Modern or post-1927 theoretical physics (Statistical Quantum Mechanics and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle) is widely taught in the world’s colleges and universities, but there is a growing undercurrent of dissatisfaction with it and with the physics establishment.  Independent theorists say that the theory is an illogical muddle, totally lacking in useful explanatory and predictive power.  Others, less disillusioned and therefore still hopeful, believe that it can be rescued by successive reinterpretations until a useful explanation of the theory is at hand.  Mainstream theorists, however, seem to find no flaw in the theory, believing that they have the right pig by the ear.

Although knowledge of this extremely important conflict has not yet reached very many students or the public, who have a great stake in the outcome, many television viewers have paid surprised attention to the sometimes heated arguments among scientists and engineers over other topics, clearly indicating that neither science nor engineering is characterized by sufficient knowledge of how nature operates.  Many of the arguments are rooted in the serious defects in post-1927 theoretical physics (unknown to the disputants).

With regard to modern theory, the case for it is seemingly made daily in college and university classrooms around the world. That is to say, it is routinely taught to many young people, a practice that seems to establish its unquestioned validity and its usefulness to science and technology.  But very little is said to provoke doubts and questions about all this.  The purpose of this article is to present a few little-known but important facts about the theory so that students and non-scientists can get a good understanding of (1) the basic philosophic error in the theory—a theory that is in trouble, and (2) the strange story behind this departure from sound scientific judgment.

The basic error in modern theory consists in the fact that it is an acausal or aleatory (chance-oriented) system of thought.   It asserts that, at bottom, nature’s fine processes operate on the basis of absolute chance—the uncaused spontaneity of events, isolated from cause-and-effect mechanisms.  Deep down, that is what Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle says.  Basically, the theory attempts to deal with the building block of atoms (electrons, for example), but it has also been extended by some to attempt to explain the “gross” properties of matter, such as gravitational attraction.  A truly useful theory would encompass the properties and phenomena related to the entire span of particles, ranging from elementary particles (such as electrons) to atomic nuclei, to atoms, planets, and suns.  Such a theory would also usefully explain interactions between small and large bodies, such as interactions between electrons and the Earth, for example.  But, such a unified explanation of how nature operates is out of reach if modern theory and all its defects, including its acausalism, is used at the foundation.

As an acausal or anti-causal theory it renounces the Principle of Universal Causation, also known as the Law of Cause and Effect, or simply. Causality.  This is truly a renunciation because until October 1927, when today’s theory was officially adopted at the Fifth Physical Conference of the Solvay Institute, in Brussels, Belgium, the concept of causality had been relied upon ever since the science of physics was worthy of the name.  That is to say, from Galileo’s time onward, reality, the search for causal mechanisms and sequences in nature’s mode of operation, and the use of cause-effect logic had dominated in science.  Thus was the foundation for today’s mechanical, electrical, electronic, and space age prepared.  But, since 1927, basic research in physics has been misdirected and trivialized.

Werner K. Heisenberg (German physicist, 1901-1976; Nobel Laureate in 1932) was very active at the Conference, having been largely responsible for the development of modern theory.  His Uncertainty Principle (Doctrine of Chance, to give it a less euphemistic title) goes far beyond the commonly recognized uncertainty of instruments and measurements in physics or any other exact science.  It says, that nature itself can only be described as uncertain, vague, probabilistic, chancy in its mode of operation.

In effect, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle tells us that belief in causal mechanisms and sequences and belief in the reliability of natural laws, such as the Law of Gravity, are examples of misplaced confidence.  In short, according to Heisenherg, we live in a random-action universe.  He was certain of this fundamental uncertainty.  Thus began the dangerous discrimination against causality and, by extension, reality.

Just as there are dissenters today, there were such people back in the early days of modern theory, when it was debated by its opponents and proponents, sometimes heatedly and very often openly.  Students and even the interested public were aware of the conflict between the causalists and the acausalists.  Einstein, for example, not only rejected modern theory but also feared its inevitable cultural impact.  He never relented, although repeated attempts were made to win him over, even after he had fled to the United States.  He realized that concepts and theories in physics are not culturally neutral.  They affect one’s worldview and become, in many cases, self-fulfilling prophecies.  The historical record is proof of this.

