• Deviation from Reality: While technologies have been advancing successfully, the fundamental understanding of actual processes in nature has not only stalled for almost 50 years, it has seriously deviated into justifying mysticism by promoting non-causality, non-locality, teleportation, multi-universe, etc., which are hard to experimentally invalidate.

• “Nobody understands Quantum Mechanics” even though it works!: If nobody understands QM even after 82 years’ of developing the formalism and its successful predictions, then we ought to acknowledge that there is some serious flaw with our epistemology to map or understand nature. Interpretation of QM and its successes to predict observations are not mutually congruent in seeking actual reality in nature. Classical physics, by being faithfully congruent to seeking reality in nature, gave birth to QM. But QM has failed to give birth to its progeny due its assumption that it is “complete”.

• From Geocentric to Homocentric: After overriding Ptolemy’s Geocentric vision, we are back on imposing Homocentric vision on all the enquiring minds by re-directing them to model nature as dictated by our human mathematical logic, instead of seeking actual reality. Being stifled by the quantum philosophy, we are emulating the ‘invention culture’ from our technological successes and imposing that on to physics. We are now deeply engaged in inventing realities rather than discovering the actual realities behind nature’s evolutionary processes.

• Cosmic vs. Human logic & CC-LC-ER epistemology: Our cumulative experience indicates that nature’s evolutionary processes consist of logical patterns & organizations. Although only partial, our consistent successes have been based on applying limited human logic to reach out to unknown cosmic logic. Our efforts to refine and elevate human logic to possible cosmic logic has been advancing based on the model of CC-LC – pro-actively extend Conceptual Continuity among as many diverse natural phenomena as possible by imposing Logical Congruence. Our belief in this CC-LC epistemology and intuitive faith in one continuous and logically functioning universe have been paying off enormously. Current physics has been developed based essentially on reductionism, matter into elementary particles and radiations into photons. We have neglected to incorporate formalism that articulates emergence of properties and rules of interactions in and between complex systems that constitute our regular observable universe. We now need to add another iterative feed back loop of Reductionism and Emergence-ism, CC-LC-ER epistemology, which should enhance the unifiability of our separate models or maps of nature.

• “Did the tree fall?”: We now know that all advanced specie contain large assembly of diverse symbiotic and some non-symbiotic organisms. Our 10 trillion-cell human body carries 100 trillion diverse symbiotic microbes. To what extent our human thought processes are influenced by the convergent-divergent self interests of these two groups of co-habiting cells? In the absence of any human being in a forest, the fallen trees are properly taken care of by trillions of local microbes and more “advanced” organisms! Homocentric philosophies are counter to our healthy evolution.

• Conscious Epistemology: Do we really understand how our thinking process evolves? Can we identify & understand how all the factors that influence our conclusions after collating diverse observations? Epistemological awareness is crucial for us.

• Vision: The grand vision is to nurture the emergence of a global culture that accepts the responsibility of pro-active conscious designing of our future as the basis for our sustainable evolution within the biosphere.

The scientific vision is to re-establish physics as a discipline that is firmly engaged to discover the objective reality of nature as it happens, rather than inventing mathematically self-congruent model of homocentric reality and impose that on the nature. The idea is to continuously explore visualize and imagine the actual processes that are going on behind all the various interactions leading to incessant evolution of the biospheric and the cosmo-spheric evolutions.

Pragmatic dimension: Sustainable evolution is the prime desire evident form the genetic coding of all the specie. We need continuous expansion of our knowledge of various organizational structures in nature to develop newer technological tools products and engineering for our well being that are congruent with the rules of interactions in nature. Thus looking at nature as a creative system engineer and behaving ourselves as reverse engineers to emulate nature’s processes is the best successful model for us. Science engineering economics and politics are inseparable social enterprises for our survival.

• Spiritual dimension: What are the meaning and purpose of our lives? Can we control and design our fate? The emergence of the spiritual dimension out of our scientific (reverse engineer) thinking started taking shape as we slowly started to appreciate the ever harmonizing organizations behind diverse processes in nature. We realized the dialectical state of our fate in nature – we are simultaneously the masters of our well being and yet insignificant ‘pawn’ in the evolutionary scheme of things in the “infinite” cosmos.

