|
Syntropy in
Physics
It has proved difficult to unify
quantum theory and relativity theory into a general theory of physical
reality. The wave equation of Schrödinger which is fundamental to
quantum theory is not invariant as demanded by relativity theory. In
1926, therefore, Klein and Gordon developed the equation of Schrödinger
into an equation that is invariant according to relativity theory by
inserting the energy/momentum/mass relation. The expression for energy
resulting from this equation (e2=p2+m2) has two solutions for energy,
one positive and one negative. According to relativity theory negative
energy is possible, but this will propagate in the opposite direction in
time, that is from the future towards the past.
This astonishing
result raised the question whether such an inversion of time may have
anything to do with reality. To test this Dirac applied this
energy/momentum/mass equation to the study of the electron. He thus
discovered the equation for the anti-particle of the electron which does
in fact propagate inversely as regards time, that is from the future
towards the past. Such anti-electrons, or positrons as they were called,
were in fact discovered in 1932 by Carl Anderson in cosmic radiation.
Later Feynman has proved that not only electrons, but all known
elementary particles have anti-particles. The concept of negative energy
and the idea that physical processes can propagate both forwards and
backwards in time, are thus to day a part of modern physics.
When the wave
equation of Schrödinger is made invariant according to relativity
theory, it will therefore always give as a solution a double wave: one
wave which is called ‘retarded wave’ (propagating forwards in time that
is from the past towards the future) and one wave which is called
‘advanced wave’ (propagating backwards in time, i.e. from the future
towards the present). The original wave equation of Schrödinger has on
the other hand only one solution, corresponding to retarded waves. It is
this solution based on retarded waves we learn about in the physics that
is usually taught in our universities and which we all know from what we
learned in school. The other solution implying advanced waves, i.e.
waves that propagate from the future towards the present and the past,
has not become a part of the physics we are usually taught because
physicists in general have taught that it has no real place in reality
as we know it.
Some physicists,
however, have taken this other solution of advanced waves seriously.
Both Costa de Beauregard (1953) and Cramer (1986) have thus proved that
the famous EPR paradox which Einstein emphasised in his criticism of
quantum theory, disappeared as soon as you take advanced waves seriously
in physics. Another scientist who took this solution of advanced waves
seriously and was struck by the new possibilities it opens in our
understanding of reality, was the Italian mathematician Luigi Fantappiè.
It is first of all due to him we have the theory of syntropy. In a
letter to a friend he gives a vivid description of how he got aware of
the law of syntropy, and how it struck him as a lightening that this
might give us a key to understand the mystery of life and consciousness:
“I have no doubts
about the date when I discovered the law of syntropy. It was in the days
just before Christmas 194, when as a consequence of conversations with
two colleagues, a physicist and a biologist, I was suddenly projected in
a new panorama, which radically changed the vision of science and the
Universe which I had inherited from my teachers and which I had always
considered the strong and certain ground on which to base my scientific
investigations. Suddenly I saw the possibility of interpreting a wide
range of solutions (the anticipated potentials) of the wave equation
which can be considered the fundamental law of the Universe. These
solutions had been always rejected as “impossible”, but suddenly they
appeared as “possible”, and they explained a new category of phenomena
which I later named “syntropic”, totally different from the entropic
ones, of the mechanical, physical and chemical laws, which obey only the
principle of classical causation and the law of entropy. Syntropic
phenomena, which are instead represented by those strange solutions of
the “anticipated potentials”, should obey two opposite principles of
finality (moved by a final cause placed in the future, and not by a
cause which is placed in the past): differentiation and non-causable in
a laboratory. This last characteristic explained why this type of
phenomena had never been reproduced in a laboratory, and its finalistic
properties justified the refusal among scientists, who accepted without
any doubt the assumption that finalism is a “metaphysical” principle
outside Science and Nature. His assumption obstructed the way to a calm
investigation of the real existence of this second type of phenomena; an
investigation I accepted to carry out, even though I felt as if I were
falling into an abyss, with incredible consequences and conclusions. It
suddenly seemed as if the sky were falling apart, or at least the
certainties on which mechanical science had based its assumptions. It
appeared to me clear that these “syntropic”, finalistic phenomena which
lead to differentiation and could not be reproduced in a laboratory,
were real, and existed in nature, as I could recognize them in the
living systems. The properties of this new law opened consequences which
were just incredible and which could deeply change the biological,
medical, psychological, and social sciences.”
