Quantum Theory, Propertons and the GGU-model

Robert A. Herrmann, Ph.D.
20 AUG 2010. Last revision 11 FEB 2016.

The modern Quantum Theory (mechanics), QT, interpretation has been considered by many, within the creationary science movement, as an "enemy." Two basic reasons for this modern interpretation are the notation of randomness and the philosophically assumed (general) indeterminacy principle. These ideas are apparently required as a foundation for quantum theory. As shown elsewhere The Wondrous Design and non-random Character of Chance Events, probabilistic behavior does not result from behavior that is actually random in character, but it is intelligently designed by an higher-intelligence.

Secular QT, as with other scientific notions, is language dependent. Indeed, the term random can be eliminated from any discussion and a different term - mindom - applied. The term "mindom" comes from a different language and means that probabilistic behavior is maintained but the pattern is designed and produced by an higher-intelligence. It also implies that what might be considered as "random" fluctuations in behavior is actually mindom fluctuations in behavior. That is, an higher-intelligence has designed the behavior. The notion of an higher-intelligence is not part of the language of secular QT. There is no rational reason for not allowing this additional term as well as all the other testable and appropriate intelligently designed notions as part of QT.

The "lawless" notion is another way to describe the modern indeterminacy principle, which is also called the "uncertainty principle." It has changed from a problem with measuring physical characteristics for microphysical objects to a full-blown general "law of nature." What is the actual essence of this "law"? The following quotations describe its core meaning.

[T]he term "indeterminacy principle" is more appropriate than the commonly used term "uncertainty principle." For, as far as any physically observable variables is concerned, it is not to be supposed that these are just "uncertain" to us, because we are not able to measure them with complete precision. Rather, one assumes that their very mode of being requires them to be indeterminate (Bohm, p. 85).

[T]he renunciation of causality in the usual interpretation of QT is not to be regarded as merely the result of our inability to measure the precise values of the variables that would enter into the expression of a casual law at the atomic level, but, rather, it should be regarded as a reflection of the fact the no such laws exist (Bohm, p. 86†).

[S]uch phenomena are not restricted to just those things that go on in the atomic domain alone, nor just to "hidden" or unobservable properties of things. Real and observable physical phenomena are being assumed to have no causes (Bohm, p. 86).

There is a result established by J. von Neumann (1932) that involves things called hidden variables. Some call such variables "metaphysical."

Thus the name of "indeterminacy principle" is further justified, for now we are led to conclude that the question of "metaphysical" variables about whose values we are uncertain cannot even arise (Bohm, p. 86)

In general, however, measurements carried out on individual atoms or individual quanta with such types of [modern] apparatus produce results that show an irregular fluctuation from one observation to the next, with a regular mean behavior in a statistical aggregate containing a large number of observations. This regular mean behavior can be predicted to a high degree of approximation in terms of the present quantum theory from the Schrödinger wave function with the aid of the probability. But the existing QT yields no way even in principle of predicting how the individual measurements will fluctuate from one case to the next (Bohm, pp. 86-87).

Thus, one is led to the conclusion that the precise manner of occurrence of these irregular fluctuations cannot be traced by means of experiments to any kind of cause at all, and that, indeed, it does not have any causes (Bohm, p. 87).

Hence, in the usual interpretation of the QT, there is simply no room anywhere for the assumption of additional causal factors to which one could even in principle ascribe the origin of the precise details of the irregular fluctuations in the results of measurements of the properties of individual atoms (Bohm, p. 88).

This produces an often unmentioned logical quagmire when presented with a question that is not asked by secular scientists. How does nature cause a large aggregate to have such a predictable mean while not causing specific individuals to behavior in a truly predictable way or to be related one to another? There is more then one answer to this. There are deterministic mathematical models that yield what is claimed to be "random" behavior that does converge to these mean values. But, of course, these are simply rejected as not QT related. And, certainly, the higher-intelligence mindom answer is ridiculed and rejected. Obviously, either of these can be added to the language of QT.

This view entails that these secular scientists consider themselves as the highest of all intelligent agents. The theories they have constructed must be perfect. In order for this to be so, "nature" must be imperfect and not precise. If they cannot describe a cause for such behavior using a specific secular language, then the cause does not exist. QT, in their view, is the ultimate theory and no additions or alterations are allowed. Indeed, some adhere to following very absurd generalization that cannot be verified.

