T R U T O N The Rational Unified Theory Of Nature by Kalman Klim Brattman Give me the simplest form of matter and motion, and I will build, out of them, the world of Nature. "Give me matter, and I will construct a world out of it." Immanuel Kant, Kant's Cosmology ("Universal Natural History and Theory Of Heavens") 1. On the Impasse of Classical Physics as Recognized by Werner Heisenberg and TRUTON's Response   Throughout the entire mankind's existence, the properties of Nature, without exception, were discovered through observations and experiments which were catalogued and classified in accordance to certain patterns that were noted to exist. To each such pattern discovered, hypotheses were associated which were further refined and tested to determine whether a logical link could be established among such hypotheses and whether they could be reduced to an underlying common denominator. Physical theories of Nature were born out of such intellectual processes. Sir Isaac Newton, in a letter written in 1672 to Henry Oldenberg, the Secretary of the Royal Society, articulated this process of discovering 'things' in Nature as follows: "For the best and safest method of philosophizing seems to be, first diligently to investigate the properties of things and establish them by experiment, and then to seek hypotheses to explain them. For hypotheses ought to be fitted merely to explain the properties of things and not attempt to predetermine them except in so far as they can be an aid to experiments. If any one offers conjectures about the truth of things from the mere possibility of hypotheses, I do not see how anything certain can be determined in any science; for it is always possible to contrive hypotheses, one after another, which are found rich in new tribulations. Wherefore I judged that one should abstain from considering hypotheses as from a fallacious argument, and that the force of their opposition must be removed, that one may arrive at a maturer and more general explanation." [Underline supplied.] Preface by I. Bernard Cohen in Isaac Newton's Opticks (Dover Publications, Inc., 1952, pp. xxiv-xxv).   On Werner Heisenberg's Observational and Experimental Impasse   That inward discovery method of Physics, from observations and experiments to the creation of a theory, encapsulated so eloquently by Newton, reached however an insurmountable impasse when it arrived at studying the atomic and subatomic worlds. It was Werner Heisenberg who first recognized of an inherent limitation posed by Classical Newtonian Physics when one begins probing the atom and its structure. The problem, as Heisenberg noted in 1927, was that when we perform experiments at the atomic and subatomic level, regardless how careful we are, we will inevitably create and introduce large and uncontrollable perturbations, making therefore the results and the data obtained highly unreliable. In his, now classic book, "The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory" (Dover Publications, 1949, p. 3), Heisenberg made these critical observations: "... [In] classical physics theories it has always been assumed either that this interaction is negligibly small, or else that its effect can be eliminated from the result by calculations based on 'control' experiments. This assumption is not permissible in atomic physics; the interaction between observer and object causes uncontrollable and large changes in the system being observed. ... The immediate consequence of this circumstance is that in general every experiment performed to determine some numerical quantity renders the knowledge of others illusory, since the uncontrollable perturbation of the observed system alters the values of previously determined quantities. If this perturbation be followed in its quantitative details, it appears that in many cases it is impossible to obtain an exact determination of the simultaneous values of two variables, but rather that there is a lower limit to the accuracy with which they can be known." [Underline supplied.] [W. Heisenberg, Zeitschrift für Physik, 43, 172, 1927] That observer effect (as it is known today) was further illustrated by Heisenberg in his 1933 Nobel address and lecture. There, he most beautifully illustrated of the imposibility in studying, through observations, the "electron-path concept" by providing a thought experiment with having "a microscope of extreme resolving power." Attempting to observe "an electron in its path within an atom" with that imaginary high-power microscope, Heisenberg noted: Arthur Compton His experiment of low-intensity scattering of light was used by Heisenberg in his seminal argument. "... since the specimen in this microscope would have to be illuminated with light having an extreme short wavelength, the first light quantum from the light source to reach the electron and pass into the observer's eye would eject the electron completely from its path in accordance with the laws of the Compton effect. Consequently only one point of the path would be observable experimentally at any one time." Werner Heisenberg: "The Development of Quantum Mechanics" Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1933, pp. 291-292.  Entering The Dark    . of Quantum Mechanics  . 