago, for
avoiding Guth’s “inflation”), but also many Big Bangs which appeared ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ in EDWs.
Therefore, the line of EDWs and different ‘universes’ is somehow like this one:
- EW0 (Hypernothing) HC (hypercorrespond) to the EW1a-n.
- These EDWs corresponded to (C) EW2b-m … (C) pre-Big Bangs-EW (C) many BBs (in the same
area to avoid Guth’s inflation, 13.82 billion years ago) (C) plasma-EW (C) field-EW (C) micro-EW (C)
macro-EW (C) life/mind-EW.
- ‘Big Bangs’ (ED Big Bangs or Big Bangs corresponding to the same EW) happened in different places,
in different times. Different ‘universes’ (like our ‘universe’) have appeared in different places, in different
periods; all these ‘universes’ are in the same ‘spatiotemporal framework’… also believe, it would be
totally wrong to consider that the entire “energy/matter” was contained in the ‘Big Bang’. As I indicated
in my work 2022, the ‘energy’ of the ‘universe’ has been revealed (and not “produced”) since the Big
Bangs (13.82 billion years ago) until our days. For instance, the entire ‘energy’ of electromagnetic field
was not contained within Big Bangs: this ‘energy’ has been revealed (not produced) 380,000 years after
Big Bangs until today… Within this new framework, we can indicate how many EDWs has accidentally
appeared through direct or indirect hypercorrespondences to EW0 (the Hypernothing). In this way, we
exclude any other alternative (like “God” or the “regress ad infinitum”). Essentially, it is this notion of
‘accidentally’… In this new context, but also within the EDWs perspective, we have to reject the idea
that from “nothing” appeared “matter” and “antimatter” (equal quantities). In reality, the “antimatter” did
not exist at all. There were the EW0 and direct hypercorrespodences to the EW1a-n, but these EDWs did
not exist for the EW0, so we do not have any rejection of the conservation principle of something
(energy/matter) and nothing: nothing (the EW0) remained nothing, the EW1a (for instance) did not exist
for the EW0, so there is no ontological contradiction at all. I emphasize that my old idea from my previous
work (2022) that ‘the EW0 hypercorresponded to the EW1 and the EW-1’ is totally wrong: in the new
context (the hypercorrespondences to many EW1a-n), I do not need the postulate the existence of the
‘EW-1’; in fact, I have to reject completely the existence of any kind of ‘anti-matter’. So, ‘antimatter’ is
quite a wrong notion within the EDWs perspective… Conclusion: In this work, I indicate that we have
to reject ‘antimatter’ (or the EW-1 from my perspective published in my work 2022) and its ‘separation
from matter’. This kind of separation would require an ‘external click’. Who did produce such ‘click’,
God or it did accidentally happen? God could not exist (see my work), therefore we could claim it
happened accidentally. Why? Having only one such event (the appearance of one ‘universe’) which did
happen accidentally, such ‘accidentally event’ become quite suspicious. If we extend to a much larger

144
 The light of a lantern, for instance, consists in “producing” of an amalgam of
photons which corresponds to some electromagnetic waves (part of the entire
electromagnetic field revealed after the Big Bangs). In sending the photons, the
electromagnetic field is activated. Otherwise, there would be strong ontological
contradictions: the lantern could not emits a new electromagnetic wave since there there
has already been an electromagnetic field (the “universe” is full of electromagnetic field
after the Big Bangs) which can have different frequencies and wavelenghts. The
photons of that lantern have certain frequency and wavelenght. How this light is not an
ontological contradiction with the existence of the previous electromagnetic field which
has appeared and spreaded everywhere after the Big Bangs? The light of that lantern is
the emission of certain photons but, in the same time, it is the activation of the pre-
existing electromagnetic field (with certain frequency and wavelength). The photons
are not in contradiction to the electromagnetic field since the photons and the
electromagnetic field belong to the EDWs. When someone turn on the lantern, new
photons are emitted indirectly by the fire of light of that lantern, but the electromagnetic
field is activated since an electromagnetic field has already been there 380.000 after the
Big Bangs. Otherwise, we have to accept the existences of both electromagnetic fields,
the one after Big Bangs and the one emitted by our lantern with different features
(different frequencies and wavelenghts). The question is if there are two
electromagnetic fields, how do they exist within the same place, at the same time?
Different features of these two fields are enough? Does it means, one field does not
1
exist for the other field? I can say only that all the electromagnetic waves are parts of
the entire electromagnetic field; the physicists have to furnish more details about this
question.
Let me refer again to the analogy between EW0-EW1a-n and white light-
2
ROYGBIV : different wavelenghts in the same place, at the same time produces “white
light”. I turn on the lantern during night and I see its light hitting a wall: the
microparticles could not pass through the microparticles which correspond to the wall,
3
but the electromagnetic wave (radiation) passes through the wall. With the Big Bangs,
the pre-existing electromagnetic field has been activated.

number these ‘accidental events’ (the appearances of EW1a-n), it result that these accidentally events are
not ‘absolute accidentally’ (it would require ‘God’ or a ‘special click’), but become something inevitable.
Moreover, if we accept the ‘anti-matter’, we need to introduce many anti-matter-EDWs, and this would
be quite absurd. Because there were the EW1a-n and because the EW1a did not exist for any EDW, I do
not need to introduce the existence of ‘antimatter’ (the EW-1, for instance). Anyway, within the EDWs
perspective, the cosmologists have to change many essential concepts of Cosmology.” (2022b) (This
article has been FREE at “Timpul journal” (Internet page) since it was published in December 2022).
1
Are the ED electromagnetic fields (with different frequencies and wavelenghts) in the same place, at
the same time? The physicists have to answer to this question. Anyway, different wavelengths create the
possibility of different electromagnetic waves.
2
“ROYGBIV is an acronym for the sequence of hues commonly described as making up a rainbow:
red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. There are several mnemonics that can be used for
remembering this color sequence, such as the name ‘Roy G. Biv’ or sentences such as ‘Richard of York
Gave Battle in Vain’.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROYGBIV) Actual translation: “All physicists
(great or little) gave battle in Vain/unicorn world”.
3
Again, Einstein’s equation E = mc2 refers to the EDWs since energy belongs to the field-EW and the
ED matters which belong to the EDWs.

145
Newton conducted many experiments with light, which are summarized in his 1704 book Opticks, and
discovered that when clear white light passes through a prism, it refracts into different colors in a
particular order, or what we know as a rainbow. This means that white light is not actually white but is
composed of a humongous spectrum of colors. These colors make up the visible (light) spectrum; it's the
part of the electromagnetic spectrum that human eyes can see. All colors in the visible light spectrum
travel at different wavelengths, with red having the longest wavelength at around 700 nanometers and
violet having the shortest at around 380 nanometers. These wavelengths bend at different angles when
passing through a prism, and this is what causes the rainbow color order to look the way it does. Newton
is the one who decided to interpret the rainbow order in terms of seven unique colors—ROYGBIV—but
the truth is that rainbows consist of more than a million colors, many of which are invisible to the human
eye.... Newton chose to define the rainbow as consisting of seven colors because he believed the number
of colors in a rainbow should be the same as the number of notes in a musical scale. Clearly, this is a
pretty arbitrary (and non-scientific way) to look at the different colors in a rainbow. Indeed, many people
still struggle to distinguish indigo from violet and blue. (Muniz 2019)