But in the usual interpretation of the QT, an atom has no properties at all when it is not observed (Bohm, p. 92).

Of course, one can simply accept that since we must use the same physical entities to measure characteristics of the same physical entities that a type of circular reasoning would occur. Although Bohm points it out, it is rather self-evident that all known scientific theories are "restricted to specific domains of application." Further, such a theory is restricted to specific terminology. For such a domain, it is not necessary to justify, via the indeterminacy principle, the hypothesis that undetectable virtual particles or processes exist. Of course, no such entities need to actually exist. One can assume that they are but analogue in character. That is, they are used to model behavior, which we cannot otherwise comprehend. We have been accorded a remarkable intuition and modes of creative thought that allow us to predict certain aspects of physical behavior. This does not mean what we hypothesize exists in physical reality.

The probability that a specific event will occur can be predicted. But, whether an individual, among a collection of objects, will actually yield the event cannot be predicted by QT. For example, it is predicted that 4% of the photons emitted from a photon source will be "reflected" in a specific direction from a piece of glass. If one considers but one photon, then we have no means to predict that that specific photon will be reflected. The same holds for one of Bohm's examples.

In a large aggregate of such nuclei, the precise time of decay of an individual nucleus fluctuates irregularly from one nucleus to another, but the mean is predictable (Bohm, p. 88). [We cannot predict, using QT, that a specific uranium nucleus will decay during a 10-year time interval. But, there is a probability that "some" nuclei will decay. The collection does follow a pattern dictated by a statistical distribution. However, the mean is predicted to be 2 billion years. So, actually testing this mean is hardly possible.] (For this quotation, I point out that a statistical distribution is usually a mathematical expression.)

Is it important that we have such knowledge? It is if we consider ourselves all-knowing. For if we are all-knowing, then our inability to predict what happens to a particular photon must imply that "nothing" knows whether it is to be reflected. That is, there is no causal statement that determines in a precise manner whether it will or will not be reflected. In my view, this is but a weakness in our mental abilities, a necessary weakness in QT. Indeed, the GGU-model and GID uphold the statement that we lack secular knowledge as to all of the actual principles that can be used to predict our universe's behavior. These models predict that there is considerable information about the actual behavioral aspects of our universe that is beyond our comprehension and will remain so while we remain physical entities. Apparently, we can know enough to generally survive within our present physical environment.

It is important to emphasize the role played by the probabilistic mimicking ultralogic Pi. When one considers the actual appearance of a sequence of events, the patterns (1) and (2) in processes.htm are hidden. What these displays indicate is that the events E(i) and E'(j) satisfy these patterns. Hence, the sequence of events that reveals a real fluctuation in a parameter's value is intelligently designed by an higher-intelligence. The irregular but probabilistically predicted behavior satisfies the Pi model. Properton formations, as described below, yield these probabilistic results. For our specific universe, this gives a strong additional signature that an higher-intelligence designs all such probabilistic behavior.

It is self-evident that, for our present universe and for our survival, it would be exceptionally poor design to have all the nuclei of specific radioactive substances suddenly decay at the same moment. To avoid this, a specific design has been incorporated into the behavior of all physical entities so that humanly constructed theories, including QT, are sufficient.

For it is quite possible that while the quantum theory, and with it the indeterminacy principle, are valid to a very high degree of approximation in a certain domain, they both cease to have relevance in new domains below that in which the current theory is applicable (Bohm, p. 95).

Bohm has purposed a new (hidden) entity that is distinct from those in the domain applicable to QT as a type of cause for the assumed random fluctuations associated with the QT domain (Bohm, p. 111). This new entity also undergoes random fluctuations. However, it is not necessary that there be entities that do not interact with the QT domain in the manner dictated by QT in order to have a cause that produces the altered characteristics termed as "random" fluctuations. We now can accept that they are mindom alterations in behavior.