• Approach, the p-cubed methodology: The ultimate purpose of the scientific enterprise is to become the best possible creative reverse engineers, extract the organizational rules behind ongoing processes in nature and then emulate them as beneficial technologies that are congruent with our sustainable evolution, since we need a long long time to understand the real purpose of the cosmic evolution and our role in it. Nature is our best peer. Sustainable engineering activities will keep us anchored to nature’s reality.

• Prime directive: Live and let live. Today we know enough to destroy the biosphere and hence ourselves, and yet we are not knowledgeable enough to model and nurture the biosphere in every scientific detail to assure our co-dependent survival. And we are very far from becoming space-farer en-masse to migrate to another earth-like planet.

• Nature is a creative system engineer: Irrespective of our diverse spiritual believes, we have been successfully evolving for millennia in human form as reverse engineers by developing technologies (from discovering fire and rockets to medicine delivering nano particles in blood) by understanding & emulating the working processes and the underlying working rules behind diverse natural phenomena.

• Science-technology-economy-politics (STEP) and sustainable evolution: In every step of our evolution from primitive to modern days, STEP functions have always necessarily been and always will be inseparable from each other because the sustainable evolution is our prime directive and embedded in our genes.

• STEP leads to enquiry based spiritualism, or becomes STEPS: Healthy spirituality, or the enquiry about meaning, purpose and future vision of life, individualistic or biospheric, evolves through systematic observation of nature’s evolutionary processes. We find the organizational patterns and working rules in them and then use those rules intelligently for our personal evolution congruent with the collective evolution.

• Like all social enterprises, i-sqaure-EPR will have a focused objective: It is scientific - keep on mapping nature’s interaction processes with increasingly higher level of integrations of wide ranging natural phenomena. But our “guiding star” is the aspiration to understand the meaning & purpose of the cosmic evolution and our role in it by being a facilitator to sustainable evolution by promoting technology innovations as creative-reverse-engineers!

• A Virtual Global Institute: A limited number of agreeable institutions from several countries will organize their own local institutes (i-EPR) at their own cost, congruent with their institutional mission and local governance. All these i-EPR will adhere to the core vision of the i-sqaure-EPR. The international virtual global center, composed of representatives from all the i-EPR’s, will have the role of a facilitator. Because funding is local, all the research activities will reside in the local institutes. The international body will only facilitate the coordination of the short- and long-term research programs to be complementary to each other to maximize the collective speed and productivity of all.

• Organizational principle: We shall emulate to the best of our knowledge the organizational principles behind the best organically evolving system to our knowledge – the collective evolution of lives in the biosphere. They are driven by (i) symbiosis, (ii) synergy and (iii) food-chain (iv) eco-driven (v) competition. It is not pure “survival of the fittest”. The organizational principles must be pro-actively congruent towards empowerment of the local centers and individual researchers and rules must be designed for guiding rather than controlling and stifling activities.

• Dichotomy of academic freedom and strangulation: All important human social enterprises are meant to be organized and managed to maximize the collective benefit to the entire society – empowerment of all by allowing development of knew knowledge and their dissemination. Unfortunately, self-interests of well organized groups have always taken precedence. New knowledge and information are used to maintain the privileged position and the associated benefits. The livelihood (economic survival) depends upon being able to “fit into” the main stream. “Acceptance” and “Group-think” are pragmatism! [See Smolin’s book]. New scientific concepts that can potentially challenge those currently in main stream, can challenge the structural power and access to limited Government funds from those who are in decision making positions including all those who rely on the benefits percolating down from these power positions. Thus, “nobody understands quantum mechanics” is not sufficient reason to challenge the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Teleportation and Quantum Computing are drawing enormous funds!

• Why Global? Avoid strangulation: Only properly funded institutions can attract brilliant minds. Academic institutions are still the biggest draw of minds. Thus, a university would be the best place to start such a research institute. Unfortunately, an out-of-box research center based in a single university could face strangulation at birth! A globally distributed organization will have a much higher probability of succeeding in its eventual mission.

• Why Global? Magnitude and weight of the proposed research problem: The proposed research problem is enormously important and burdensome. It requires global attention and global participation. Midwifery for the birth of the progeny of Quantum Mechanics (QM) will require intensive attention from many creative and unorthodox scientists just as were required for the birth of QM out of Classical Physics.

• Physics is synonymous with seeking Conceptual Continuity (CC) among diverse observed phenomena by iteratively and creatively constructing Logical Congruence (LC) among them all to find a higher level of organization leading to coherent maps of nature.

