In 2011, the scientific journal “Almanac of Modern Science and Education” (No. 3 (46) 2011) published a paper by Yevgeny Koveshnikov from the Ussuriisk State Pedagogical Institute entitled “Predetermination (determinism) and spontaneity: a problem of two paradigms of movement in nature”. In this article, the author discuses the theory by Vasily Yanchilin (page 37).
About the author of the article:
Evgeny Koveshnikov: at the time of writing the paper, he was an assistant of the Department of Mathematics, Physics and Methods of Teaching, School of Pedagogy, Far Eastern Federal University. He defended his thesis in philosophy of physics.
About the journal.
- Scientific peer-reviewed open-access journal.
- ISSN 1993-5552 (print).
- Included in the AGRIS International Database (Agricultural Research Information System), an information system on agriculture and related industries of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
- Hosted by the NEB. Full texts of articles are available in the Scientific Electronic Library elibrary.ru.
- Indexed by Google Scholar. “Google Academy” is a search engine for full texts of scientific publications of all formats and disciplines. Included in the Google Scholar Metrics rating.
- Open access log. The contents of the journal’s issues and the texts of the articles are freely available in the section “Archive of Scientific Articles”.
- Registered in the order established by the legislation of the Russian Federation. Certificate of registration of mass media PI № ФС77-27697 from 04.04.2007.
Download the article in Russian:
The text in the paper discussing Yanchilin’s theory (page 37):
The idea of spontaneity, randomness in Nature arose in Antiquity as a denial of pessimistic fatalism. Then it was rejected in the era of classical science and reanimated in the twentieth century. The Laplace determinism does not fit the modern scientific worldview. However, as the physicist V.L. Yanchilin notes, “even in our time some scientists, like Einstein, adhere to the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics and reject the Copenhagen one. They assume that a particle moves along a certain trajectory, but its motion depends on some unknown yet hidden parameters. They hope to introduce these additional parameters into quantum mechanics to uniquely predict a particle’s motion. From this viewpoint, there is no objective uncertainty and randomness. We just do not know values of the hidden parameters” [8, p. 93-94].
According to modern ideas about the evolution of the Universe, the case and predetermination played a big role in its formation. “At an early stage of the evolution of the Universe, all matter in it was in the form of radiation, which being in a highly compressed state turned into matter and antimatter. The process of formation of matter and antimatter with subsequent annihilation occurred continuously. In this case, fluctuations and random deviations of the density of matter (antimatter) from the mean value inevitably occurred. These fluctuations led to the fact that in one area of space there was slightly more matter, and in the other area of space there was slightly more antimatter. Because of the expansion of the Universe, at some point in time, these areas have ceased to contact each other. <…> And thus, areas consisting only of matter or, on the contrary, antimatter were formed in the Universe” [ibid, P. 187]. Thus, at first the case introduces asymmetry into the distribution of matter and antimatter in the young Universe, and then predetermination begins to appear, because after complete annihilation in some isolated region of the expanding Universe, only what was originally more will remain – either matter or antimatter. It is a little like playing with a dice roll: we do not know how many pawns will be – it is a matter of chance, but as soon as the dice stops and the player sees the dropped points, everything becomes highly predetermined until the next move. Perhaps it was a truly grandiose space game of Nature.
Yanchilin V.L. Uncertainty, gravitation, space. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2003. 248 p.