What does it mean “white light” is not “white but it is composed of a homogenous
spectrum of colors”? What does it mean “compose”? It means that light white does not
really exist? Does it mean it exists only for human observer? But we do not see white
light… However, we see rainbow, that is, we see some color of ROYGBIV (obviously,
not all). If rainbow consist of more than a million colors, maybe we can say the same
thing about the relationship (hypercorrespodences) between the EW0 and EDWs.
According to Röhl, there is a distinction between the electromagnetic field and the
wave. Röhl considers that the electromagnetic fields have their proper existences with
certain characteristics: they can be superposed, not countable (continuous stuff),
determinate, interact, etc. So, an electromagnetic field is a continuous stuff which can
“coexist” with ordinary matter. (p. 6) (In reality, there are EDWs…) “At a portion of
space occupied by my body there exist also earth, magnetic and gravitational fields
without excluding each other.” (In fact, there are EDWs, and space or spacetime could
not even exist). An electromagnetic wave has certain features: “(1) time-varying with a
specific period pattern, can (2) be characterized by amplitude, frequency, and wave
length (or wave number) and wave velocity (…)”. (Röhl p. 7)

If we clearly distinguish between waves and fields, the characteristics (amplitude, direction, frequency,
wave-length) of the wave can be seen as very properties of the field that makes this particular state or
configuration the field a wave. So these properties would be ascribed to the field as participant, not to
the wave as a process. This would also show that for waves with material bearers we would ways need
the field in addition to the bearer… In the field physics, a wave can be seen as a special filed
configuration, a solution of a special case of a field equation, so it seems somewhat artificial to describe
the field as participant in the wave process as it is this field configuration was something easily
distinguishable from the wave. (Röhl, p. 7)

Waves can occur both in entities that admit of non-field descriptions and in fundamental fields, although
a field description is also possible for the former case. Therefore it seems plausible to treat waves as
dependent on fields. (Röhl, p. 8)

The relationship between “white light” and ROYGBIV mirrors (just an analogy,
nothing more), somehow, the relationship between the Hypernothing (the EW0) and the
EW1a-n. The EW0 has no ontology (it is nothing with its hyperontology) that means
1
the EW0 hypercorrespond directly to the EW1a-n and indirectly to all the EDWs. I
recall the field-EW has just been revealed (not produced by the Big Bangs - more

1
I recall, there is a direct correspondence between the field-EW and the micro-EW, and an indirect
correspondence between the field-EW and the macro-EW.

146
exactly, after the plasma-EW). The electromagnetic field is placed in all
extension/“space” of this “Universe” and it has extended since the Big Bangs until
today and, probable, it will be extended in the future. However, having speed c, the
electromagnetic fields (electromagnetic waves) do not have “time”. Being only
revealed, we can consider this field is not even placed in “space” (since even “space”
could not exist). We can consider that the macro-EW are placed somewhere (one in
relationship to the others), but we cannot find any relationship for this electromagnetic
field which covers the entire “space” since the Big Bangs. All the micro-entities or all
the macro-entities correspond to this field (the field-EW), i.e., one such entity exists in
relationship to other entities form the same EW. We can attribute a “time” and a “space”
to a micro-entity (or macro-entity), but we cannot attribute space or time to the
electromagnetic field (the field-EW). So, the same rule that we applied to the
relationship between the EW0 and the EW1a-n can be applied to the pre-Big-Bangs-
EW and the EDWs that appeared, accidentally, after the Big Bangs. Maybe there were
EDWs after the Big Bangs/plasma-EW, not only the field-EW (which accidentally and
immediately corresponded to the micro-EW), we do not know yet, but these EDWs
could be in the same “Universe” with EDWs (field-EW, micro-EW, macro-EW) or in
1
other “places”.

From “micro” to “macro”

I will write something about an experiment realized by some physicists from University
of Heidelberg. Their research indicates when something considered as “macroscopic”
emerge from “microscopic”. There are certain phenomena that cannot be described at
the “level” of microscopic2: “collective excitations (phonons which oscillate atom in a
crystal lattice)”, phase transition (a substance transforms from one state to anther one
like liquid evaporates in gas) 3 (Starr 2020) which exist “only in thermodynamics
limit”4, but the authors of this research discovered this phenomena in “surprisingly
small systems” (Bayha et al, 2020, p. 583). Anyway, we emphasize that, working within
the unicorn world, the authors use the notion of “emergence”.
Under proper conditions, the researchers discovered that only six atoms can be
considered as a “macroscopic system”. (Starr) “The surprising result of our experiment
is that only six atoms show all the signatures of a phase transition expected for a many-
particle system”.5 (Marvin Holten in Starr 2020) The properties of such “many-body”

1
Again, I draw the attention on the great difference between EDWs and “multiverse”: the EDWs are in
the same “place” or in different places, the “universes” of the “multiverse” are always placed in different
places.
2 The idea of the first statement of their article and in their footnote, the authors mention Anderson’s
article “More is different”. I mention that I could not understand essential notions from this article, but
we tried to grasp the main idea of their research…
3 And “broken symmetry”. (Bayha et all. 2020)
4 “In the thermodynamic limit, a closed-shell system undergoes a quantum phase transition from a
normal to a superfluid phase with increasing attraction7,27. As a generic feature of quantum phase
transitions2, this gives rise to a collective mode that goes soft, that is, the excitation gap closes at the
transition point. In the case at hand, the lowest collective mode corresponds to the coherent excitations
of time-reversed pairs across the gap.” (Bayha et al. 2020, p. 585)
5 For more details: “With the atoms inside, the researchers tuned the trap, from zero attraction to such a
strong attraction that the atoms came together in bound pairs. This is a requirement for forming a
fermionic superfluid – the fermionic particles have to become bound together as Cooper pairs that act

147
(macroscopic) systems cannot be explained in terms of microscopic properties. The
researchers use the “Feshbach resonances” between 6 atoms into a “laser trap”. (Starr
2020)
“On the one hand, the number of particles in the system is small enough to describe the system
microscopically,” lead researcher Luca Bayha explained. “On the other hand, collective effects are
already evident.” (Starr 2020)

So, we have to pay attention that there is not a “transformation” from a micro-system
into a macro-system. We want to emphasize this paragraph from Starr just because it
illustrates exactly the existence of EDWs in a research realized by certain physicists
quite recently. Amazing for them, the “collective behaviour” is based on strengthening
the interactions of a small number of microparticles.
Obviously, from our viewpoint, those six microparticles remain “six microparticles”
for another microparticle (i.e, within the micro-EW), but that micro-system can be
regarded as a macro-system for another macro-system (i.e, within the macro-EW). The
physicists should take into account that the amalgam of those six particles corresponds
to a particular electromagnetic wave (field-EW). In reality, it is the micro-system of six
particles and their correspondence to the electromagnetic field which corresponds to
the macro-system (the macro-EW). Within the field-EW, there is only a particular
electromagnetic wave (an unitary, indivisible system) without limits, and the limits of
those six particles correspond to the limits of the macro-system. More exactly, the
indivisibility of the electromagnetic field (the field-EW) (through the intermediary
“level”, the micro-EW) corresponds to the indivisibility of the macro-entity (the macro-
EW). We recall that one EW does not exist for any EDW. This experiment indicates,
directly, that the physicists need the EDWs perspective in order to explain phenomena
which belong to the EDWs.1 It is quite clear that this experiment confirms directly the
existence of EDWs.