Einstein was concerned about the unwholesome effect on the worldview of society when enough people are led to believe that “God plays dice with the universe” (his summary of the basic proposition in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle).  Einstein referred to modern theory as “objectionable nonsense.”    It seems reasonable to assume that the concept of a dice-rolling Creator, if widely diffused into society and generally believed, can send millions drifting off into the pale regions of intellectual, moral, and emotional stupor.  Such a belief can only obliterate principles of conduct, and this can have a very uncivilizing influence in society.

Heisenberg insisted, however, that we have little choice in deciding whether or not nature, at bottom, in its fine (thus basic) processes, is chance-oriented.  On page 10 of his book, Physics and Philosophy (published by Harper and Brothers. 1958), this is put plainly, compressing into only a few words the philosophy that underlies modern theory.

Heisenberg’s book was intended to help popularize post-1927 theory.  It was aimed at the educated who, presumably, would spread the word about it and the Uncertainty Principle.  Thus would the random-action-universe concept filter down and become entitled to respect and belief.  However, with regard to the experiments on black-body radiation, it may not have occurred to Heisenberg that the results had been misinterpreted because the theorists lacked sufficient knowledge to explain the results on the basis of causal mechanisms and sequences - of how one physical event led to another.

In any case, the possibility of misinterpretation was not mentioned in Physics and Philosophy.   Heisenberg and his followers were convinced that modern theory had established that the Law of Causality could no longer be supported and that to do so would be to nurse an illusion.   From now on, one had to believe that physical phenomena had only statistical and probabilistic meaning.  The theory is highly mathematized, but it is sometimes forgotten that mathematics can be the opium of the thinking man.  This caution is also missing from Physics and Philosophy.

Most of the public today, including students of the physical sciences, seem to be unaware of the topic of causality-versus-acausality in modern theory; but one does not have to search far in the literature to get a good handhold on it.  While post-1927 theory is not mentioned specifically in the following excerpt, taken from Encyclopedia Britannica, the rejection of causality by some scientists is described in rather stinging words.   The excerpt was taken from page 61, volume 5, 1952 edition:

The disavowal of causality does more than promote belief in magic or encourage throughgoing skepticism.  Ultimately it militates against the theory of knowledge.  That is to say, belief in magic leads to belief in the impossible (for example, belief in theories or concepts derived from the theorist’s inclination to ramble in his mind).  Undiscriminating skepticism leads to the unwise belief that all knowledge is uncertain.  How does all this affect the teaching of physics?  How does it affect students and their worldview? Do some become completely “stoned” on acausalism?

 Although Britannica did not point directly to modern theory and Heisenberg, Encyclopedia Americana did.  The following excerpt was taken from the 1964 edition, under the heading, “Cause”:

The phrase “until recent times” refers to the year 1927.  Thus for more than half a century, bits and pieces of modern theory have been diffusing into society, including the doctrine of acausality.  Even some of the jargon has infiltrated into the vocabulary of many people,  for example, it is not uncommon to hear someone refer to a “quantum jump.”  Yet, the theorists’ quantum is merely a free invention of the mind, as are its random jumps.  The spread of quantum babble is telling us something about the unavoidable cultural impact of theoretical physics.

With regard to this impact, one does not have to ransack the library in search of obscure books on the subject.  Rather, The Cosmos of Arthur Holly Compton (edited by Marjorie Johnston and published by A. A. Knopf Co. in 1967) deals with the topic quite plainly.  Compton (1892-1962) was an American physicist and Nobel Laureate in physics, 1927.  The following excerpt was taken from page 83 of The Cosmos:

Compton realized that currents of thought can flow from the Ivory tower of physics into the sea of non-scientists and thus create a worldview capable of influencing the thoughts and actions of society, thereby helping make history.   Yet, it isn’t generally recognized that some concepts and theories in physics can pull our strings in peculiar ways and thereby help make unwelcome history. Although students and the general public are not accustomed to it, we must learn to question what the theorists are writing on the fleshy tablets of our minds.

According to The Cosmos, Compton had a good understanding of the oppositeness of causality and acausality, yet he favored Heisenberg and modern theory.  However, Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger, and Max Planck (the developer of Quantum Theory, from which rose acausal Quantum Mechanics) rejected what was then referred to as a “new pathway in physics.”  All three were Nobel Laureates.  It is significant that Schrodinger accepted randomly jumping quantums of energy for a time (1922-1924), but by the fall of 1925 he had converted back to causality.