• But to understand the structure of particles and the interaction processes behind the observed results to visualize elusive realities, we must integrate Emergencism and Reductionism to CC-LC-thinking to develop CC-LC-ER epistemology. This will help us understand the inner structures of the interactants and the resultant products) by enquiring and distinguishing for their new Emergent properties from those they possess when they are Reduced to more fundamental constituent elements. Emergencism and Reductionism are inseparable complementary modes of enquiries.

1. Pythagoras’ theorem and

2. Ptolemy’s Geocentric planetary model

• 1. We do not know completely even a single entity, whether an elementary particle or a complex system, in every detail under different conditions of interactions.

• 2. All sensors (interactants, or detector-detectee) have inherent restrictive rules of engagements with each other, which limit the observables that we can record. A detector is incapable of “reporting” to us everything that it experiences.

• 3. Thus, we are for ever deprived of complete information regarding any observation even for a very well defined experiments.

• 4. So, science of modeling or mapping nature will always be a “work in progress”. We are forced to organize a finite set of observations predictable by an equation that can be logically completed only by incorporating human logic supported hypotheses, some of which may or may not be congruent with the eventual cosmic logic we are seeking to discover.

• 5. A logically complete equation is also logically closed to accommodating any radically different logic. If the “successful” equation, like that of Schrödinger’s, can accommodate a wide variety of observations, we may suffer from the illusion that it represents a “complete” theory!

• 6. We are thus forced to accept a dialectical contradiction in mapping nature. We must build a map only for a “local terrain” and even that has to be based on incomplete knowledge of the terrain, while our vision is to create roads to map the entire cosmic forest. Thus, all of our theories are, by definition, provisional and incomplete. Most likely they contain mistaken concepts (hypotheses) and hence cannot be simply slapped together to create one integrated cosmic map (a theory of everything).

• 7. Only choice is to advance iteratively by frequently stepping backward to identify and reject some of the human logic (hypotheses) from individual “solved” maps, which are not convertible to cosmic logic.

• 8. CC-LC-ER epistemology is the proposed tool to facilitate this iterative distilling process to steadily convert human logic into the desired cosmic logic allowing the construction of self-congruent bigger maps in multiple steps.

• We don’t “see”. We are blind. We manipulate & interpret sensory chemical input.

• Barriers to our minds are self imposed, many a times collectively!

• We have found only useful “working rules”, not inviolable LAWS!

• Above images are from web.

• Only by demanding conceptual continuity (CC) by imposing logical congruence (LC) among all the observations by all the blind men did they reconstruct the elephant with some semblance to reality, but outer reality only. Emergencism and reductionism (ER) are essential to appreciate the whole living elephant!

• To visualize the processes in the micro world of interactions, we must cultivate the humility to accept that we are literally blind!

• All of our information is what our sensors tell us. Like the blind men, the sensors themselves do not see & experience everything and they are not capable of reporting everything they experience.

• 1. We can scientifically measure only re-producible quantitative transformations that are experienced by our interactants (or detector-detectee, or sensor-sensee).

• 2. Any transformations in measurable physical parameters requires energy exchange between the interactants.

• 3. The energy exchange must be guided by a force of interaction between the interactants and it must be strong enough to facilitate the exchange of energy, which are usually constrained by the characteristic limitations of each interactant.

• 4. All force rules being distance dependent, energy exchange between the Interactants requires that they must experience each other as locally present or physically superposed entities (experience each other within their sphere of influence).

Evidence of universal “Superposition effect” (or causation steps): Interactants must be physically superposed within the range of their interacting force that will allow some energy exchange followed by some transformations that is measurable for us. Superposition effect is an active local process, not a passive mathematical principle ! Mathematical formulation must recognize this Reality Epistemology.

1. Gravitational force (GF): All cosmic entities, from galaxies, stars, planets, atoms and elementary particles, the entire observable material universes is effectively superposed on each other as far as GF is concerned. GF is weak; its range is very long.

2. Electromagnetic force (EMF): Stability of atoms, molecules and their all possible transformations, including their interactions with electromagnetic waves (light, etc.) are all dictated by this force. A dominant part of the biospheric evolution is driven by this force. EMF is relatively stronger than GF, but the range is shorter. The superposition effects due to the EMF from the molecules of two different human bodies are essentially negligible (un-entangled) on a first order analysis.

