While these “contradictions” are not considered contradictions by the expert since quantum theory is based on the idea that there is no causality of single natural processes, within the limits of that theory there exists only a causality of probabilities and on this basis it can even be shown that there isn’t any illustrative and, thus, causal model of the atom as yet.

Maybe it is just this opinion that deserves critical re-evalutation, since actually each classical description is based on the causality principle; and this principle, often confirmed by experience, also makes use of quantum theory as far as possible.

Now let us just assume someone would claim that this principle applies to all natural processes. Immediately, each expert could disprove such an assertion using ample evidence.

Let us further assume that nature actually behaves causally in all its details, that even all evidence opposing such an opinion is correct and that only the standpoint on which this evidence is based requires revision – then a strange contradiction evolves: First, the expert’s path toward further development of this theory is blocked due to the above-mentioned numerous evidence. Secondly, while the layperson would be able to take a causal viewpoint he could not cope with the expert’s arguments because he lacks knowledge about quantum theory and cannot understand the expert’s counterarguments adequately. On the other hand, the layperson is obliged (in the interest of science) to hold his view despite all inadequacy of proof.

For this reason the author claims the right to take a causal viewpoint without proving it beyond all doubt. Therefore, the reader should regard the following heuristic considerations as merely an opinion and a (perhaps interesting) adventure, forgiving the arbitrariness that is necessary for such a position.