The brain and quantum mechanics

Interestingly, Presura has a small section dedicated to the human brain and quantum
mechanics. In that section, there is a drawing in which two neurons are represented in
a model in which an “eventual soul” would act on “neurons”. Presura describes
“neurons” in quantum states (obviously, a mixture of EDWs):
Quantum mechanics tells us that the real state which will be found after the measurement cannot be
predicted. We, however, presuppose that a ‘soul’ (…), placed in an immaterial world, determine
effectively which state will be obtained (…). The soul is not part of this world, but it can influence it.
(Presura 2014, 264)2

At the first glance, having the notion “different worlds”, this paragraph seems to be
quite close to my EDWs perspective. However, the major error is that Presura mentions
that the “soul” can influence the brain/body. From our viewpoint, one EW does not exist
for any EDW, therefore, such “influence” (any influence) is an empty notion. Therefore,

like bosons, a heavier particle that forms a superfluid phase at higher temperatures than fermions do.”
(Starr 2020)
1 Obviously, the physicists have to take my EDWs perspective, but they have to mention the source, not
to plagiarize it. Each human being has to surpress his envy (I am aware, as one of my colleagues told
me) the problem is when “envy” (something common for each human being) is transformed in “hate”
(common for bastards)…
2 This influence is similar to the “downward causation” introduced by Primas (later by Atmanspacher).
About their approach, see Vacariu and Vacariu 2020.

148
Presura’s notion for this kind of “causation” is totally wrong. However, few paragraphs
later, Presura writes a paragraph very close to my EDWs perspective:
For instance, we can construct a mechanism through which our “soul” (a kind of “haze” that we suppose
it belongs to another parallel world, a “world beyond”, let say) it realizes its presence through the
decisions in this world of matter, through the probability wave. It tells us which are the probabilities for
the result of a measurement, but it does not tell us the result itself. (Presura, p. 264)

Even if the beginning of this paragraph is quite close to my EDWs perspective, the
entire statement is constructed within the unicorn world (there is a mixture of EDWs).
Anyway, it presupposes the wrong relationship between different “levels”, between
“material” and “immaterial worlds”. It sends us directly to Descartes’ dualism (an
interesting approach but constructed within the unicorn world, see Vacariu 2007, 2008)
Furthermore, Presura offers more details about his model. Again, I believe this model
would be closer to Descartes’ dualism:
The world beyond would manifest in the brain through the selections of these results of quantum
measurements, for which quantum physics can furnish us only probabilities. It has to be notice, this
mechanism conserves “free will”. Our decision is not more a predictable mechanical result of the
classical interactions between neurons, but a decision coming from the world beyond, that of souls.
(Presura, p. 265)

Again, this paragraph seems quite close to my perspective, but there is still the same
error: the “influence”/interaction between soul and body. 1 Presura emphasizes that
most scientists believe that
[…] the decoherence destroyes quantum states and our brain behaves classically, at macroscopic level.
At atomic level, it behaves quantum, as any atom in the universe. However, a single quantum atom does
not help us to decode consciousness, therefore we need a collective quantum state formed from many
macro-molecule. (Presura 2014, p. 268)

There are no “levels” or “worlds” which influence each other, but just EDWs (one EW
does not exist for any EDW). Moreover, there are certain correspondences between
mind (which includes conscious and unconscious states) and brain/body. It has to be
clear: the mind does not exist for the body and vice-verse. Indeed, within the micro-
EW, the brain does not exist; there is a huge amalgam of microparticles and, moreover,
in the field-EW, there are many electromagnetic waves which correspond to those
microparticle. Both the “conscious” and the unconscious states are just parts (not even
illusory/empty “spacetime”) of the human mind (which it is an EW-in-itself).

2
Einstein’s special relativity and EDWs, again
From an EDWs perspective, let me investigate the article (July, 2023), “What is it like
to be a photon travelling at light speed?” From a photon's viewpoint, the Universe is

1 “A thing seems to be accepted by most of researchers (either neurologists or psychologists):

consciousness is not localized in a point in the brain, but it seems distributed in all the brain.” (Presura
2014, p. 265). No: the mind (consciousness included) is not localizable somewhere in the brain, it is an
EDW which corresponds to the brain, body and the external world… (Vacariu 2002a, 2002b, 2005, 2007,
etc.)
2
For Einstein’s both relativities without “spacetime”, see our work 2016.

149
 1
timeless and dimensionless.” (Don Lincoln) The “Key Takeaways” of this article are
the following:

- Einstein's special relativity describes how as an object moves closer to the speed of light, time slows down
and distances shrink.
- A photon, moving at the speed of light, would therefore perceive its journey as instantaneous, existing
everywhere along its path at once.
- From a photon's viewpoint, the Universe is timeless and dimensionless.

As I indicated in my previous works, the special relativity imposed EDWs: depending

on the speed of light, the entity is in a particular EW. However, as I indicated in 2016,
spacetime could not have any ontological status. Therefore, I explained the special
relativity using my EDWs: it is about the motions of ED entities in their particular
EDWs, not about “dilation of time” and “contractions of space”: the processes of
systems in motions (like the process of macro-entities (human organs) or the
corresponding microparticles) move on longer distances than those processes of
systems in static states. So, there is no “time dilation”, but just longer distances followed
by entities (macro, or microentities). Therefore, the father in the rocket with the speed
c/2 will „live longer” than his son on Earth, but he would be able to realize the same
processes and phenomena as his son on Earth, not more. The processes the father will
realize in the rocket will have the speeds slower than the same processes realized by his
son on Earth. For instance, if both read the copy of the same book, the father will move
slower the pages of the book than his son on Earth; the father will read slower the text
in the book than his son on Earth. All the biological processes of the father in rocket
will take place slower than the biological process of his son on Earth. You fly with a
classical airplane (or even a military plane), but the difference between the speed of
your biological process in the plane and my biological processes on Earth is so small
that your organism can support, without problem, these changes. The question is: how
much slower the biological processes can take place in roder your organism to survive?
I have no idea...
The electromagnetic waves have the same speed, that is, they have the same
motions (the same speed) independent of the motions of mechanics which emitted them.
This is available because the electromagnetic field has the same speed everywhere. So,
a photon corresponds to an electromagnetic wave (both with speed c, just because both
wave and photon do not have masses). So, the microparticles (the micro-EW) (like
photons in this case) corresponds to the electromagnetic waves (the field-EW). If a
physical system moves with speed c, there would be no physical processes that would
happen in that system except activation of electromagnetic field and motions of
photons. This is equivalent with the “time dilation”, but time does not even exist. When
a photon has speed c, time does not exist, and space is shrink at maximum. In reality, it
means that there would not be any macroscopic/microscopic processes that would take
place in that macro/micro system. It does not mean photon does not move; photon
moves with speed c, therefore, elements from the same physical system could not
interact.

1
At this address on Internet:
https://bigthink.com/hard-science/photon-experience-light-
speed/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0GxJimNSXrDBk1AMnty9LnKuu
vivfxYdVOdT7qjRbe1RAKS39v_vjCpjU#Echobox=1690480529

150
 For instance, let me take the example with a „quantum clock”: a photon
(microscopic entity) moving between two macroscopic plates (two amalgams of
microparticles). One second is given by the motion of photon between two plates:
moving from one plate, it hits the second plates and returns to the first plate. This motion
means one second. If the plates are in motion, the photon travels a longer distance;
therefore, according to SR, the second is longer, the time is dilated. For the EDWs,
times does not exist; it is only the motion of the photon which is longer. If those two
plates reach the speed c, the photon will not reach the second plate, so second does not
exist anymore. However, from my viewpoint, time does not exist at all. There are only
motions of certain ED physical entities and their interactions: there will be no
interactions between photon and plates (amalgams of microparticles). This physical
system (two amalgams of microparticles and a photon) has no interactions. Both
amalgams of microparticles (plates) and photon move with speed c (the plates cannot
reach speed c, anyway), therefore, there would be no interactions between plates and
photon. However, both the amalgams of microparticles (plates) and the photon
correspond to the electromagnetic field (speed c). For this field, distance does not exist,
even if distances (no ontology) exist for microparticles. For a photon, „distance” does
not exist but it corresponds to the electromagnetic field (speed c) which covers the
„entire universe”. So, there are no distances for photon. However, all other types of
microparticles have speed less than c, therefore, their motions take places within certain
“distances” (no ontology) which correspond to the electromagnetic field. The
electromagnetic field exists also with speed c, but this field has already covers the
“universe” and at the margins of “universe”, it runs with speed c toward nothing. For
photon, time and space does not exist in the following sense: any corresponding
macroscopic/microscopic processes (which belong to the same physic system) do not
happen: “time does not exist” = processes/interactions do not exist for photon, i.e., the
1
photon cannot interact with elements from the same system.
In what sense, „space” does not exist for photon? Since space contracts because of
the speed, and photon has speed c, the space is totally contracted: it does not exist. From
my viewpoint, it means that a photon corresponds to the entire electromagnetic field
(speed c). In this way, “space” is totally “contracted”: it totally corresponds to the