1. In other words, in order to able to see the electron in that dark, murky zone, we must need to illuminate that place with light! And when we do that and turn on the light, the traveling photons of the light will interact with existing electrons, perturbing in that process "big time" the entire terrain that is being observed. As such, that big "uncontrollable perturbation" created will alter significantly the studied landscape making therefore the entire experiment completely unreliable and thus worthless. We call that monumental recognition, Heisenberg's Observational Indeterminacy Principle (HOIP), mentioning again that originally, Heisenberg used the word "ungenauigkeit" ("indeterminacy") to describe his observational-impasse recognition that in the English-language version, incorrectly, was translated as "uncertainty." Critical Remark on Heisenberg's "Indeterminacy" ("Ungenauigkeit") Principle The Heisenberg's original HOIP needs not be confused with the today's evolved, degenerated, and totally different proposition known as the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) which proclaims that the position and the momentum of a particle cannot be precisely determined simultaneously because of the particle's wave-like nature [sic!]. According to that hypothesized HUP, the more precisely the position of a particle could be determined to be, the less precisely its momentum could be obtained, and vice versa [sic!]. How such an hypothesis, that is derived from a mathematical inequality (which stands as a pillar of Quantum Mechanics), could be accepted without the existence of a physical causality? That evolved and degenerated principle of HUP is now no longer about the inherent observational indeterminacy caused by the observer's inherent intrusion (due to the "large and uncontrollable perturbations" created within the system by the viewer's act of observation as brilliantly noted by Heisenberg), but is about an out-of-the-blue willy-nilly proclamation claiming to be the result of the wave-like nature of matter. As such, through that scenario, irrespective of the viewer's observational intrusion, the uncertainty of the measurements must occur because of the inherent wave-like characteristic of the matter itself [sic!]. However, on the other hand, it is now universally accepted (and proven for electrons in page 10), that electrons in addition to their wave-like nature, have also a particle-like nature. And that dual concomitant particle-wave nature of electrons (and thus of matter), makes the proclamation of HUP (and thus of Quantum Mechanics), a proposition of the Absurd as it negates the particle characteristic of the matter's nature. That initial observational barrier that Heisenberg, through his HOIP, has recognized to exist for Particle Physics, leads now to the recognition of the existence of an Ultimate Bottom Observational Frontier (UBOF) of Nature that is encapsulated into The First Foundational Universal Recognition Of Nature (1st FURON) There is an Ultimate Bottom Observational Frontier (UBOF) beyond which, Nature is no longer accurately observable. Expansion and Remark: Nature, at its nano-scale base structure, as first recognized by Werner Heisenberg, cannot be observed without modifying or altering in a significant way its existing natural settings. .That is to say that the true, accurate picture of Nature, at its nano-scale, cannot be obtained through any observational probe because, through illumination, we are interfering and destroying the original existing settings. .Indeed, upon attempting to "see" that bottom-level landscape of Nature, we invariably need illumination which in turn requires turning on the light. And by introducing light into the system, that, in itself, will change, through interaction, in a dramatic fashion the entire existed configuration that is being studied. .Thus, the inherent process of illumination, and nothing else, is the culprit of that inherent distortion of the reality governing the nano-structure of Nature. Without the illumination, we need therefore finding a new way of "seeing" Nature at its nano-base ultimate level of existence, and that new way can be provided by TRUTON! .   Fundamental Corollary of Classical Physics Limitation:   By the 1st FURON, it follows that the methods of Classical Physics in obtaining its results can no longer be extended beyond UBOF. By those reasonings springing from Heisenberg's HOIP, the future of experimental Particle Physics could have been put to an abrupt end --something that no one could have accepted. As such, in a hurry the same Heisenberg came to the rescue. 2. Completely out-of-the-blue, Heisenberg transformed his HOIP into something completely different postulating that a fundamental characteristics that exists at the particle-level of Nature is that, there, the position and the speed of a particle cannot be determined simultaneously with any controllable precision. According to Heisenberg's revised postulate, known as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP), we can measure one or another of that position-speed pair, but we can not measure both simultaneously with any precision. And that apparent peculiarity was attributed to exist in that particle nano-world called now the quantum world. That out-of-the-blue rather bizarre postulate, in spite of the strong opposition received from various prominent physsicists, began gradually in gaining traction and acceptance chiefly because of the elegant Mathematics that it was able to be covered with. That Uncertainty Principle eventually become a foundational pillar of a "new" Physics --the Quantum