The attached paper is a further attempt of implementing the Space Time Quantum Uncertainty (STQU) as a key tool to boost the outlooks of the theoretical Chemistry. The aim is to highlight the usefulness of the kind of approach alternative to the Operator Formalism of Wave Mechanics (OFWM) already emphasized in several papers, two of which recently submitted to the attention of the Community.

The proposed standpoint reverses the way of tackling the theoretical problems: instead of regarding the uncertainty as byproduct of OFWM, the STQU becomes the keystone to decode the reality. In effect it is easy to demonstrate that OFWM is a corollary of the more general concept of STQU, which directly descends itself from the concept of space time and thus, just for this reason, reasonably includes even the relativity.

Besides the scientific implications, are shortly addressed here two significant reasons to compare the outcomes of the probabilistic wave formalism and the agnostic concept of uncertainty.

-Einstein’s aversion to the newborn quantum theory, as early formulated, is comprehensible: at that time, the operator formalism required generalizing the Euclidean space to a vector space where are defined mathematical objects called wave functions. However the *abstract* Hilbert space seemed to Einstein very far from His successful 4D *physical* space-time accounting for covariancy of physical laws and unexpected gravitational phenomena.

-Correctly Einstein, while pondering the probabilistic core of the OFWM, doubted the idea of God playing dice. Fortunately, an alternative to this inauspicious yet unavoidable conclusion exists: the operative validity of the agnostic concept of uncertainty, regarded as actual basis of the quantum world, merely implies the more sound, pleasant and friendly concept of God putting an unsurmountable limit to our knowledge.

Everything considered, however, Einstein’s skepticism about the early formulation of the OFWM appears surprisingly prophetic: His intuition correctly guessed the difficulty of bridging quantum and relativistic visions, which instead appears simple and straightforward considering the more general standpoint of the STQU. Unfortunately He did not realize two points: 1) the deterministic metrics and its mathematical tool, the tensor calculus, were the “original sins” of the relativity manifestly conflicting with Heisenberg’s requirements; 2) the necessity of replacing OFWM with STQU, which by definition introduces explicitly just Heisenberg-like ranges of dynamical variables.

The seminal paper of Dirac on the hydrogen atom shows the necessity of implementing relativistic concepts to approach correctly the electron correlation, i.e. in the conceptual frame of the “High Energy Chemistry”.

Is attracting the idea of STQU on which are rooted quantum and relativistic principles, both inferable as corollaries; this point is shortly quoted in the attached paper. On the one hand the way to describe quantum and macro worlds proceeds alongside ideas bifurcating from and compatible with the initial amount of information allowed by their unique root. On the other hand appears astonishing the heuristic worth of the STQU, whose inherent agnosticism does not preclude anyway advancement of knowledge [1].

[1] “Fatti non foste a viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza” [*Mankind was created not to live brute blindness, but to follow truth and knowledge*], D. Alighieri, Divina Commedia (1306-1321), **** Canto XXVI, 119-120.

Add a comment