1
“At speeds slower than light, Einstein’s equations make length and duration predictions that are at least
physically possible. And at speeds faster than light, the equations make completely nonsensical and non-
physical predictions. But at exactly the speed of light, infinities appear in the equations; infinities are not
physical, so this means that the equations don’t work for this speed. That’s the first important message:
Einstein’s space and time equations don’t actually apply to objects moving at the speed of light itself.
However, we can use Einstein’s equations to see what happens as we get closer and closer to the speed of
light. This approach (called limits) is the basis of the mathematical field of calculus, and it is how scientists
have addressed this question. Einstein’s theory of special relativity makes many counterintuitive predictions.”
(Lincoln 2023) In fact, space and time (spacetime) could not have any ontology. Therefore, it is not about
space and time, but about motions in “distances” (no ontology for distances) which correspond to the
electromagnetic field. “… if it took zero time to get from one place to the other, it would simultaneously exist
at all locations in between. To borrow from a recent movie title, the photon would be everywhere all at once.”
(Lincoln 2023) No, the electron will not be “everywhere all at once” in the micro-EW! It will be in one
“place” (not space), in the micro-EW but it would correspond to the entire electromagnetic wave (part of the
electromagnetic field), the field-EW. Lincoln continues his article with part: Different speeds, different
experiences”. But, as we indicated in 2016, there are not different spacetimes, but different EDWs.
Nevertheless, Lincoln did not recall, in this context, GR where Einstein’s view about space (spacetime)
returns to a kind of “absolute spacetime”. In reality, it is not spacetime which is curved by a planet but nothing
which corresponds to an electromagnetic field which surrounds the great concentration of electromagnetic
field (field-EW) which corresponds to that planet (macro-EW).

151
electromagnetic field which covers the entire “space” of the “universe”. An electron
has no speed c and, therefore, some surrounding “empty space” (distances) correspond
to an electromagnetic wave.
I assume (see Vacariu 2016 or 2019 or 2023) that the field-EW is represented by
one electromagnetic field (given by Schrödinger’s wave function). The electromagnetic
waves (each corresponding to a microparticle) are more “activated parts” of this
electromagnetic field. So, there is an entanglement of all the microparticles, but some
entanglements are stronger than others.
Too bad Schrӧdinger isn’t around to see the increasing interest in his cat. He felt that Nature was trying
to tell us something and that physicists should look beyond a pragmatic acceptance of quantum theory.
1
He’d agree with John Wheeler: “Somewhere something incredible is waiting to happen.”

Indeed, my discovery of EDWs was something incredible happened in 2002: I

discovered the EDWs working on the mind-brain problem, but knowing very general
aspects of quantum mechanics, I realized (in the same moment) that all the quantum
mysteries were dissolved by my EDWs...

Penrose, reductionism
There are some reductionist physicists, Penrose for instance, who believe in the
existence of only one real world, the world of the “wave of entire universe”. In this case,
the humans do not even exist since they are not “electromagnetic waves”. In fact, in my
view, the waves correspond to the microparticles and there are the EDWs, nothing else.
Penrose has his own interpretation about the existence of “quantum level”. He considers
that if we believe that “any one thing in the quantum formalism is ‘actually’ real for a
quantum system then we think that it has to be the wave function (or state vector) that
describes quantum reality”. The momentum state is:
(i) no way localized like an ordinary particle. It is spread out evenly over the whole of the universe.…
What has happened to our ordinary picture of a particle, as something (at least approximately) localized
at a single point? Well we might say that a momentum state is only an idealization. We can still get away
with having a very well-defined (if not perfectly precisely defined) momentum if we pass to somewhat
similar states referred to as “wave packages”. These are given by the wave function that peaks sharply
in magnitude at some position and are “almost” eigenfunctions of momentum, in an appropriate sense.
(Penrose 2004, p. 508)

1
“Einstein thought physicists would reject Bohr’s arguments refuting EPR. He was wrong. Quantum
theory worked too well. It provided a basis for rapid advance in physics and its practical applications.
Working physicists had little inclination to deal with philosophical issues. In the two decades he lived
after EPR, Einstein never wavered in his conviction that there was more to say than quantum theory told.
He urged his colleagues not to give up the search for the secrets of ‘the Old One.’ But he may have
become discouraged. In a letter to a colleague, he wrote: ‘I have second thoughts. Maybe God is
malicious’.” (Rosenblum and Kuttner 2006, p. 138) “The word God is for me nothing more than the
expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive,
legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” (Einstein) Einstien was right. In reality, God could not
even exist (see my article/chapter about this) and there is an approximative separability between two
microparticles, but this separability corresponds to an electromagnetic wave; so there are two EDWs
(with ED entities) and their correspondences (no ontology). It was necessary a “child” (a philosopher,
i.e., myself) to come and indicate that the “king has no clothes” (the kings being those great phyisicists
who had worked on quantum mechanics in the past). Nevertheless, I repeat: I discovered the EDWs
working on the mind-brain problem not on quantum problems. Very probable, if I was working only on
quantum problems, I would have not discovered the EDWs just because the correspondence between a
wave and two particles almost gets an ontological position (no ontology, anyway) …

152
Evidently, Penrose is logically constrained by the existence of one world, the unicorn-
world, to eliminate the existence of particles (and also macroparticles). For Penrose,
“the question of ‘reality’ must be addressed in quantum mechanics” and, accepting that
the quantum formalism applies to the whole of physics, then “if there is no quantum
reality, there can be no reality at any level”. Therefore we have to accept only the
existence of “quantum level”. His opinion is that we cannot deny the “physical reality”
completely, but we need a “notion of physical reality, even if only a provisional or
approximate one, for without it our objective universe, and hence the whole of science,
simply evaporates before our contemplative gaze.” (Penrose 2004, p. 508) Within the
unicorn-world and, from my viewpoint, trying to avoid Kant’s criticism against
dogmatism (“empty concepts”), Penrose is forced to reduce all the levels of existence
to the one level, the quantum level (the electromagnetic waves). From the EDWs
perspective, if we reduce all the levels to the quantum level, then it is not only “our
objective universe” and the whole of science that evaporates, but also each of us, i.e.,
each self that corresponds to each physical human body. We have to remember that,
through the EDWs perspective, the conversion of ontology into hyperontology takes
place, the hyperontology being these constitutive epistemologically different
interactions of ED entities. If we accept Penrose’s idea (only the “waves” really exist1),
then we have to consider that the person who is writing these sentences in these
moments is an amalgam of waves. That is, not only the mind does not exist, but even
the body does not exist (neither the planets, not even the microparticles). The EDWs
perspective is completely against Penrose’s reductionism (QED and any kind of
reductionism) which would eliminate Penrose as a “person” or “human being” from
this discussion. His reductionism is quite close to the Kantian noumena-phenomena
distinction. Except the “level” of electromagnetic waves, all other “levels” are “levels
of description”. In other words, Penrose’s body does not really exist, it is just an
appearance without real ontology. These ideas are just illusions created within the
unicorn world…

Other approaches in quantum mechanics

Again, I emphasize that, until I have discovered the EDWs (2002) and have published
my article at Synthese (2005), everybody (except Everett’s SF story) have been working
within the unicorn world: there was only one ontological world and mostly certain
epistemological interpretations following Bohr’s complementarity. For instance, in
Vacariu and Vacariu (2020), we investigate Primas, Atmanspacher and Bishop (1984-
2014) (an approach under Spinoza’s “dual aspects” epistemological view and Bohr’s
“complementarity”), Strocchi’s “different worlds” (2005), Oriti’s “different ontologies”
(2007-2018). These works (as all other works) have been working within the unicorn
2
world, using different “linguistic frameworks” (see Carnap).