Physics. Is that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) a far-fetched assumption representative of the particle world or is it something else? Well, upon pondering over that rather fundamental question, accidentally, a flying butterfly was able provide the initial answer!! We note that when the butterfly stay still, with ease we can determine its exact position. However, as the butterfly begin to fly, its erratic motion will create a challenge to keep up determining its position and that challenge increases significantly with the increase of its speed. So the correlation between speed and position become apparent: the greater the speed, the more difficult was to determine its exact position. So, yes, we see merit in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP): the faster a particle will move, the less precise the measurement of its position can be determined. We thus, have no problem in elevating HUP to Heisenberg's Inverse-Order Observational Conjecture (HIOC): The position and speed of a moving object are influenced by each other in an inverse-order relationship: when attempting to measure them simultaneously, the precision of that measurement varies inversely with their speed: the lower/higher is the speed, the higher/lower is the precision in determining the object's exact possition. So, HIOC tells us that the higher the speed of an object is, the lower the precision in determining the object's position is going to be. Is that all, that we can say? Not really. And that is because, for millenia, Heisenberg's HIOC was well known in the animal kingdom!! Indeed, let us take, for instance, the lions. They continuously are facing Heisenberg's HIOC when chasing the nearby zebras. Upon locking-in on a zebra for the kill and, as the zebra begins to run away, increasing its speed, its stripes will generate an optical illusion for the chasing lion to a point where zebra's position can no longer be determined with any precision. That is WHY lions have such a hard time in catching the nearby zebras!! BTW, that rather remarkable study with zebras was first published in the Zoology Journal by Martin J. How (of Australia, now a Royal Society University Fellow at University of Bristol, UK) and Johannes M. Zanker (of Royal Holloway University of London, UK) under the title "Motion camouflage induced by zebra stripes." [(v. 117, issue 3, June 2014, pp. 163-170).] The authors argued in that zebra article that "the observer's visual system is flooded with erroneous motion signals that correspond to two well-known visual illusions: (i) the wagon-wheel effect (perceived motion inversion due to spatiotemporal aliasing); and (ii) barber-pole illusion (misperceived direction of motion due to the aperture effect) and predict that these two illusory effect act together to confuse biting insects approaching in the air [as illustrated and supplied by us in here of a butterfly with a stripe pattern, animated figure at left], or possibly mammalian predators during the hunt, particularly when two or more zebras are observed moving together as a heaard." Well, so much about optical illusionary effects. The question that inevitably now arises is this one: What Heisenberg's HIOC and visual illusions have to to do with the fundamental Physics describing Nature, in the first place? The short answer is of course, nothing, but absolutely nothing. The study of sense perceptions (senpers), as interesting as it may be, lies indeed outside the realm of fundamental Physics and, as such, Quantum Mechanics whose pillar is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) needs to reside indeed outside of the realm of fundamental Physics. Respectfully, we make no mistake about that. Time is long overdue indeed to properly place Quantum Mechanics (that purports to describe Nature at its base-level state of existence) to its proper place. And that proper place where Quantum Mechanics actually belongs is a place away, far away, from the realm of fundamental Physics. How humans perceive or can observe Nature is surely a most interesting subject, but which, most certainly, is not a subject of fundamental Physics and again, respectfully, we make no mistake about that.     On the Birth of Quantum Mechanics through Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle  and Its Connection to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity  That profound recognition of Heisenberg that Classical Physics, through its existing inductive method, was not able to probe Nature at its atomic and nuclear level as noted in the 1st FURON, posed a formidable challenge for the direction of Physics. A rational person, in a normal state of mind, would have concluded that experiments designed of probing Nature at its atomic and subatomic levels are useless because the data obtained are highly corrupted and uncontrollable. But such a scenario --dictated by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) was not something that could stand regardless of the rationality involved. As such, something else had to be added. Well, with no other alternative available to be pursued, a radically new approach was coined by Heisenberg to be the solution were logic and rationality need no longer reign supreme as the irrationality --under certain circumstances-- was quite useful and thus allowed to enter into the realm of the "new" Physics called now the "modern" Physics to be differentiated from "classical" Physics were no such impurities of logic were allowed to exist. Einstein's lunatic Special Theory of Relativity (STR) suddenly become extremely appealing to Heisenberg not because of its results that were meaningless and unusable in Heisenberg's Quantum Mechanics, but because of the irrational modality that those results were obtained. Particularly, Heisenberg has been impressed with the fact that Einstein's theory of relativity (which had gained some momentum for its general acceptance) was based on an approach incorporating those two (2) novel characteristics: .i) that when needed, willy-nilly hypotheses can be created in a hurry, with no immediate rationale for their existence, to justify the incorporation of certain predetermined results (such as that the speed light is the maximum speed attainable in the Universe), and place them --ad hoc-- at the top of the theory, claiming to represent fundamental and universal "laws of Nature" and, .ii) that when in an impasse and difficulty to find a coherent picture and theory of Nature, we can always find refuge in blaming our Mind for its "biological" inadequacy in not being able to grasp Nature at its most fundamental levels of existence on the grounds that our Mind and Brain biologically evolved only to deal with "things" derived from our everyday experience. Accordingly, by that incredulous reasoning, when dealing with matters outside our everyday experience, the Mind --through its biological limitations-- is not able to render coherent descriptions of Nature or form a coherent mental picture, and thus it is perfectly acceptable, as a matter of necessity, to introduce irrationalities and incoherencies into such descriptions and theories of Nature. ! Tell that cockamamie to a mathematician that our current cultivated Mind cannot render logical inferences outside the world of which we have no experience and which we cannot observe and see, for yourself, the answer that you may get after the insanity is being ruled out! Heisenberg saw that approach pioneered by Einstein as the ticket to the solution for his problem. Following Einstein, Heisenberg elevated his Observational Indeterminacy Principle (HOIP) to the extraordinary status that it represented an ultimate "law of Nature" and gave to it a new form vested in a mathematical expression. Also, following Einstein, Heisenberg blamed the Mind and its purported (biological) limitation for the necessity of introducing an incoherent language for expressing and describing phenomena at the atomic and subatomic levels. In several places of his quoted book, Heisenberg articulated all these points as follows. In his Introductory chapter (ibid., pp. 3-4), Heisenberg noted: "The starting-point of the critique of the relativity theory was the postulate that there is no signal velocity greater than that of light. In a similar manner, this lower limit to the accuracy with which certain variables can be known simultaneously may be postulated as a law of Nature (in the form of the so-called uncertainty relations) and made the starting-point of the critique which forms the subject matter of the following pages. These uncertainty relations gives us that measure of freedom from the limitations of classical concepts which is necessary for a consistent description of atomic processes." [Underline supplied.] The linkage in approach to Einstein's relativity theory was essential for Heisenberg to justify and consolidate his own position as he noted of this (ibid., p. 62): "With the advent of Einstein's relativity theory it was necessary for the first time to recognize that the physical world differed from the ideal world conceived in terms of everyday experience." Then, with this linkage to Einstein's relativity theory being established, Heisenberg went for his desired setup alluding to the inadequacies of the Mind when dealing with profound concepts of Nature such as the one posed by the relativity theory ((ibid., p. 62): ... but as the mind is always slow to adjust itself to an extended range of experience and concepts, the theory of relativity seemed at first repellently abstract. Nonetheless, the simplicity of its solution for a vexatious problem has gained it universal acceptance. As is clear from what has been said, the resolution of the paradoxes of atomic physics can be accomplished only by further renunciation of old and cherished ideas. Most important of these is the idea that natural phenomena obey exact laws --the principle of causality." [Underline supplied.] Now with that setup being in place, Heisenberg went in full force for the kill, attacking mercilessly the Language provided and developed by the Mind as being wholly inadequate when dealing with the atomic world (ibid., p. 11): "It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is the result of daily experience. Fortunately, mathematics is not subject to this limitation, and it has been possible to invent a mathematical scheme --the quantum theory-- which seems entirely adequate for the treatment of atomic processes; for visualization, however, we must content ourselves with two incomplete analogies --the wave picture and the corpuscular picture." Pondering over that nagging "schizophrenic" representation vested in the duality particle-wave picture, Heisenberg blamed this situation on Language as well! (ibid., p. 10): "Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language." [sic!] With this everything