When we have chosen to render the words of Fantappiè
in extent it is to illustrate through his own words how the theory of
syntropy came to him as an overwhelming intuition, a sudden mathematical
insight which shed light on different sides of reality and put them into
a general context. Other people have later taken up the concept
‘syntropy’ and given it somewhat different meanings. But it is Fantappiè
who deserves the honour of having created the concept and formulated it
into a theory based on mathematical insight.
It is important to
emphasise as Fantappiè does that syntropic phenomena do not depend on
causes placed in the past and accordingly have “never been reproduced in
a laboratory”. He understands why such “finalistic properties” justifies
“the refusal among scientists” who have accepted “without any doubt the
assumption that finalism is a ‘metaphysical’ principle outside Science
and Nature”. But this has “obstructed the way to a calm investigation of
the real existence of this second type of phenomena”. It was this task
Fantappiè chose for himself, although he felt as if he was “falling into
an abyss with incredible consequences and conclusions”.
The discovery of
anti-particles that move in the opposite direction as regards time,
implies a concept of time where past and future are symmetric to each
other. For a true physicist, like Einstein once formulated it in a
famous citation, time propagating forwards as we ordinary people
experience it, is an illusion. This symmetry of time is an equally clear
brake with ordinary, intuitive experience of reality as the discovery
through earlier scientific revolutions that the Earth is round and not
flat, and that in fact it does circulate around the Sun, and not the
opposite as we seem to experience every day. It is therefore not strange
that this is an understanding that so far has received little popular
attention. This is a kind of comprehension it takes a long time for
humanity to digest. We are as yet in this respect in the same situation
as the plurality of mankind who continued to believe that the Earth was
flat a long time after it was discovered that it is round, and those who
continued to believe that the Sun circulated around the Earth a long
time after Copernicus had proved the opposite. In all these cases it is
a question of a more universal understanding of reality which is
replacing our ingrown, daily understanding of reality. This is, however,
indeed the way of science towards ever more universal laws.
The concept of
syntropy is thus a consequence of quantum theory and relativity theory
and accordingly a part of modern physics. The great discovery of
Fantappiè was that although this concept at first glance seemed little
relevant in physics, it was a highly interesting concept in relation to
other sciences, like biology, psychology and sociology. His conclusion
is that syntropy actually relates to something essential for all living
beings: “Let us conclude by looking at what we can say about life.
What makes life different is the presence of syntropic qualities:
finalities, goals and attractors. Now as we consider causality the
essence of the entropic world, it is natural to consider finality the
essence of the syntropic world. It is therefore possible to say that the
essence of life are final causes, syntropy. Living means tending to
attractors (....) the law of life is not the law of mechanical causes;
this is the law of non-life, the law of death, the law of entropy; the
law which dominates life is the law of finalities, the law of syntropy.”
(Syntropi.it 2005, 1:79)
Fantappiè presented
his theory in Academia d’Italia October 30th 1942 as a book
with the title ‘Principia di una teoria unitaria del mondo fisico e
biologico’. He claims that syntropic phenomena in a way invert the 2nd
law of thermodynamics giving a reduction of entropy and an increasing
differentiation and organisation. In discrete areas converging waves
from the future will cause a concentration of matter and energy. This
syntropic effect, however, can not develop beyond certain limits and
will be counteracted by entropic processes. In nature entropic processes
and syntropic phenomena are in continual interaction. The theory
introduces final causes in the life sciences. A new scientific
methodology is needed to study syntropic phenomena because the usual
experimental methodology only is suited to verify causes localized in
the past.
Syntropy is thus a
consequence of relativity theory and quantum theory and is accordingly a
part of modern science. And, as Fantappiè emphasises this is a concept
which has an enormous relevance in the life sciences. It is therefore
strange that this has not been given much attention and interest in
fields like biology, medicine, psychology and sociology. The explanation
is probably that this demands a leap in our comprehension of similar
dimensions as the realization that the Earth is round, that it is
turning around its own axis and circulating around the Sun. The general
scientific mode of thinking in other fields than physics has not yet
reached this level of abstraction. They operate with a level of physical
insight that has hardly yet reached the 20th or 21st
century.
|