3. Weak Nuclear force (WNF): Radioactivity and related isotopic nuclear transmutations are a byproduct of this force. The range of WNF is of the order of the size of the atomic nuclei. The superposition effects due to two radioactive atomic nuclei within the same bound molecule is negligible within the first order analysis.

4. Strong nuclear force (SNF): Our slow physical evolution relies on the stability of an array of nuclei held together by this SNF, built into stable atoms and molecules by the EMF and held on the surface of the Earth under the atmosphere by the GF. The superposition effects due to two atomic nuclei within the same bound molecule is negligible within the first order analysis.

1. By ignoring HUR, while the core achievements of QM do not suffer at all, the QM philosophy can get rid of all the unnecessarily assigned mysticisms like non-causality, non-locality, teleportation, etc. in measurements that defies our SEM process as we have defined.

2. Does the structure of Schrödinger’s “wave equation” really represent a propagating wave? A propagating wave require second derivative of time equated to second derivative of space coordinate.

3. Are elementary particles and atoms really non-local and “dispersive” probability waves? Then how could we manipulate Angstrom size individual atoms using modern nano-tipped tools?

4. Etc., etc.

• Light beams by themselves cannot produce interference effects !

• Alternately speaking, the superposition effects as measured (SEM) due to light beams can become observable only when some interacting material dipoles are simultaneously stimulated by all the superposed beams on them.

• Harmonic undulations on a water surface and their propagation remains undistorted, even though the water in the LOCAL-regions of superposition show the modified resultant undulations.

• Wave forms by themselves do not interfere. If the supporting medium that is observable and shows local superposition effects.

• Unfortunately the cosmic medium in which light is emergent is not yet directly observable to us to display “local interference” of light beams.

• The titles themselves are indicative of the epistemology used.

• The productivity in terms of topic diversity within a period of four years (2003–2007)

1. “Shall we climb on the shoulders of the giants to extend the REALITY horizon of Physics?” by C. Roychoudhuri, invited talk at the 4th International Conference on “Quantum Theory-Foundational Reconsiderations”, at Vaxjo U., Sweden, Jun.11-16, 2007; to be published in 2007.

2. “Can classical optical superposition principle get us out of quantum mysticism of non-locality and bring back REALITY to modern physics?” by C. Roychoudhuri, invited talk at the ETOP conference at Toronto, Jun.3-5, 2007; to be published in 2007 by SPIE;

3. The Nature of Light: What Is a Photon? by C. Roychoudhuri, A. F. Kracklauer & Kathy Creath,; CRC Press (2007); in preparation.

4. “Can a deeper understanding of the measured behavior of light remove wave-particle duality?” by C. Roychoudhuri, SPIE Proc.Vol.6664, paper #2 (to be published, Aug. 2007).

5. “Can we get any better information about the nature of light by comparing radio and light wave detection processes?” by C. Roychoudhuri and P. Poulos, SPIE Proc.Vol.6664, paper #12 (to be published, Aug. 2007).

6. “Can the hypothesis ‘photon interferes only with itself be reconciled with superposition of light from multiple beams or sources?” by C. Roychoudhuri, N. Prasad and Q. Peng, SPIE Proc.Vol.6664, paper #24 (to be published, Aug. 2007).

7. “Bi-centenary of successes of Fourier theorem! Its power and limitations in optical system designs” by C. Roychoudhuri, invited paper, Proc. SPIE Vol. 6667, paper #18 (Oct. 2007).

8. “If EM fields do not operate on each other, why do we need many modes and large gain bandwidth to generate short pulses?” by C. Roychoudhuri, N. Tirfessa, C. Kelley & R. Crudo,; SPIE Proceedings, Vol. 6468, paper #53 (2007).

9. “Locality of superposition principle is dictated by detection processes” by C. Roychoudhuri, Phys. Essays 19 (3), September 2006.

10. “Spectral Super-Resolution by Understanding Superposition Principle & Detection Processes”, by C. Roychoudhuri and M. Tayahi, Intern. J. of Microwave and Optics Tech., July 2006; manuscript ID# IJM0T-2006-5-46: http://www.ijmot.com/papers/papermain.asp.

11. “Various ambiguities in re-constructing laser pulse parameters” by C. Roychoudhuri and N. Prasad, proceedings of the October, 2006 IEEE-LEOS Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada; invited.