was set, in terms of justification and explanation, to proceed embarking into a new theoretical world pioneered by Einstein, where anything conforming to a willy-nilly mathematical scheme can be accepted as a theory of the atomic and subatomic world regardless of whether or not the results obtained have any meaning, sense, or any physical rationality for their existence. The mathematical scheme and not the Physics was what counted in this description. The fact that this description, from time to time, as needed, would stray away from logic, coherence, common sense, or rational intuition and rational thinking was perfectly acceptable due to the limitations of the Mind and Language which were so zealously professed to exist. Since no formal constraints existed in this new theoretical world anything could have been added to the existing "mathematical scheme" until we could reach "explaining" the desired result. Thus, Heisenberg's initial uncertainty principle based on the recognition that all experimental data at the atomic and subatomic level carry "uncontrollable large uncertainties" let him transform this recognition into a vehicle for transporting us into a new world free from the constraints and limitations that Logic, Common Sense Intuition, and Rational Thinking would provide --a world called the quantum mechanics world. And Heisenberg noted of the blessings that this new found world could provide were his Uncertainty Principle was able to be incorporated as one of its pillars (ibid., p. 4): "These uncertainty relations gives us that measure of freedom from the limitations of classical concepts which is necessary for a consistent description of atomic processes." Sadly, the only "consistency" in the descriptions provided in this new quantum mechanics world was that there those descriptions no longer needed to have any physical meaning associated with them and, that they could be expressed into a Language that defies our common sense and rationality. Yes, there, in that world, we can enjoy --for whatever it is worth-- an absolute "freedom from the limitations of classical concepts." Now, that Einstein's relativity theory had served its purpose for setting up a new framework for the theoretical studies at the atomic and subatomic level --the quantum mechanics framework, Heisenberg saw no need to be tied up anymore with Einstein's theory which could no longer be used in any other way. For Heisenberg it was time to move on, not before however dismantling one of Einstein's most sacred physical principles of Nature embodied in the law of causality and formalized first by Isaac Newton in his seminal Principia. Heisenberg made note for the necessity of such a move in his Introductory chapter of his referenced quantum theory book (ibid., p. 2): "Although the theory of relativity makes the greatest of demands on the ability for abstract thought, still it fulfills the traditional requirements of science in so far as it permits a division of the world into subject and object (observer and observed) and hence a clear formulation of the law of causality. This is the very point at which the difficulties of the quantum theory begin." Let us then take a closer look at this dramatic departure from both Classical Physics and Einstein's relativity theory which Heisenberg had advocated to be necessary to take place in order to "understand" the atomic and subatomic worlds.   On the Abolishment of Causality in the Quantum Mechanics Theory To Follow from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle Since we cannot predict the outcome of an experimental result at the atomic and subatomic level, we can no longer talk or associate here any meaning to the cause-effect relationship since to a cause, according to Heisenberg, we no longer can associate one determinable effect as now this principle is being substituted with an uncertainty effect dictated by his Uncertainty Principle. And because of this, in turn, according to Heisenberg, we no longer can talk, in a meaningful way, about the exact laws of Nature as they need to be substituted with laws dictated by the mathematical Theory of Probability. Heisenberg made his argument on the necessity of abolishing the deterministic view of Nature (that to each cause it corresponds a well defined effect) as follows (ibid., pp. 62-64): "... our ordinary description of Nature, and the idea of exact laws, rests on the assumption that it is possible to observe the phenomena without appreciably influencing them. To coordinate a definite cause to a definite effect has sense only when both can be observed without introducing a foreign element disturbing their interrelation. The law of causality, because of its very nature, can only be defined for isolated systems, and in atomic physics even approximately isolated systems cannot be observed. This might have been foreseen, for in atomic physics we are dealing with entities that are (so far as we know) ultimate and indivisible. There exist no infinitesimals by the aid of which an observation might be made without appreciable perturbation. Second among the requirements traditionally imposed on a physical theory is that it must explain all phenomena as relations between objects existing in space and time. This requirement has suffered relaxation in the course of the development of physics. ... Now, as a geometric or kinematic description of a process implies observation, it follows that such a