There are different physical interpretations (descriptions) as to how such behavior is produced. This includes Bohm's attempt, where he uses a "subquantum" region as a cause for quantum physical behavior. But, some of these are contradictory. The physical community can be divided into different "schools" depending upon the interpretation chosen by its members. There is the interpretation called the instrumentalist interpretation which seems to avoid all such physical interpretations and merely calculates quantum physical behavior. QT is but an instrument, a tool, for predicting behavior. The logical positivist's school rejects the unobservable entities postulated by QT. The definitions of these categories are much too inflexible for my contributions to be included in either. Personally, I accept that much of QT is imaginary and is but an instrument to calculate. But, I do not accept other aspects of these two philosophic stances. (See this article for further details of my stance.)

There are aspects of quantum mechanics that these different schools attempt to comprehend. One considers actual behavior that is independent from measuring devices. Others require devices to measure, in various ways, the occurrence of an event. That is, a physical event occurs but there is no device that indicates that it has occurred. Or there are devices that indicate that a physical event or events have occurred. Is the behavior of such physical events, even if it’s not measured, probabilistic in nature? Or is the measurement somehow or other simply altering the problem and we can’t know exactly what has occurred?

A fixed frequency of light is aimed at an angle towards a piece of glass, a photomultiplier is used and it indicates that only 4% of the photons are “reflected” from the surface in a particular direction. A probabilistic model predicts the same thing. Is the presence of the photomultiplier somehow or other yielding a false measurement and in “reality” many more photons have been reflected? Or is there really only 4% of the photons reflecting and the photomultiplier is correct? Or is it a combination of both? Then, of course, there is the school that claims that physical properties exist only when they are measured. This gives measuring devices the most prominent role within quantum theory and subatomic particles have no properties until one attempts to measure them.

Answers to such questions are irrelevant from the viewpoint of the GGU-model. It shows that there is a sequence of events and an ultralogic that models various probabilistically produced events. Various, but general, processes are describable using GGU-model language. These processes also indicate that such behavior is designed by an higher-intelligence in such a way that what we glean as natural laws are satisfied. Thus, for the GGU-model, processes within QT do not cause any event to occur. What does occur simply satisfies the QT predictions.

Depending upon a preponderance of actual physical evidence, I accept that a few particle-like entities probably exist in physical reality. But properton theory actually does not require any of the unobservable hypothesized QT entities to exist in physical reality. Thus, QT is an analogue model for what may not be otherwise comprehensible by the secular scientist. In particular, my analogue model approach applies to quantum field theory as well as any string theory that some might accept. Most proposed immaterial fields need not exist in physical reality. There are entities, propertons and simple properton mechanisms, that yield physical events. Propertons are not postulated as are the unobservable QT entities. They are predicted, via generalization, from a well-known measurable property of light. Certain predicted probabilistic behavior is physical fact. This means that it is the probabilistic behavior that is intelligently design by an higher-intelligence. This behavior is necessarily coupled with mindom related measurements. Assuming that many other in-depth descriptions are physical fact is unnecessary. In the Appendix is a portion of my article "What Can Be Known." It and a special look at an ad hoc model give additional insight into my view of QT.

How is all of this possible? How is it possible that measurements taken at different times can lead to the same mean result? Here is how. One aspect of properton theory can be used to control all of this. For physical-systems only, the function Gλ(q,r) is the "gathering" or "binding" operator. From a set-theoretic viewpoint for physical-systems, this operator simply gathers ultra-propertons into bound subsets named intermediate propertons. For our universe, these subsets are further gathered into bound sets (configurations) that represent, for our comprehension and modeling purposes, the elementary particles. This operation continues, as necessary, to bind sets that, when realized, yield, using "meaningful" hyper-instructions-sets, an increasing complexity of physical and physical-like systems. Each moment during the development of our universe, these processes yield an "info-field." The realization operator "St" (the standard part operator) is applied to an info-field and the entire physical universe appears at that moment. But, at each following moment, the pre-design can yield a different info-field and its activation yields a universe that satisfies the QT theoretic prediction.

Of considerable significance is that each properton combination can actually carry a "name" that is different from all others. An higher-intelligent has no difficulty in retaining these names from one moment to the next since all aspects of this behavior are pre-designed. I note that these names are not part of the language used for any secular theory requiring entities to be "identical." Indeed, when properton gatherings are realized via affine and linear transformations, the names are not revealed.

The actual hyperfinite number of ultra-propertons employed is unknown since the numerical characterizations we use are either arbitrary or unit dependent. Then the theory predicted statistical variations are exhibited by E'(j); an entity that is actually selected, from a vast array of designed possibilities, by hyperfast propertons.