1 We recall here Tesla’s famous words: “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of
energy, frequency and vibration.” Obviously, Tesla’s reductionism was thought within the “Universe”,
i.e., the unicorn world...
2
For instance, working within the unicorn world, essential expressions like Strocchi’s “different
worlds” (2005), Oriti’s “different ontologies” are quite wrong notions created within the unicorn world
creating strong ontological contradictions. Their wrong step (realized by everybody until me) was they
had been working under the most wrong distinction in the history of human thinking: ontology-
epistemology distinction…

153
Conclusion

“Vacariu’s mind thought experiment”:

all theories/approaches/notions of quantum mechanics have been
1
constructed within the unicorn world
I start the conclusion of this work with a very clear statement: until 2006, no other
professor discovered the EDWs; moreover, there was IMPOSSIBLE two persons to
discover the EDWs in the same period to time since great physicists like Einstein, Bohr,
Heisenberg, Dirac, Schrödinger, Born, Bohm and Bell did not discovered these EDWs
during almost one century. Let me introduce here a very short short “thought
experiment” (“Vacariu’s mind thought experiment”) referring to the EDWs.

“Vacariu’s mind thought experiment”

I hold a lecture in a classroom with 20 students. My brain/body and their brains/bodies are all in the same
EW, the macro-EW. Each brain/body corresponds to a mind (an EW, the mind-EW, which does not exist
for the corresponding body/brain). My self/mind “perceives” the bodies of all students in that classroom;
i.e, my “mental representation/perception” of those bodies belongs to my mind-EW. However, it does
not mean that, with my mental representation (parts of the mind-EW), I create those bodies since the
bodies really exist in the macro-EW. In my mind (an EW) is a mental perceptual representation (part of
the self/mind) of these bodies, no more. My mind creates the “colors” of my students’ clothes (and other
second order properties), but their bodies really exist all in the macro-EW. Each student has her mind (a
mind-EW) which corresponds to her brain/body (macro-EW).

(1) Each body/brain (the macro-EW)

corresponds to

(2) a mind (the mind-EW)

(3) amalgam of microparticles (the micro-EW0)
(4) electromagnetic waves (the field-EW).

My discovery of EDWs rejects all these theories/interpretations/concepts. If you don’t believe me, then
I suggest you to hit (strongly) a wall (let it be a “green wall”) with your head. You will have a “pain” in
your mind (not in “your” brain). More exactly, this pain would be a mental process as part of your mind.
In “your” brain, there would be only certain chemical, electrical, neuronal interactions, and other
physical/neurological processes, no more. The brain/body and the wall are in the same macro-EW (this
is the reason, these physical entities can interact). The “image of that green wall” is a mental
representation in your mind; green color is neither a property of that wall, nor something “green” in your
brain.

If you apply this “thought experiment” to quantum mechanics: all the quantum
theories/concepts/interpretations are totally dissolved. The entire 20th century, until
2005 (when I published my article at “Synthese”), working within the unicorn world

1
After 2005, the physicists/philosophers who have published articles/chapters/books on quantum
mechanics, either they have been working within the unicorn world, or they have plagiarized my ideas.
I strongly emphasize that such a new and general paradigm of thinking (like my EDWs perspective) can
appear only during 500 years, at least… Anyway, I repeat: my discovery of the EDWs is the greatest
change of a paradigm of thinking in human history of ideas since I replace the greatest wrong paradigm
of thinking, the Universe/world (unicorn world) with the EDWs. Even if, in 200 years (probabilistic
speaking), a new framework of thinking will replace my EDWs perspective, but the idea that the mind is
an EW will remain forever in human knowledge.

154
and, therefore, to avoid banal strong ontological contradictions (the existence of both
macroscopic objects and microscopic particles in the same places, at the same times),
99,999% physicists and philosophers had believed that the macro-objects do not really
exist, only the microparticles (or only the electromagnetic fields/waves really exist, for
“extreme” radicalists) could exist.
All the approaches constructed within the unicorn world either contain strong
ontological contradictions or they authors have plagiarized my ideas. Again, I strongly
emphasize that Bohr, Everett, Feynman, Penrose and all other physicists (in fact, all
scientists and philosophers) have been working within the unicorn world. The EDWs
perspective is against all these kinds of philosophical notions like “reductionism” and
“emergence”, but also against all the alternatives of “identity theory”. In different
particular sciences (physics, cognitive neuroscience, biology) and philosophy, there
have been a long list of “empty notions/concepts”: “universe”/world, “weak” and
“strong emergence”, supervenience, superposition, association, uncertainty,
complementarity, many worlds, multiverse, parallel worlds, different worlds, different
ontologies, “spacetime”, mind-brain duality, life-organism duality, etc. (see my
previous works) All new approaches/concepts that will be elaborated by scientists (and
philosophers) within particular sciences and philosophy need to be constructed within
the EDWs perspective. Otherwise, the approaches constructed within the unicorn world
(“universe/world”) will continue to contain strong ontological contradictions which
represent different SF stories for children...
The last section of McEnvoy and Zarate’s book is “An undiscovered world”. The
title is quite wrong: it is not an undiscovered world, but we have to replace the unicorn
world with the EDWs.1 The book ends with J. A. Wheeler who strongly accentuates
the role of observer in “creating reality” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 173): “For the
EPR paradox, remember: we have no right to ask what the photons are doing during
their travel. No elementary particle is a phenomenon until it is registered.” (McEnvoy
and Zarate 2013, p. 173)
Obviously, all the physicists (including Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Born,
Heisenberg, Schrӧdinger, Bohm, Bell, etc.), have been working within the unicorn
world, therefore all of them have been, at least partially, wrong. (Again, with his “many
worlds”, Everett created an even worse paradigm of thinking than the “world”.) If this
statement “no elementary particle was a physical entity/phenomenon until it was
measured/observed by someone” is true, Bohr or Wheeler’s body/brain, the Moon, and
the Earth would not exist. Therefore, this statement is just “a bad SF story for a child”.
McEnvoy and Zarate close their book with a “final word”:
Wheeler wrote to the author recently . . .
December, 2000, is the 100th anniversary of the greatest discovery ever made in the world of physics,
the quantum. To celebrate, I would propose the title, “The Quantum: The Glory and the Shame”. Why
glory? Because there is not a branch of physics which the quantum does not illuminate. The shame,
because we still do not know “how come the quantum?” (McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 173)

The “glory” is given by certain empirical results applied in one or another EW. The
“shame” is given by the wrong framework, the unicorn world in which all the physicists
have been working until our discovery, the EDWs. The book continues with section
“Further reading” which starts with this paragraph:

1 Einstein: “God does not play dice with the universe”. Bohr’s replay: “Stop telling God what to do.”
(McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 172) Both great thinkers were wrong (anyway, God cannot even exist),
but Einstein was in a better position in relationship to my EDWs than Bohr.