Russian theorists at first argued against the theory during the early years because of its subjectivity.  They grudgingly accepted it, but there is some evidence that after the end of World War II the Russian government banned the teaching of the Uncertainty Principle for a few years.  It is not known now whether any Russian theorists are trying to develop a less-subjective, causalistic explanation of how nature operates at all levels (nuclear, atomic, astronomic, and in the realm of elementary particles such as cosmic particles).

When Heisenberg’s Physics and Philosophy appeared in 1958, Compton recommended it, as shown in the next excerpt, taken from page 125 of The Cosmos:

A reading of Physics and Philosophy shows that Heisenberg had a similar grand vision, in which modern theory and its acausalism would serve as the basis of a new world-philosophy.  He believed that once we got the hang of living in a random-action universe, the historical process would undergo marked improvement.  His book also presents a brief description of a three-tiered, quantum-mechanically “correct” system of logic.  He recognized that the transition from causality to acausality in tne general mode of reasoning would lead to tensions that would add to the instability of the transient state.  Clearly he hadn’t completely abandoned the use of cause-effect logic.

Heisenberg had great hopes for modern theory, and it can be said that halfway measures were not part of his scheme of life.  And he had no fear of quantum overkill.   The few examples presented in this article point only to the “tip of the Heisenberg”.  But the question remains:  How did an acausal theory gain professional acceptance in the first place?

Naturally, the introduction of acausality into physics had a cause.  Professor Paul Forman, of the Department of History at the University of Rochester, has back-tracked to the primary motive.  According to his extensive research findings, the driving force behind the development of modern theory was the disappointment of many German academics and intellectuals over the loss of World War One.   During the years after the war and well into the period of the Weimar Republic and its turbulence, the stress among many learned people led to a loss of perspective, just as it had for many other Germans, including novelists, playwrights, and other opinion-makers.

The dominant intellectual tendency among many professors and other intellectuals was directed toward a neo-existentialist philosophy of life.  This attitude was not restricted to such people, of course.  It was also characterized by antagonism toward the exact sciences and their technological applications.  Causality became a dirty word.  And many German physicists and mathematicians, fearing to be out of step and out of favor with other thinkers, became acausalists.  In time they would alter dangerously the worldview of millions who had never even heard of them or of Heisenberg.

The title of Professor Forman’s 115-page research paper is:  Weimar Culture, Causality, and Quantum Theory. 1918-1927: Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual Environment.

Many physicists and mathematicians simply yielded to peer pressure, but it is safe to assert that some may not have needed much urging to become acausalists.  Forman’s extensive treatise was published by the University of Pennsylvania Press and is Volume 3 (1971) of Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences.  A few excerpts are presented below:

 On page 3, Forman wrote:

On pages 12-13, Forman quoted from Wilhelm Ostwald (German physicist; Nobel Laureate, 1909):

On page 13, Forman quoted from Arnold Sommerfeld (German physicist):

On page 24, Forman quoted from Carl Becker, a member of the Prussian Education Ministry during the war.  Becker wrote a pamphlet in 1919, dealing with university reform.   Among other things, he wrote:

On pages 101-102 of his paper, under the heading, “Causality’s Last Stand. 1925-1926.” Forman said:

On page 102, Professor Forman stated that Wilhelm Wien, a 1911 Nobel Laureate and champion of causality, not only refused to play to the intellectuals but took his case directly to the public through the pages of the Leipzig Illustrierte Zeitung in January 1925.  Acausalism was spreading among the educated class, and Wien wanted to head it off.  The next excerpt is from his article:

Wien realized that causality and reality and rationality were being threatened on a grand scale by this new but extremely faulty pathway in physics.  He hoped that he was observing a mere temporary deviation from reliance on causality in physics theory.  But, nearly six decades have passed since he expressed himself on the subject, and the theorists have yet to renounce their belief in the irrational doctrine of acausality.  They seem to have forgotten that it was the work of causalists such as Galileo and Newton who laid the foundation for the space age, for example.  At bottom, modern theory is anti-Galilean and anti-Newtonian, although the basic thrust of the theory is sometimes euphemistically described as non-Newtonian.  Heisenberg forcefully struck back at the causalists after Max Born (German physicist) fortified him with more ammunition, and in the spring of 1927 he again declared for acausality, this time with an air of certainty and finality.   The following excerpt was taken from pages 104-105 of Professor Forman’s treatise.  Said Heisenberg, correctly gauging the credulity and mind-set of his followers:

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle had now become Nature’s Uncertainty Principle, and the Laws of Nature had now become the laws of Quantum Mechanics.  Here was a “triumph” of the intellect that would tower over all others in physics, past or present.  The words sic transit theoria would never be heard again in the ivory tower.  The leisure of the theory class was assured.

Anyone, scientist or not, who accepted Heisenberg’s dictum that the Law of Causality is not valid would find himself hopping confusedly from one irrational hypothesis to another.  One absurdity being allowed, others follow naturally (in a very cause-effect way).  Even principled behavior would be put at risk.  Yet, Heisenberg had spoken with all the assurance of the elect, and most physicists went along with what he had to say.

Notice that he said that all experiments are subject to the laws of Quantum Mechanics.  With that pronouncement, belief in absolute (rock-bottom) chance was introduced into physics, and the pattern for nature’s mode of operation would henceforth become that of a lottery.  Eventually, Heisenberg would gain worldwide fame as a physicist, although he had merely enlarged the meaning of the words “gullibility” and “con game.”

On page 115 of his treatise, Forman wrote:

The cult of acausalism had become widespread in Germany.  Is there a connection between this and the Nazi flag, which featured the swastika, an ancient symbol of superstitious belief in chance and luck?

Acausalism may now be a permanent fixture in the mind-set of most theoretical physicists in the world.  And there is some evidence to suggest that if it is questioned at all  in this country, it is done in whispers only.  According to Dr. W. J. Lehman, author of Atomic and Nuclear Structure:  The Development of Concepts ( published by John Wiley & Sons, 1972):

It is difficult to understand why physics theorists would want to evade such an important topic since it bears so heavily on their science, which also underlies those categories of science that have been adapted to post-1927 theory - Quantum Chemistry, Quantum Biology, etc.  Students and the public should be clearly informed of the philosophy (doctrine of acausality) upon which modern physical theory is based.  Lehman was rather daring when he highlighted the fact that theorists are generally reluctant to let this inconvenient cat out of the bag.

It is not easy to understand why many theorists fail to pay enough attention to the effect of the doctrine of acausality on the worldview and value system of society.  Belief and trust in acausality has a strong effect on our relation to existence itself.  The implication of the Uncertainty Principle, in the minds of many, goes something like this:  since the theorists, who ought to know, tell us that we live in a random-action universe - a universe that makes no sense - then there is little point in constructing a system of cause-effect reasoning in any area of life.  Let it all hang out.

When enough of us react to modern theory in this way, nihilism, aimlessness, and chaos will follow.  Eventually, Big Brother will come out of hiding and take charge of such a no-anchor society.  Evidently, the theorists lack a sound understanding of the history-making power of physical theories, a serious lack in the present era of mass education and the other exposure pathways to the mind, such as newspapers magazines, television, novels, the theatre, and so on.

The concept of a universe that operates on the basis of cause-effect mechanisms governed by reliable natural laws was not overlooked by those who prepared the Declaration of Independence, especially, Franklin and Jefferson, who were also scientists.  It seems likely that it was they who included in the first paragraph of the Declaration a reference to nature’s laws.  The Declaration was not hastily composed, and it is reasonable to assume that Franklin and Jefferson realized that widespread recognition of a predictable, understandable, law-abiding universe would unobtrusively help bring coherence, useful purpose, and enlightened democracy to this nation and, gradually, to others.  The reference to nature’s laws must have been inspired by the work of Galileo and Newton, and, in particular, to Newton’s discovery of the Law of Gravitation.

Dr. Lehman’s chiding of the theorists for their failure to pay enough attention to the impact of acausalism on the inner feeling and value system of society should not be taken lightly by the theorists.  They live in the world with the rest of us and should realize that, piecemeal, modern theory and its underlying philosophy are capturing many minds and becoming operationally significant factors in many lives.  We live in continuous relation with the universe and are influenced by what the theorists say about it and its mode of operation.  And when enough of us become so influenced, the prevailing theory helps shape minds, establish public policy, and thereby impinges on the lives of the theorists themselves.  We’re all in this together.