description of atomic processes necessarily precludes the exact validity of the law of causality --and conversely. Bohr has pointed out that it is therefore impossible to demand that both requirements be fulfilled by the quantum theory. They represent complementary and mutually exclusive aspects of atomic phenomena. ... This indeterminateness of the picture of the process is a direct result of the indeterminateness of the concept 'observation' --it is not possible to decide, other than arbitrarily, what objects are to be considered as part of the observed system and what as the observer's apparatus. ... Even when this arbitrariness is taken into account the concept 'observation' belongs, strictly speaking, to the class of ideas borrowed from the experiences of everyday life. It can only be carried over to atomic phenomena when due regard is paid to the limitations placed on all space-time descriptions by the uncertainty principle." [Underline supplied.] A rational person analyzing Heisenberg's arguments based on this formulation of his Uncertainty Principle, clearly is impressed by the depth of this principle, but not by the consequences that are inferred to exist. Surely, just because we cannot determine with precision the effect to result of a given cause, this does not mean that there is no deterministic relationship between the respective cause and its corresponding effect. The only thing, that a rational person can conclude is that the method employed in forecasting the result (or the effect, if you will) is not capable to render an exact solution. But just because our method is deficient in forecasting with exactness a result this does not mean the result will not occur exactly when it should. You see, Nature could care less whether or not we can keep up with the complexities of its behavior. Just because we cannot predict, with our forecasting method, when and where exactly rain will occur on Earth this does not mean that in fact rain will not occur exactly when and where the conditions for the rain are met. That distinction is paramount and it can never be blurred away. To bypass and override that distinction, Heisenberg, as we have seen above, has elevated --with no rationality or any sort of justification-- his Uncertainty Principle to the ultimate status, by postulating it, to be a "law of Nature." But that approach clearly cannot be supported for a rational theory of Nature. And that is because    the deterministic cause-effect is always present in Nature regardless of our abilities of being able to predict it or not, regardless of whether we have observed it or not, regardless of whether we exist or not! If the input is the cause and the output is the effect, then in Nature always to each input will correspond a determined and precise output. The input can be a sum of many individual 'actions' acting simultaneously which could be independent or dependent (linearly or non-linearly) from each other, and the output of this is the cumulative superimposed effect or 'reaction' obtained which always manifests its existence in a deterministic way whether we can predict it or not. With that language and terminology employed, we have that   to a superimposed cumulative action always a deterministic reaction will correspond which will manifest its existence in a precise and well-defined way. But that realization, on a further reflection, is in fact a generalization of Newton's Third Law of Motion which states that to every (linear) action there is always opposed an equal (linear) reaction. The existence of a reaction to every action is due to the fact that the reaction is nothing more, nor less, than the concrete expression of a real relationship that the action has established with its surrounding environment. It is of paramount importance to further recognize, beyond a shadow of doubt, the following: 1) That there is no distinction between how Nature operates at large scale (the macro cosmos) or at the most minute scale (the micro cosmos). And that is because there is one, and only one, logic upon which the entire Universe "functions." If that would not have been the case, then an internal self-conflict would have developed resulting in the inability of the Universe to exist, as a unit, and thus of the Universe's inability to exist at all. And second, 2) That the logic upon which the Universe "functions" is one and the same with the logic upon which our Mind is "equipped to function" as illustrated through countless of examples that can be provided from our everyday experience. To recapitulate, there is one and only one universal principle of operation in Nature: to each real, physical cause it corresponds a real, well-defined physical effect which is the real form of manifestation and expression of the cause's existence. The effect is always the real manifestation of the relationship that the cause has established with its environmental medium. Depending on the initial conditions, that relationship can be a simple or a complex one, but always a deterministic one. Let us conclude with this Part by noting that if Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was truly a principle of Nature governing the atomic and subatomic systems, then we, for instance, would never could have been able to build an atomic bomb or use atomic energy in any deterministic and precise way! No, Nature does not employ or function on uncertain terms or uncertain principles. The only uncertainties that we can associate to a phenomenon of Nature are our own predicaments derived from our particular method of forecasting. But that is, of course, an entirely different thing.   " Science advances one funeral at a time." Max Planck On the Demise of Quantum Mechanics:     Rejecting the Foundation of Quantum Mechanics as a Theory of Nature   No rational theory of Nature can be based on a foundational pillar proclaiming that to a defined physical cause there will not necessarily correspond a deterministic effect, as that contradicts, in a fundamental way, our way of thinking, our way of drawing inferences. Our evolved cultivated Mind will not allow for such an inference to take place. Just because we cannot predict in a deterministic way the effect resulted from a cause OR that we cannot even "see" the respective effect, this does not mean that a deterministic effect does not in fact exist. As we have seen from the presentation given above, it is a fundamental recognition that in Nature to each action always will correspond a reaction which will manifest its existence, in a deterministic way, either directly or indirectly. Any theory purporting to be a theory of Nature which does not subscribe to that fundamental principle, is a theory, par excellence, of the Absurd. That is why Quantum Mechanics is par excellence a mechanics of the absurd (MOA). Quantum Mechanics theory, having as its foundational pillar a negation of that fundamental principle of Nature through Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, is an example, of such "par excellence" mechanics of the Absurd (MOA). It is imperative that Quantum Mechanics theory, which is disguised under the coat of advanced Mathematics, no longer be permitted to represent the atomic and subatomic theory of Nature and be exposed for what it stands for, for what it is, and for what it is purported to be. An intellectual standing against Quantum Mechanics theory must be made, as the continuing acceptance of that irrational theory of Nature represents, in the final analysis, first and foremost, an affront to the Mind's cultivated intelligence and, to its ability to comprehend in a rational manner, the atomic and subatomic level of organization of matter. Another staggering consequence that immediately follows from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, when elevated as a fundamental law of Nature, is that a particle, at the same time, can be in two (2) different places! That absurdity, which offends the Mind in a direct flagrant way, was needed to be accepted since according to the proponents of Quantum Mechanics theory, there, at the atomic and subatomic level, Nature is governed by different rules which may appear to the Mind as inconsistencies of logic. P. A. M. Dirac, another founder of Quantum Mechanics theory articulated this very point in the Preface of his classic book The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Fourth Edition, Oxford Press, 1958, pp. vii-viii) as follows: "It has become increasingly evident in recent times, however, that Nature works on a different plan [sic!]. Her fundamental laws do not govern the world as it appears in our mental picture in any very direct way, but instead they control a substratum of which we cannot form a mental picture without introducing irrelevancies." [Underline supplied.] Dirac's proclamation that Mathematics should dictate Physics, should never ever happen: PS> There is a floating joke around, for a number of decades, of how mathematicians view physicists that use solely Mathematics for their theoretical work: That absolute nonsense, which has been embraced almost blindly, as an act of some faith, by those who preach Quantum Mechanics theory, as representing a principle of Nature, cannot be left unexposed as it represents the greatest impediment to a true theory of Nature describing the atomic and subatomic level. It bears repeating and repeating, again and again, that there is one, and only one, logic upon which the Universe "functions" since if this would not been the case, then an internal "functional" conflict would have had emerged making it impossible for the Universe to exist as a unit. And that logic, upon which the Universe "functions," is identical with the logic upon which the Mind "functions," as illustrated through countless examples derived from our everyday experience. Because of that unity in logic, for the Nature's modus operandi, that we recognize to exist, we are striving to find a true rational unified theory of Nature (TRUTON). It is because of that recognition, that the Quantum Mechanics theory must be expunged, as being utterly repugnant, at its very core of existence. The so-called quantum logic (quantogic) is par excellence an example of a logic of the irrational reaching the level of the Absurd (Absurdogic). Following that quantogic, we immediately can recognize its fallacy. For instance, following that quantum logic, we can now talk say, of a table being in two (2) distinct places at the same time! That very point, of the absurdity of such type of results, was articulated, for instance, by Sir Roger Penrose of Oxford University in England, in an interview with The New York Times, as follows: "I can think of a[t] least one major area, which I'm absolutely sure is missing from the present-day physics, which probably will come in the next 50 years or so, and it will be a tremendous revolution. It