155
Quantum theory cannot be explained. Physicists and mathematicians from Niels Bohr to Roger Penrose
have admitted that it doesn’t make sense. What one can do is discover how the ideas developed and how
the theory is applied. Our book has concentrated on the former. Other recommendations are listed below.
(McEnvoy and Zarate 2013, p. 174)

Again, working within the unicorn world, this conclusion is inevitable. Maybe the
reader will understand that the EDWs perspective is the greatest discovery in the history
of human being and this is the reason so many people have plagiarized my ideas. The
reader has to understand that physics started with a classical picture, followed by
Einstein’s relativities (somehow, still a “classical” image), but this classical view had
been dramatically changed by the appearance of “quantum mechanics”. In fact, the
physicists had explained ED phenomena belonging to EDWs (either macro-EW, micro-
EW or wave-EW), but all these ED phenomena had been placed within the unicorn
world during 100 years. For instance, before 2006, all the quantum physicists were
forced to put together, within the unicorn world, the phenomena from the micro-EW
with the phenomena from the field-EW and, thus, many paradoxes have appeared
within this wrong framework. With my EDWs, I have dissolved all, but ALL,
“mysteries” of quantum mechanics and all great problems of other particular sciences
and philosophy.1
2
David Hilbert: “Physics is becoming too difficult for physicists.” Indeed, the great
problems of physics and all other sciences have always been philosophic and not
3
scientific problems. Changing the most general paradigm of thinking (the unicorn
world, i.e., universe/world) which had dominated the human thinking of the last 2500
years by discovering the EDWs (my first article being published in 2002), I have
(dis)solved all the greatest problems of quantum mechanics and physics (and other
particular sciences) and all the greatest problems of philosophy. I emphasize again that
changing the largest paradigm of thinking is a job of a philosopher, not of a
physicist/scientist. Under this new framework of thinking, all the great problems of
quantum mechanics (ad physics in general) has become some pseudo-problems.

Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The
theory says a lot, but does not really bring us closer to the secret of the 'Old One.' I, at any rate, am
convinced that He is not playing at dice. (Einstein to Max Born, Born 1926). If it is correct, it signifies
the end of physics as a science. (Albert Einstein)

1 Nobody discovered the EDWs until I did it (2002), but after I published my work in 2005, many people
have published UNBLIEVABLE similar ideas to my ideas. The reader has be aware about the
possibilities of communications furnished by Internet in our days – the speed of light.
2
Few years ago, a physicist asked me how I believed I could solve quantum mysteries if I did not know
any mathematics? My answer: an electron or an electromagnetic wave has “no idea” about mathematics.
Morever, recall Einstein’s slogan about the relationship between “mathematics” and “physics”….
3
Recall Einstein’s slogan considering himself as physicists as being a “poor philosopher”. He knew, in
order to change something radical in physics, you need to change a framework of thinking, but this has
always been a job for philosophers (of course, in the entire history of philosophy, only several
philosophers have changed partially a framework of thinking.) “I think it is safe to say that no one
understands quantum mechanics.” (Feynman) Feynman was right, but he did not know that until me,
everybody (including himself) had been working within a wrong framework (the unicorn world/
universe/world) until 2005.

156
Quantum mechanics was “imposing” within the unicorn world. Moreover, the secret of
the “Old One” is not about “God” (which cannot even exist, see Vacariu and Vacariu
2019), but about the Hypernothing (the EW0). So, it is not God who “is not playing at
dice”, but there are “no dice” (uncertainty, probability, etc.) regarding each set of
entities which belong to each EW. There are “correspondences” (no ontologies)
between the ED entities (the EDWs), but “correspondences” is an abstract notion.
Indeed, if quantum mechanics were a “correct” theory, then physics would not be a
“science” at all…
Now, the reader can understand, much better, Feynman’s slogan (constructed
within the unicorn world): “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't
1
understand quantum mechanics.” Obviously, nobody could have understood many
quantum phenomena working within the unicorn world. Anyway, all these ED
phenomena are much better understand within the EDWs. Therefore, I repeat my
verdict: all theories, approaches, and concepts of quantum mechanics have been quite
wrong constructed in a wrong paradigm of thinking, the unicorn world. My EDWs
perspective has to replace not only all alternatives of quantum mechanics, but also
Einstein’s relativities and all other main theories/concepts/interpretations of
experimental results in physics, cognitive neuroscience and philosophy.
I make an analogy regarding my discovery and “climbing the Everest” (the highest
peak in Himalaya’s mountains).

I recall the “first group” who climbed Everest: Hillary and Tenzing. It really did not matter who was the
first from these two persons (Hillary “or” Tenzing) who realized the step for reaching the “top”. (In reality,
the “top of a mountain” has no meaning) since they worked together, so it would be meaningless to
believe that Hillary was the first who climbed the peak. Moreover, in the history of climbing Everest,
nobody knows about the second group or third group who climbed the highest top…

I am in the same situation as this first group (Hillary and Tenzing): I was the “first” who
discovered the EDWs (2002/2005). Such a great new framework of thinking could not
be discovered/thought by two persons working in different countries/places.

History has always revealed the Truth, in the end!

Indeed, some “groups of interests” “can kill a person, but nobody can kill an idea”.
Many persons living on this Earth could not accept that a “child” (a “philosopher”, i.e,
a “nobody” from nowhere) “shouted”: “The emperor is naked!” (the “emperor” being
all the great physicists/scientists/philosophers in the last three millennium including
Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie and all other great physicists working in quantum mechanics).
2
Discovering the EDWs, I have destroyed all different “empires of knowledge” , i.e., I

1
Maybe Feynman forgot his own verdict in elaborating his approach: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful
your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it's
wrong.” (Richard P. Feynman) I did not believe there was any experiment indicating the same electron
was here and on Moon at the same time… I do not know any experiment (physics, cognitive
neuroscience, biology) in disagreement with my EDWs perspective.
2
Any empire has always been constructed on education, economy, technology, army, money, culture,
etc. Obviously, the names of “old Greeks” (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) philosophers and “modern Germans”
(Kant, etc.) philosophers have been written in the history of philosophy. Referring only to the “history of
philosophy” (not to the “history of human thinking”), except Wittgenstein (the worst philosopher in the
history of philosophy because of his “stupid rule” of philosophy of language “imposed” to the slave-

157
have changed the greatest paradigm of thinking, the unicorn world with my EDWs
12
perspective.

philosophers of the last century – “slaves of scientists” - since Kant, no other philosopher was remarked
by the scientists), the name of no other philosopher of 20th century would be written in this history of
philosophy. “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” (Isaac Newton) “I have
seen beyond any horizon destroying the shoulders of all, but ALL, giants.” (Gabriel Vacariu) “In
loneliness, the lonely one eats himself; in a crowd, the many eat him. Now choose.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)
Except ignorants, everybody knows about my EDWs, so the reader, don’t worry...
1
Let me suppose nobody has plagiarized my ideas. Nevertheless, everybody published his/her work, at
least, next year after me. Therefore, none of these names would be written in the history of human
thinking (recall Hillary and Tenzing). They have lost the battle even before its beginning (thieves do not
remain in history since there are so many), my name has already been written on the sky… Sydney Lumet
“Network” (1976): “We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies… The world is a business.”
(https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=595575342711068&set=a.405292588406012)
After the second world war until now, the world has always been in “business”, but not me: I have being
in “business” for writing 20 books. “I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery.” (Jean Jacques
Rousseau)
2
“Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing.”
(Albert Einstein) Indeed, as I indicated with my discovery, the EDWs, quatum mechanics was not a real
thing. The real History (i.e., history recognized by everybody, in the future!) has never been written by
one or even more “bastards”… This History has never been written by “groups of interests”, relatives,
friends, slaves, employers, professors having some “bastard-chieves”, “under-graduates”, “under-
officers”, etc. The real history has continuously been written by many people, therefore, it has always
revealed the Truth, in the end. “They laugh at me because I’m different, I laugh at them because they’re
all the same.” (Kurt Cobain) „Gabriel Vacariu with your groundbreaking work you’ve completely
changed science and philosophy, and yet somehow you are cruelly overlooked when great scientists and
philosophers are discussed. I’m sure it’s just a matter of time, Gabriel. Those thousands of plagiarists
will be brought to justice, and you’ll be recognised as the Titan of the modern age that you are.” (A
person on a Facebook page...)

