Part I, II
In Part I, I wrote that physicists do not know why the decay of subatomic particles is probabilistic. I wrote that the reason for their ignorance is that the entire physics community has been indoctrinated with Einstein's physics. It is like wearing blinders. I also accused quantum computing researchers of being quacks because they base their "science" on ignorance and the bogus concept of state superposition. Below, I defend the thesis that nature is forced to use probability because, contrary to the claims of Einstein's cheerleaders, time does not exist.
In a classical or deterministic universe, one would expect every neutron to decay at the end of a precise temporal interval. That is to say, the lifetimes of all neutrons in the universe should always be exactly the same. The principle of the conservation of energy dictates that the precise duration of the neutron's lifetime depends on the energies involved in the decay process. So why are neutrons observed to decay at various intervals? Obviously, the universe is not deterministic. But why? And how can the principle of energy conservation hold true in a non-deterministic universe? One thing is certain: some hidden principle is preventing nature from either calculating the precise timing of decay processes or from triggering the decays at their correct times as demanded by conservation laws. What could that be?
A Thorn on the Side
It turns out that the answer has been staring the physics community in the face for quite a long time but they can't see it because they are all wearing wearing their Einstein blinders. I am talking about something called non-temporality. I have already explained elsewhere why there can be no such thing as a time dimension. The gist of it is that a physical time dimension would make motion impossible. Therefore, since nature cannot sense or measure something that does not exist, the exact timing of decay processes is effectively prohibited.
Nontemporality is a serious problem, a painful thorn on the side of modern physics that will not go away. For one, the principle of the conservation of energy will be seriously violated unless the decay of every particle occurs precisely on time. Second, it reveals that Einstein physics has gravely handicapped our understanding of nature. Physicists are stuck between a rock and a hard place, so to speak.
Probability and Nonspatiality to the Rescue
Fortunately for nature, it so happens that it is permitted to violate the conservation of energy but the violation must be corrected at the earliest opportunity. What is borrowed must eventually be paid back in full. In fact, there can be no motion or change in the universe unless there are violations that must be corrected.
The only way that nature can conserve energy in the long run, among all the neutrons in the universe, is to decay a percentage of the neutrons at random at every instant. The exact percentage is proportional to the degree of energy violation in a neutron, which is determined by the energies involved in the decay process. In order for that to happen, the number of neutrons in the universe must be finite. Why finite? Because obtaining a given percentage of an infinite number is impossible. Strike another blow against all the crackpot physicists and mathematicians who stupidly believe in infinity and teach others to do the same.
The above begs the question: why must nature pick a percentage of neutrons at random? Why not use a non-random method? The reason is that any non-random method would be biased one way or another and would lead to further energy violations and a lopsided universe.
Another question that comes to mind is, how can nature select from a group of particles that are dispersed in all the far-flung corners of the universe? The reason has to do with something I have written about recently, nonspatiality. Like time, space (distance) is an illusion of perception. The universe is one.
As can be seen above, the probabilistic nature of the universe is due to nontemporality. And it certainly has nothing to do with nor does it require the superposition of quantum states or the participation of an observer. Particles decay whether or not they are being observed in order to obey the conservation laws of nature. Nature's mechanism of particle decay consists of randomly selecting, at every discrete instant (yes, the universe is discrete), a number of particles for decay in order to conserve energy in the long run. Superposition is no more credible than the flat earth hypothesis. What imbecile came up with that idea anyway? That's what I would like to know.
There can only be one conclusion. If it had not been for Einstein and his followers, we would have understood the mechanism of particle decay ages ago. Einstein shot physics in the foot. Big time. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. In the weeks and months ahead, I will present other examples of Einstein's negative influence on scientific progress.
Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion
Why Einstein's Physics Is Crap
How To Falsify Einstein's Physics, For Dummies
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime
Physics: The Problem with Motion