Beyond the language of propertons, there is a reason why we have no unique detailed physical interpretation for the region of QT application. There need not be any that uses any human language or any mode of human thought. We are not all-knowing. For major aspects of properton theory and GGU-model mechanisms, this also holds.

Thus, they are, at the least, two entirely different collections of foundational entities that predict the exact same physical objects and behavior that can be sensed by human beings or machines, which we build, via the predicted behavior of gross matter. In general, the GGU-model has a complete secular interpretation, where all universe creating and sustaining entities and processes can be considered as physical but only indirectly detectable. That is, they can be included in a list of physical entities. On the other hand, they need not be included in such a list. Hence, which theory one accepts is a matter of philosophic choice.

Although not originally so constructed, in its new foundations, the GGU-model and its operators are not based upon any hypotheses that are not observable. The GGU-model is based upon observable behavior and this behavior mathematically predicts the substratum "ultra" objects and their behavior. The secular choice does not negate the GID interpretation. Since logical discourse is language dependent, then there can be a problem that what one includes in a list of physical entities can lead to contradictions for the language employed. Such contradictions are eliminated by using a different language and its corresponding logic-system and by considering the "Best Possible Unification" (Herrmann, 2004).

As for physical properties, from the construction of the GGU-model and GID interpretation, at any instant of primitive time there are values that characterize each physical entity. Every physical action we make in an attempt to measure these values is sustained by higher-intelligence processes. Due to the processes of measurement, properton formations correspond to these values. Properton "coordinate" values are exact at any moment of primitive time, but can vary at other moments. These mindom fluctuations lead to meaningful values that we can use for various investigations.

In summary, the "modern" interpretations of QT made by members of the secular physical science community are designed for one purpose. They egotistically claim that they have or soon will discover "every" physical law that governs the development of our universe. So, the QT statement that physical behavior is probabilistic is not because scientists are not intelligent enough to completely comprehend a cause but, rather, it is a fault of "nature." It is claimed that nature simply behaves in a random manner. The GGU-model with its GID interpretation is a viable scientific model that refutes this contention. It shows that probabilistic behavior is maintained but the pattern is designed by an higher-intelligence. What might be considered as "random" fluctuations in behavior or measurements are actually designed mindom fluctuations. This is, an higher-intelligence designs the behavior. And, we are not an higher-intelligence and we do not possess an higher-language. Rather than rejecting QT predicted behavior, such behavior is actually one of the strongest indicators for the existence of a designer - an higher-intelligence - an intelligence that we cannot duplicate.


There is an interesting new result, obtained via MRI-style brain imaging techniques, that implies that individuals like physicists are, as C. S. Lewis states, "slaves to picture thinking," while those who contemplate "spiritual" things use different brain pathways. The existence of these designed pathways verifies various Biblical implications that each human being is, in an unbiased manner, capable of contemplating spiritual matters. The researchers did not check out people like myself who use combined "pathways" for physical-like thinking. I have warned individuals of the dangers of being dominated by images. That is, considering such visually understood images, images that correspond to human physical senses, senses that cannot be duplicated in the physical region being investigated, and accepting them as true representations for physical reality.

I attribute such pathway differences as design differences. However, in mathematics the imagination and images are employed. For example, there is now a method to imagine the completed infinite. On the other hand, intuition and conceptual thinking is also highly significant. So, mathematicians are, hopefully, not slaves to picture thinking.

Such brain pathways need not be activated to any great degree or they can be activated and coupled with numerous many thoughts in the hopes of negating any positive spiritual effects that may arise. These thoughts can lead to overt actions directed against the activities directed by the Biblical God.

Assuming that an electron is a small particle and it interacts with a small bundle of something called a photon and various, but not all, properties are transferred is useful until one considers the question, "How is this transfer possible?" This can be passed off as not answerable and placed into the category of a primitive process, or one can further invent other images such as clouds of photons surrounding a bare electron. But, then the all-knowing quantum field theorists enter the picture and insist that this is not so. Actually what seems to be an electron is not as we perceive it to be in our imagination but it is rather a ripple in a quantum field. A vibration of "something" that cannot even be visualized, things we are told that somehow or other "carry" particle properties. The facts are that propertons do not require that there be something that vibrates so as to obtain a particle's total energy via Planck's constant.