has to do with how to understand quantum mechanics. See, quantum mechanics describes small-scale phenomena -- atoms, molecules, particles. And if you have certain rules, which if you try to apply them to large objects, they give you nonsense. They will tell you that a baseball can be here and there at the same time. There are endless ways that people try to argue around this. But to me, it says that the theory is just not right ..." Science Section of The New York Times of January 19, 1999, p. D3, or on the Internet at <http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/011999sci-penrose-cosmos.html> Not only that the hocus-pocus Quantum Mechanics theory represents a wrong theory of Nature based on wrong principles and sustained with faulty and irrational arguments devoid of any physical meaning, but also and foremost it represents an intellectual affront and a sham with no parallel in the entire recorded history of science. In fact, we do not mind repeating Richard Feynman's candid reflection that:      On TRUTON's Bottom-Up Path of Discovery It is the purpose and scope of TRUTON to establish a rational foundation for understanding Nature from one single principle, law, cause, or "logic" of operation. The method employed here, never used before in the form presented herein, is modeled from Mathematics where we start with certain primary propositions, called axioms, and then using rational thinking --and only rational thinking-- an entire theory is build up. Unlike Mathematics (where those axioms can be any proposition that cannot be derived from anything else and cannot lead to rational contradictory results), in TRUTON --The Rational Unified Theory Of Nature, those primary propositions, in addition, must have physical roots and connotations that cannot "offend" our given common sense provided by our cultivated Mind which herein reigns supreme. Our modeled mathematical method of discovering things in Nature, should not be confused with the long standing method of using Mathematics as a tool in deriving results of Nature. We will not use Mathematics per se, but instead we will use its deductive outward method of how it obtains its results and nothing else. TRUTON therefore is, par excellence, a deductive rather than an inductive theory of Nature. The rationale and the necessity of its deductive approach springs from the recognition of Heisenberg that the inductive method of Classical Physics is no longer capable of furnishing us, reliable results, when we begin studying the atomic and subatomic level of existence of Nature. Since the mathematical method of discovering things will be our guide, let us begin our contemplated journey with some basic preparatory work. No matter what branch of Mathematics that we may wish to consider for our guidance, they all are guided by the same methodology in deriving their respective results which is: start with some primary propositions, called axioms, to satisfy these two (2) basic requirements: i) that they could not be derived from one another nor from anything else; and ii) that they do not lead to contradictory results (theorems); then, establish some primary relation or law that the primary "elements" will obey and then, finally build up all your results by employing exclusively rational deductive reasoning from that primary relation or law. To help us in our guidance, let us zoom our attention at Geometry and, for simplicity, at the Euclidean Geometry that is most familiar to a great majority of people. In the modern treatment of the Euclidean Geometry, we note that mathematicians start with certain undefined primary elements such as point, line, and plane; and with certain undefined primary relations such as the 'on' relation as in "the point lies 'on' the line." Then, this set of undefined primary elements and relations are being subjected to a set of primary, unproven propositions called axioms which need to be logically compatible i.e., not leading to contradictory results. From there, using the rational deductive reasoning, the entire Geometry is build up. Well, in most general terms, that shall be our blueprint for creating, from the ground up, our new theory of Nature --TRUTON. . The rational deductive road which we are choosing to pursue, from the bottom up, in studying Nature is a road which has never been traveled before and, as such, extreme caution is necessary. As noted, so far in Physics and for that matter in the rest of Natural Sciences, throughout the entire history of physical science, the direction of theoretical work was done, if you will, "inwards": we started with the result (provided by observations or experiments) and went "inwards" attempting to find an explanation for the result obtained. In Mathematics, on the other hand, as we have noted, the method of obtaining theoretical results has been exactly in the opposite direction being, if you will, in the "outwards" direction: you start with certain primary propositions called axioms and then you work your way "up" deriving results which are build up from the previous results and so on. It is this "outwards" direction from the ground up that we shall attempt to initiate as the new direction of studying Nature. With that directional blueprint in hand, before we begin in earnest with our trutonian journey, we want to have at our disposal, also for guidance, a foundational philosophical blueprint --the subject of the next undertaking. .