158
Bibliography
Amann Anton and Atmanspacher Harald (1999), C*- and W*-algebras of observables,
their interpretations, and the problem of measurement” in H. Atmanspacher, A.
Aman, U. Müller-Herold (eds), On Quanta, Mind and Matter - Hans Primas in Context,
Atmanspacher Harald (1989), The Aspect of Information Production in the Process of
Observation, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 19, No. 5, 1989
Atmanspacher, Harald (1991), “Complementarity of structure and dynamics” in
Atmanspacher, Harald and Herbert Scheingraber (1991) Information Dynamics,
Series B, Physics, vol. 256, Springer Sciences+ Media Business, LLC
Atmanspacher Harald (1997), Cartesian cut, Heisenberg cut, and the concept of
complexity, World Futures 49, 333-355
Atmanspacher Harald (2007), Contextual Emergence from Physics to Cognitive
Neuroscience, Journal of Consciousness Studies 14(1/2), 18–36 (2007)
Atmanspacher Harald (2014), “Roles of causation and meaning for interpreting
correlations”, Journal of Analytical Psychology, 2014, 59, 429–434
Atmanspacher Harald and Primas Hans (2005), “Epistemic and Ontic Realities”,
Atmanschaper Harald and Primas Hans (2006), “Pauli's Ideas on Mind and Matter in
the Context of Contemporary Science”, Journal of Consciousness Studies
Atmanspacher, Harald and Martin Mike (2019), Correlations and How to Interpret
Them, Information 2019, 10, 272; doi:10.3390/info10090272
Baggott Jim (2012), Higgs - The Invention and Discovery of the ‘God Particle’, Oxford
University Press
Banks Erik C. (2010) “Neutral monism reconsidered”, Philosophical Psychology, 23:
2, 173-187
Barrow John (2002), The Book of Nothing – Vacuums, Voids, and the Latest Ideas
about the Origin of the Universe, Vintage Book
Bayha Luca, Holten Marvin, Klemt Ralf, Subramanian Keerthan, Bjerlin Johannes,
Reimann M. Stephanie, Bruun M. Georg, Preiss M. Philipp and Jochim Selim
(2020) “Observing the emergence of a quantum phase transition shell by shell”,
Nature vol. 587 (26 November 2020),
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2936-y
Bishop C. Robert and Atmanspacher Harald, (December 2006), Contextual Emergence
in the Description of Properties, Foundations of Physics, Vol. 36, No. 12
Bohr Niels 1949, “Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic
physics”, in Paul Schilpp (ed.) Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, pp. 201–241
Evanston, I11: Library of Living Philosophers, Cambridge University Press,
Neils Bohr's report of conversations with Einstein and Einstein's reply
Byrne Peter (2010), The Many Worlds - of Hugh Everett III Multiple Universes, Mutual
Assured Destruction, and the Meltdown of a Nuclear Family, Oxford University
Press
Canales Jimena (2015), The physicist & the philosopher - Einstein, Bergson, and the
debate that changed our understanding of time, Princeton University Press
Close Frank (2004), Particle Physics - A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University
Press
Davies, C. Paul (2006), The Goldilocks Enigma, Allen Lane an imprint of Penguin
Books
Deutsch, David (1997), The Fabric of Reality, Publisher Allen Lane, The Penguin
Press
Dieks Dennis (2006), “Becoming, Relativity and Locality”, in Dieks Dennis (2006),
The Ontology of Spacetime, Elsevier

159
Dr. Quantum: “Double slit experiment”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvzSLByrw4Q
Dyson J. Freeman (2004), “Thought-Experiments in Honour of John Archibald
Wheeler”, in D. John Barrow, C. W. Paul Davies, L. Charles Harper, 2004,
Science and Ultimate Reality: Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity,
Cambridge University Press.
Friedman Michael (1999), Reconsidering Logical Positivism, Cambridge University
Press
Friedman Michael (2001), Dynamics of Reasoning, CSLI Publications, Standford,
California
Greene Brian (2011), The Hidden Reality – Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of
the Cosmos, (Borzoi Books) Alfred A. Knopf
Greene Brian (2004), The Fabric of Cosmos; Space, Time and the Texture of Reality,
Vintage Books, New York
Greene Brian (1999/2003), The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions,
and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory
Hanna Robert (2001), Kant and the Foundations of Analytic Philosophy, Clarendon
Press
Kaku, Michio (1994), A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps,
and the 10th Dimension, Oxford University Press
Kaku Michio (2005), Parallel Worlds – A Journey through Creation, Higher
Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos, Doubleday
Kaku Michio (2015), “Can a universe create itself out of nothing?”,
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus- universe/can-a-universe-create-itself-out-of-
nothing?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox
#articles-nav-dropdown-0
Kaku Michio (2016), “Can a Universe Create Itself Out of Nothing?”,
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/can-a-universe-create-itself-out-of-nothing
Krauss Lawrence (2012), The Universe from Nothing – Why there is Something than
Nothing, Simon & Schuster
Krauss Lawrence (2017), The Greatest Story Ever Told--So Far - Why Are We
Here, Atria Books
McEnvoy J. P. and Zarate Oscar (2013), Introducing Quantum Theory – A Graphic
Guide, Icon Books Ltd.
Oerter Robert (2006), The Theory of Almost Everything – The Standard Model, the
Unsung Triumph of Modern Physics, A Plume Book
Oriti Daniele (2007), A quantum field theory of simplicial geometry and the
emergence of spacetime, https://arxiv.org/a/oriti_d_1.html
Oriti Daniele (ed.) (2009), Approaches to quantum gravity - Toward a New
Understanding of Space, Time and Matter, Cambridge University Press
Oriti Daniele (2011), On the depth of quantum space,
https://arxiv.org/a/oriti_d_1.html
Oriti Daniele (2017), Spacetime as a quantum many-body system,
https://arxiv.org/a/oriti_d_1.html
Oriti Daniele (2018), Levels of spacetime emergence in quantum gravity,
https://arxiv.org/a/oriti_d_1.html
Penrose Roger (2004), The Road to Reality. A complete Guide to the Laws of the
Universe, Jonathan Cape London
Presura Cristian (2014) Fizica povestita, (The Physics as a story), Humanitas