But what actually is the notion of a quantum field? It is a mathematical construct. For example, a Hermitian (boson) scalar quantum field is an operator valued distribution. Indeed, one operator is called the "creation" operator, which is not what the term implies for creationary science. The state space is some suitable separable Hilbert space with a distinguished state, the vacuum. The observables are actually but operators. This behavior as well as "various properties of relativistic invariance, microscopic causality and regularity of the field are assumed." The "numbers" considered are the complex numbers and for a Euclidean point we have pure imaginary time. Assuming that the Standard Model is foundational, then does this mathematical structure need to correspond to an actual physical entity? No, since again properton formations can be used where they satisfy these rules. A widespread mathematical model, the geometric vector field and the vector calculus, is employed millions of times a day in physical science and engineering. Yet, I know of no one who has suggested that these mathematical objects exist in physical reality. Both mathematical structures should be considered as mathematical predictors for behavior that, unless theological concepts are employed, we simply cannot otherwise comprehend.

But, even at that, problems ensue with the necessity of "fine tuning" for the design of our universe. If this is truly the way it operates, then this all seems to strongly imply that our universe is constructed in a very special way, maybe, by a higher-intelligence. Of course, this won't do, so we invent something else, sparticles, to compensate for this fine-turning among other aspects of the Standard Model some do not appreciate. Actually sparticles don't actually eliminate a type of fine-tuning since there are 105 more free constants that need to be determined rather than the usual 20. As yet there is no gross matter behavior that indicates that the sparticle notion has merit. But, a problem with unifying all of this with gravity occurs.

So, lets invent a different primitive. Don't imagine particles as "small" entities that appear when fields ripple enough but visualize the particle as "strings" that stretch when they gain energy and give up energy when they contract like a rubber band. The energy comes from the vibrations exactly like energy is produced via a quantum field. Of course, one should not tell the world that this is how the physical world "actually" behaves but rather, when modeled, cloud these images with a vast amount of highly complex mathematics.

Aspects of imagined particles and strings do correspond to observed macroscopic physical entities. But, should these macroscopic observations, in any way, be assumed to correspond directly to objects that cannot be so observed? The basic construction of the ultra-properton is predicted from observed electromagnetic classical field behavior. It is not first imagined. It is not hypothesized. I note that a classical field is not a quantum field. Then there is only one type of ultra-properton. Remarkably, all of physical reality is but composed of bounded collections of ultra-propertons. These collections are modified from one instant to another by merely rearranging the collections to obtain other appropriate collections.

Now, if I were to continue this description and state the "number" of such propertons that are so gathered, then imagination ceases to be helpful. There needs to be a pure non-physical hyperfinite combination in order to obtain an intermediate properton, a named gathering, that will exhibit just a single physical characteristic. Now such a combination behaves as if it is a finite combination from the substratum world viewpoint. But if compared to our concept of the finite, it has an additional property. It is actually a highly infinite combination. This is not a contradiction since two distinct languages are employed. This infinite notion is not the one that we can now imagine. The actual hyperfinite number employed is unknown since the numerical values we use are either arbitrary or unit dependent.

How can we predict what the rearrangements will be so as to control, as best as we can, our environment? This is done by simply employing the mathematical aspects of quantum theory relative to properties as an instrument for calculation and nothing more than that.

Although it should not be considered as a true realization since propertons properties should meanly be operationally described, in my book, "Science Declares Our Universe is Intelligently Designed," I do mention that it might be useful when propertons are considered as grouped into collections that one image them as "straws," where properties correspond to different colors (p. 127). But, such images are only used to more easily describe the basic behavioral aspects and are not to be considered as related to any possible physical appearance. In this book, propertons are called "subparticles" and I wish I had never used the term. Original, I called them "infants," another poor term. The name "properton" comes from the word "property."


Bohm, David, "Causality and Chance in Modern Physics," Harper Torchbooks, Harper & Brothers, NY, 1957.

Herrmann, R. A. "The best possible unification for any collection of physical theories." International J. of Math. and Math. Sci., 17(2004):861-872. http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0306147

Click back button, or if you retrieved this file directly from the Internet, then return to top of home page. If you retrieved this file while on my website, then return to top of home page.