Readers of Orwell’s “1984” know that he recognized the harmful impact of misleading theories on the world-view of society.” - and how such theories can help alienate people from reality itself and thus make them easier to manipulate.  Many unsuspecting people can be rendered incapable of distinguishing between physical reality and metaphysics, thereby being thrown off balance.   In this regard, Orwell recognized the power of the theorists when they use abstruse, abstract, but nevertheless dazzling and highly argumentative mathematics to support their statements and conclusions.  But, it is not widely known that their equations are not necessarily useful models of physical reality.

Rene Thorn, French mathematician, didn’t place much faith in mathematical physics, saying that the theoretical physicists very often put their trust magically in the virtues of blind mathematical formalism in the hope that the light at the end of the tunnel will dispel the intervening darkness.  (With regard to modern theory, this writer believes that the light is the headlight of an onrushing train.)  Thorn’s distrust of mathematical physics should not be taken lightly, nor should Orwell’s insight into the subject.

Orwell’s “1984” is best known for its focus on the way that people can be misled and confused and bewildered by what he called “Newspeak,” a kind of verbal hocus-pocus in which the definitions of words are subtly altered, thereby leading people to equate war with peace, slavery with freedom, ignorance with intellectual strength, and so on.  All this was intended to alienate people from sound logic, from one another, and even from self-reliance, thus clearing the way for Big Brother to take over.  Without charging that the term “Quantum Mechanics” was chosen to mislead, this writer questions the intellectual precision of the term, considering that the quantum of energy is a free invention of the mind and that there cannot really be any so-called “mechanics” associated with such a figment.

Although not often emphasized by readers of “1984”, it is clear that Orwell realized that, if necessary, Big Brother can enlist the aid of mathematical physicists to disconnect even the well-educated from reality by means of a booby-trapped physical theory.  The following excerpt from “1984” shows his deep insight in to this kind of flimflam.   A few prefatory words are needed to put the excerpt in context.   O’Brien, an agent of Big Brother, is badgering Winston Smith, a stubborn holdout against “Newspeak” and its capability for twisting minds by means of semantic shell games.  O’Brien explains how physics theorists, also, can alienate people from reality by trapping their minds in seductive mathematical webs:

Later on in this concluding section of “1984”, Winston realizes that he can no longer resist the conquest of his mind by Big Brother, the Ministry of Truth, the vocabulary of “Newspeak,” the Thought Police, and so on.  He is now willing to believe anything that the Party says, even that the laws of nature are nonsense.  He had won the victory over himself.  He had become hopeless and resigned.  Orwell summed up Winston’s condition in only four words at the end of the book:  “He loved Big Brother.”  Very thought provoking.  Was Orwell’s insight uncanny or simply canny?

As noted earlier, dislike for modern theory and the physics establishment is growing in this country - a good sign.  But, the dissenters find it difficult to publish their papers in the physics journals.  Critiques of the theory (except for re-interpretations) are deflected, as are non-quantum-mechanics approaches to explaining how the universe of atoms, nuclei, elementary uncharged particles, and astronomic bodies operates, and how these different bodies (small and large) interact with one another.  Contrary to popular opinion, ignorance of all this is great.  Yet, there may be an unpublished innovative individual who already has a useful approach to the problem - an approach based on strictly causal, realistic, mechanisms and newly discovered natural laws and constants:  As to natural laws and constants, it would be premature to say that the few that have been discovered represent the lot of them.  A useful approach to basic research in physics could easily turn up many more, leading to new technology and consequently more employment.  Doing physics the right way is, among other things, also economically important.

The physics establishment’s deflection of criticism and innovative approaches is hard to understand when one considers that quantum physics is in deep trouble.  In a very real way, this shows up in the design of experiments, where the experimenters must contend with conflicting or ambiguous interpretations of the theory.  Yet, the chief function of a theory is to provide a useful road map to guide experimenters in the correct direction.  Then when the experimental findings are of technological importance, engineers take over and adapt the findings to large-scale practice.