12. “Do we count indivisible photons or discrete quantum events experienced by detectors?” by C. Roychoudhuri and N. Tirfessa, Proc. SPIE Vol.6372-29 (2006).

13. “If EM fields do not operate on each other, how do we generate and manipulate laser pulses?” by C. Roychoudhuri, D. Lee and P. Poulos, Proc. SPIE Vol.6290-02 (2006).

14. “Are dark fringe locations devoid of energy of superposed fields?” by C. Roychoudhuri and C. V. Seaver, Proc. SPIE Vol. 6285-01 (2006), invited.

15. “A critical look at the source characteristics used for time varying fringe interferometry” by C. Roychoudhuri and N. Tirfessa, Proc. SPIE Vol.6292-01, (2006), invited.

16. “Role of the retinal detector array in perceiving the superposition effects of light” by C. Roychoudhuri and V. Lakshminarayanan, Proc. SPIE Vol.6285-08 (2006).

17. “Reality of superposition principle and autocorrelation function for short pulses” by C. Roychoudhuri, Proc. SPIE Vol. 6108-50 (2006).

18. “If superposed light beams do not re-distribute each others energy in the absence of detectors (material dipoles), can an indivisible single photon interfere by/with itself?” by C. 18. Roychoudhuri, SPIE Conf. Proc. 5866, pp.26-35 (2005).

19. “If superposed light beams do not re-distribute each others energy in the absence of detectors (material dipoles), can an indivisible single photon interfere by/with itself?” by C. Roychoudhuri, Proc. SPIE Vol.5866, pp.26-35 (2005).

20. “The Nature of Light: What Is a Photon? Eds. C. Roychoudhuri, Katherine Creath and A. F. Kracklauer, Proc. SPIE Vol.5866 (2005); Year of Einstein Special Conference.

21. “Propagating Fourier frequencies vs. carrier frequency of a pulse through spectrometers and other media” by C. Roychoudhuri, Proc. SPIE Vol.5531, 450-461(2004).

22. The Nature of Light: What is a Photon?”, Guest Eds. C. Roychoudhuri & R. Roy, Optics & Photonics News Trends; special issue of OPN, October 2003. [http://www.osa-opn.org/abstract.cfm?URI=OPN-14-10-49].

23. “Measuring properties of superposed light beams carrying different frequencies” by D. Lee and C. Roychoudhuri, Optics Express 11(8), 944-51, (2003), [http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?URI=OPEX-11-8-944].

24. “Limits of DWDM with gratings and Fabry-Perots and alternate solutions” by C. Roychoudhuri, D. Lee, Y. Jiang, S. Kittaka, M. Nara, V. Serikov and M. Oikawa, Proc. SPIE Vol.5246, 333-344, (2003), invited.

• 1. Superposition effects are created by detectors: (i) Accordingly changing the detectors or modifying their physical properties by secondary external fields will change the out come due to the same set of superposed optical fields. (ii) The definition and the theory of coherence need to be expressed in terms of correlation of multiple dipole undulations of the same detector induced simultaneously by multiple fields rather than as field-field correlations. Consequently new and more accurate theory and measurement techniques can be developed for characterizing very short pulses.

• 2. Optical signals and responding material dipoles are all space, time and energy finite: (i) Generalized theory of spectrometry based on finite pulses conform to classical formulas for time integrated records, but time-frequency band width product (spectral resolution) is not a fundamental limit of nature but a function of our sensor arrangements. (ii) Pulse broadening through “dispersive” media is due to “time diffraction” just as space-finite aperture introduce fringe broadening.

• 3. Light beams by themselves do not produce mutual energy re-distribution (interference fringes) either in space or in time: (i) Mode-lock laser theory needs to be modified in terms of properties of saturable absorbers (interacting dipoles) leading to more innovations in short pulse laser technology. (ii) The concept of ‘photons interfere only with themselves’ (Dirac) needs to be fundamentally revised, which will open up newer and better way of creating possible practical quantum computers, etc.

• Great questions of any time are framed based on existing observations. If the answer is right, it will necessarily lead to new observations and hence new questions beyond the original question.

• Biologists, as humble reverse-engineers, diligently emulating the chemical processes behind all living activities, have found an over-arching and integrating working principle - the DNA helix - across all living things!

• Physicists have been happily playing with almost half a dozen separate “solved puzzles” and trying to force fit them together for over half a century even though they are not logically self-congruent for the desired merger.