THE QUANTUM UNCERTAINTY PROBLEM

From Modern European Thought (Baumer 1977):  “Heisenberg speaks of particles as having not substance but mathematical form, and as therefore not having ‘even the quality of being,’ but only ‘a possibility for being, or a tendency for being.’  Partly, his was because matter was ... identified with energy.”  [p. 462].  A more precise explanation from The Encyclopedia of Physics (Lerner, 1991):  “Evidently the π meson carries energy E_a = 0 and momentum q ≠ 0 from a to b.  But this meson cannot be physical, for the Einstein mass-energy-momentum relationship dictates ... E_q = (q²c²+m²c⁴)^1/2 for a real pion with m_π = 140 MeV/c² (the rest mass of the π meson) and c = 3 x 10¹⁰ cm/s.  Thus the energy of the exchanged (or ‘virtual’) meson, being 0, is at least m_πc² = 140 MeV too low.  The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, ΔEΔt~h, does permit such energy discrepancies ΔE, but only for a sufficiently short time ∆t.”  [p. 824].  The π meson is not physical because its energy is zero, is defined by Heisenberg “as having not substance but only mathematical form,” but at the same time an energy discrepancy is permitted “for a sufficiently short time ∆t,” the π meson is physical, it has energy and is not virtual.  “The lightest baryon is the proton, the nucleus of the hydrogen atom ... a flurry of experimental activity ... to date has yielded no evidence for proton decay;  the current lifetime is known to be greater than 3 x 10³² years.”  [p. 89].  Despite being “virtual” and not having substance the π meson keeps all protons in one piece for at least “3 x 10³² years.”  Experimental activity has found “no evidence for proton decay,” a not very uncertain statement.  The uncertainty is not very uncertain, it produces a stability lasting over almost unimaginable eons of time.  The “sufficiently short time ∆t” is immediately and without interruption followed by an identical “sufficiently short time ∆t,” ad infinitum, during which time the π meson is permitted to deviate from being virtual or not physical, as the medium of exchange for the strong force between quarks to prevent proton decay.   The uncertainty whether or not the proton shall decay, thus, is eliminated, remains only a “virtual possibility” for a time period greater than “3 x 10³² years.”  No wonder the particle (which putatively causes the decay) described by Heisenberg’s uncertainty is endowed with “only a possibility for being.”  The uncertainty is no more than “mathematical form,” a form which, if it exists, must wait for at least “3 x 10³² years” to attain substance.  From The Inflationary Universe (Guth, 1997):  “The vacuum, like any physical system, is subject to ... quantum uncertainties.  Roughly speaking, anything can happen in a vacuum, although the probability for a digital watch to materialize is absurdly small.” [p. 12, emphasis in original].  The probabilities must be equal for either a proton to dematerialize (decay) or to “materialize” (emerge from the vacuum).  A digital watch most likely consists of more than one proton, thus Dr. Guth’s optimism the definition of “absurdly small” is computable by any human or any computer is seemingly unwarranted.  As an example, in one computational endeavor utilizing massive parallel processing it took about four months to compute the mass of a proton to within a 15% margin of error.  [cite].  The “3 x 10³² years” are divisible by the “sufficiently short time ∆t” producing the number of times the π meson is exchanged.  The probability the proton shall decay is defined by dividing 1 by this number.  Not even if the universe is infinite can sufficient amount of uncertainty exist to materialize a sufficiently large number of protons configured in the form of a operational digital watch.  The point:  the physical outcome of “an act of uncertainty” (quantum) is perfectly predicable, with zero rounding error.  Dr. Guth’s ponderous pontifications lead only to a reality reversing dictum.  Instead of every physical system being subject to quantum uncertainties, as Dr. Guth believes, the reverse is true:  every quantum uncertainty is subject to whatever physical system in which it is contained.  Dr. Guth dreams of the quantum uncertainty as the independent variable, as the controlling factor to which an unlimited number of possibilities are assignable, but it is exactly the reverse which is true:  the physical system permits only a certain, finite, limited amount of uncertainty, it is the physical system which is the independent variable and if uncertainty exists it is confined to the physical system, the uncertainties can not be lumped across physical systems just because Dr. Guth wishes this to be “true.”  Each proton is a separate physical system, it is the same as the flip of a coin, one flip has no influence on the next flip.  Most likely the “Dirac sea” [Shankar, Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 1988, pp. 586-588] is the germinating element onto which Dr. Guth et al. have latched on, similar to a drowning man clutching a straw, for the proposition the vacuum is a “physical system” where literally “anything can happen.”  Physicists are yet to design the vacuum or the Dirac sea observing instrument.  If a vacuum is perfect when, let’s say, a cubic kilometer contains literally nothing, not a single proton, electron, no energy, then this has never been seen or observed.  However, according to Dirac and his progeny, this same perfectly empty cubic kilometer, totally devoid of anything which could be plugged into the equation E = mc², the vacuum, "is really the occupied (but unobservable) sea of negative energy electrons.” [p. 588, emphasis in original].  Why?  Because the quantum formalism so dictates.  The theory, as described by quantum mechanics, is clear, as crystal:  because there is positive energy therefore there must be the same amount of negative energy.  Without negative energy to balance against positive energy the universe would collapse into a nothingness in an instant.  [Hawking].  There is only one problem:  only positive energy is observed, for all their efforts physicists are yet to discover a physical negative energy or a physical vacuum.  A completely new quantum mechanics shall be required if, in fact, the Dirac sea is a miscalculation, if it does not exist.  Quantum mechanics is based on the “fact” the probability is zero the Dirac sea does not exist and, conversely, the probability of the existence of negative energy is one.  But what if it this is false, what then?