A useful theory (or, much better yet, a greatly enlarged collection of natural laws) would be of great benefit in today’s industrialized society.  For example, a good understanding of how to develop super-conducting wire that operates at, say, 25° Centigrade would be very useful.  Obviously, the transmission of electricity over very long distances with only small line-losses would go far toward helping us declare independence from foreign oil sources.  But, first, one must known how super-conductivity is caused.  While Newton discovered the law of gravitation, he did not discover the cause of gravitation.  It is not just a “happening”; it is caused.  Now, suppose that the cause of gravitation were known.  Would this lead to an understanding of the cause of levitation (the opposite of gravitation)?  And would this knowledge lead to the development of an anti-gravity machine?

The usefulness of a theory that promotes a realistic, causalistic approach to the search for ultimate cause with respect to the physical properties of matter is self-evident.  But can an acausal theory tell us how these properties (such as gravitation and super-conductivity) are caused?  To put it another way, should the theorists continue to bunch their ignorance of causal chains under headings such as, “Absolute Chance” or “Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle”?

No discipline can be said to be truly alive unless it is always ready to prove its validity in the face of useful criticism or meaningful innovative approaches.  Consequently, meaningful challenges to modern theory and its acausalism should be highlighted in a separate section in physics journals, and editorial policies should be relaxed to accommodate such articles.  Granted, a relaxation of editorial policies will present special problems to journal staffs and to those who review the articles for possible publication.   It may not be easy for those involved in peer reviews to handle a peerless critic or innovator.  Galileo and Newton aroused the antipathy of most of their contemporaries in physics.  In medicine, Pasteur and Semmelweis were not regarded as scientists of consequence by most others in their respective fields.  Editors and reviewers will have to be mindful of these and similar examples.

Today’s “established theory” is by no means a closed system of thought, no longer subject to re-appraisal or to replacement by a better way of doing physics.  It is not characterized by sound knowledge of how nature operates.  Furthermore, education in physics is deficient if it shields students from this fact and from the fact that modern theory is fundamentally flawed simply because it is an acausal theory.  Moreover, the physics establishment will be remiss in its obligation to society in general  if it fails to put the topic of causality versus acausality on public view.   In a democratic society such as ours, the right to know is one of the key factors in the conduct of its affairs.   Consequently, full disclosure is a necessity, not an option.

NOTE:   If this article doesn’t stimulate you to question what is REAL, and what is NOT REAL, better start getting fitted for a brain transplant.  Are Quantum Theorists really inspired “magicians” in the making, or, are they deluded “fanatics” run amok?

 This extremely thought-provoking article was submitted by Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, who was the Focal-Point Officer for the Armed Forces/CIA in the Pentagon for nine years under US Defense Secretaries, Thomas Gates and Robert McNamara, during the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations.

 While serving in the above capacity, Prouty became very familiar with government programs such as “Operation Paper-Clip” (the relocation of key Nazi “experts” in the fields of Rocketry, Psychological Operations, Behavior Modification and Mind-Control, to American military installations in order to carry on experimentation and development of our own “psy-ops” programs such as MKULTRA, Project MONARCH, etc.).  He has authored the "definitive" work on this subject titled "UNDERSTANDING SPECIAL OPERATIONS" which can be found at:

"CLICK HERE":   http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/USO/

 The present article is a portion of a significant amount of correspondence between himself, Mr. Whetsel (a nuclear scientist from Oak Ridge, Tenn. who wrote this article) and a Mr. Alan Tolstoy Gresky (an Einstein class physicist and philosopher, now deceased), during the year 1984, some of which Col. Prouty has passed along to me.  Attempts to contact Mr. Whetsel have, thus far, failed and it is not known whether he is still alive.  It is believed that this article has never before been published.  (Can you imagine why?) You may draw your own conclusions from it.  (RHB)

CLICK HERE to return to Current Issues.

Readers comments are welcome and encouraged.  They can submitted by Email to cfpress@nationmakers.com or discussed in the NATIONMAKERS INTERNATIONAL DISCUSSION GROUP.

All Written Materials Copyright, 1997,1998,1999 Robert H. Brevig
All Rights Are Reserved, Without Prejudice.
U.C.C. 1-207.4 U.C.C. 1-103.6,.7