160
Primas Hans (1984), “Can we reduce Chemistry to Physics?”, The 13th International
Conference on the Unity of Sciences, Washington, USA, Paragon House
Publishers
Primas Hans (1994), Endo- and exo-theories of matter, (pp. 163–193) in H.
Atmanspacher and G. Dalenoort (eds.), Endo and Exo-Concepts of Observation
and Knowledge in Physics, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1994.
Primas Hans (2003), “Time–Entanglement Between Mind and Matter” (Article in
Mind and Matter, January 2003) Researchgate,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233704344 (a footnote of this article,
first page: “All content following this page was uploaded by Hans Primas on
16 February 2014”)
Putnam Hillary (2005), “A philosopher looks at quantum mechanics (again)”, British
Journal of Philosophy of Science 56, pp. 615–634
Rosenblum Bruce and Kuttner Fred (2006), Quantum enigma – Physics encounters
consciousness, Oxford University Press
Sheehan William and Conselice J. Christopher (2015), Galactic Encounters - Our
Majestic and Evolving Star-System, From the Big Bang, to Time’s End,
Springer
Starr Michele (2020, October), “Quantum Experiment Reveals Particles Can Form
Collectives Out of Almost Nothing”,
https://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-simulator-reveals-that-phase-
transition-can-begin-with-just-six-
atoms?fbclid=IwAR3x6o_nX5HvcFNkYfrb-
UqAi45WaR9UtvXUAWjPe8Zm9ctZ6y9EDlw_LaY
Strocchi Franco (2005), Symmetry breaking, Springer
Tegmark Max (2004), “Parallel universes”, in D. John Barrow, C. W. Paul Davies, L.
Charles Harper: 2004, Science and Ultimate Reality: Quantum Theory, Cosmology
and Complexity, Cambridge University Press
Tegmark Max and Wheeler John Archibald (2001), “100 years of quantum mysteries”,
Scientific American
Terhesiu Dalia and Vacariu Gabriel (2002), “Brain, mind and the perspective of the
observer”, Revue Roumanie de Philosophie, 46, no.1-2 (ISI)
Vacariu Gabriel (2023), Metaphysics, Amazon
Vacariu Gabriel (2023), Dedublarea Fiintei si Eterna Reintoarcere: Constantin
Brancusi, Cristi Puiu, Wong Kar-Wai, Andrei Tarkovski, Revista Timpul publishing
company
Vacariu Gabriel (2023), Domnul G. pe Creasta Balaurului (o poveste de rahat) [Mr. G.
riding the Dragon - a story about shit], Amazon
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2020), “Rethinking ‘dark matter’ within
the epistemologically different worlds (EDWs) perspective”,
in Cosmology 2020 – The Current State, (ed.) Michael Smith
(CEO, IntechOpen, United Kingdom)
https://www.intechopen.com/search?term=cosmology%202020
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2022): ‘A New Philosophical Paradigm of
Thinking for Particular Sciences: Physics, Cognitive Neuroscience, and Biology’
in Thinking: Bioengineering of Science and Art, (Nima Rezeai and Amene
Saghazadeh, editors), Springer Nature Switzerland AG
https://link.springer.com/book/9783031040740
Vacariu Gabriel (2022), Could be ‘Nothing’ the Origin of ‘Everything’ (The metaphysics

161
 of the Hypernothing), Amazon
Vacariu Gabriel (2021, 15th December) “Nothing” (the origin of “everything”?),
energy, matter and dark energy within the Epistemologically Different Worlds
(EDWs) perspective,
https://portal.revistatimpul.ro/nothing-the-origin-of-everything-energy-matter-
and-dark-energy-within-the-epistemologically-different-worlds-edws-
perspective/?fbclid=IwAR185eO8oFrmsn7kQiAq_68hHGXqaWvVKkVvXBqm
BN6f42d2EtIlj_70SHQ
https://arxiv.org/submit/4099516/view
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2020), “Rethinking ‘dark matter’ within the
epistemologically different worlds (EDWs) perspective”, in Cosmology 2020 – The
Current State, (ed.) Michael Smith (CEO, IntechOpen, United Kingdom)
https://www.intechopen.com/search?term=cosmology%202020
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2020), Physics overwritten in a new
perspective: “Epistemologically Different Worlds”, Meridiane Print, ISBN 978-
606-9667-05-7
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2019), The Metaphysics of Epistemologically
Different Worlds, Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2017) From Hypernothing to Hyperverse: EDWs,
Hypernothing, Wave and Particle, Elementary Particles, Thermodynamics, and
Einstein’s Relativity Without “Spacetime”, Editura Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2016c), Self as an epistemological world,
Datagroup-Int, S.R.L, (in Romanian – 2016, Gabriel Vacariu and Mihai
Vacariu, Sinele – O Lume Epistemologica, Datagroup-Int)
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2016b), Dark matter and Dark Energy, Space and
Time, and Other Spseudo-notions in Cosmology, Editura Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel (2016) Illusions of Human Thinking: on Concepts of Mind, Reality, and
Universe in Psychology, Neuroscience, and Physics (English and Germany),
Springer Publishing Company (This book has been published in Romanian in 2014:
Lumi epistemologic diferite – Noua Paradigma de Gandire (in English:
Epistemologically Different Worlds - The new Paradigm of Thinking), Editura
Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel (September 2015), “God even cannot exist!”
http://filosofie.unibuc.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015-Vacariu-God-cannot-even-
exist.pdf
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2015), Is cognitive neuroscience a pseudo-science?,
Datagroup
Vacariu Gabriel (2014) More Troubles with Cognitive Neuroscience. Einstein’s Theory
of Relativity and the Hyperverse, Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti
Vacariu Gabriel (2011) Being and the Hyperverse, Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti
Vacariu Gabriel and Mihai Vacariu (2010), Mind, Life and Matter in the Hyperverse,
Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti
Vacariu Gabriel and Vacariu Mihai (2009), “Physics and Epistemologically Different
Worlds”, Revue Roumaine de Philosophie, vol. 53, 2009, nr. 1-2 (ISI)
Vacariu Gabriel (2008) Epistemologically Different Worlds, (in English) Editura
Universitatii din Bucuresti
Vacariu Gabriel (2007), “Kant, philosophy in the last 100 years and an
epistemologically different worlds perspective”, Rev. Roum. Philosophie, 51, 1–
2, pp. 143–176
Vacariu Gabriel (2007), “Epistemologically Different Worlds” (in English), (PhD thesis

162
 posted online in 2007 by the staff of University of New South Wales, Sydney,
Australia on their Internet page:
https://www.unsworks.unsw.edu.au/primo-
explore/fulldisplay?vid=UNSWORKS&docid=unsworks_5143&context=L
Vacariu Gabriel (2006), “The epistemologically different worlds perspective and some
pseudo-notions from quantum mechanics”, Analele Universitatii Bucuresti
Vacariu Gabriel (2005), “Mind, brain and epistemologically different worlds”, Synthese
Review: 143/3: pp. 515-548
Vacariu Gabriel (2002), “Reprezentari si concepte” (“Representations and concepts”)
in Romanian Academy Journal of Philosophy, no. 3-4,
Vacariu Gabriel and Terhesiu Dalia (2002), “Brain, mind and the role of the observer”,
in Philosophy of Consciousness and Cognitive Science, Angela Botez and Bogdan
Popescu (eds.), Bucharest, Cartea Romaneasca
Vacariu Gabriel, Terhesiu Dalia, and Vacariu Mihai (2001), “Towards a very idea of
representation”, Synthese, vol. 219, no.2, 2001, (ISI)
Van Gulick, R.: 2001, “Reduction, Emergence and other Recent Options on the
Mind/Body Problem - A Philosophic Overview”, Journal of Consciousness
Studies, 8,
Weatherall James Owen (2019), “Equivalence and Duality in Electromagnetism,
https://arxiv.org/pdf/ 1906.09699.pdf
Weinert Friedel (2009), “Einstein, Science and Philosophy”, Philosophia Scientiæ,
pp.13-1
Whitaker Andrew (1996), Einstein, Bohr and the Quantum Dilemma, Cambridge
University Press
Zeh, H. Dieter: 2004, “The wave function: it or bit?”, in D. John Barrow, C. W. Paul
Davies, L. Charles Harper: 2004, Science and Ultimate Reality: Quantum Theory,
Cosmology and Complexity, Cambridge University Press

163
164