Thursday, 18 August 2011
Waxing philosophical
It's not a matter of being heavier on lighter matters but of being a bit lighter on heavierlighter on heavier matters.
End of Little Gidding - Four Quartets - T. S. Eliot
The end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. At the source longest river the voice of the hidden waterfall. Not known because not looked for but heard, half heard in the stillness between two waves the sea. Quick now, here now, always a condition of complete siimplicity and all shall be well and all manner shall when the tongues of the flame are infolded and the fire and the rose are one.
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
An Abstract
Quantum theory has been developed into a Standard Model that has been highly successful in terms of accounting for many properties of matter and the energy tat matter radiates, the prediction of new experimental results and in its use in technological innovations. Yet attempts to understand what is hidden beyond the observable experimental results have only led to various and conflicting interpretations. Although there is just one type of approach to the quantum findings where a wide range of experimental results are accounted for in a determinate causal interpretation, and which includes a detailed description of a wave property and defined particle trajectories.
Here we present an argument for and then a development of such a causal interpretation where a cause that would have nonlocal effects is indirectly represented by means of diagrams, while other causal properties are verbally described. We then find that this hypothesis can be supported by available large scale natural evidence of where such a cause can also be thought to act. So that only thus are we able to clearly relate properties of a nonlocally acting cause to Big Bang cosmological theory, observable astronomical findings and evidence of living organisms. We suggest how further observation and experiment could support and further develop a general theory of a distinct cause that can only be described from its effects in addition to those of the known forces.
Here we present an argument for and then a development of such a causal interpretation where a cause that would have nonlocal effects is indirectly represented by means of diagrams, while other causal properties are verbally described. We then find that this hypothesis can be supported by available large scale natural evidence of where such a cause can also be thought to act. So that only thus are we able to clearly relate properties of a nonlocally acting cause to Big Bang cosmological theory, observable astronomical findings and evidence of living organisms. We suggest how further observation and experiment could support and further develop a general theory of a distinct cause that can only be described from its effects in addition to those of the known forces.
Saturday, 4 September 2010
A Scientific Discovery?
Alice: So, Merlin, can you tell us why you think that modern science is a long way from explaining how the universe is the way that it is?
Merlin: Well, one can reasonably assume that modern physics is the science that should provide an understanding of the universe in general. And many physicists have been involved in attempts to develop a single unified theory of matter, energy and forces. Such a unified account has been called a theory of everything. Whereas I suggest that any such theoretical attempts could not reveal something fundamental and universal that’s missing from the present physics but that needs to be discovered and described in enough detail to gain a general understanding of the universe that includes life on Earth.
Bob: OK, so suppose we accept that there is this fundamental and universal something, couldn’t we think it rather extraordinary and improbable that it’s still missing after so much time and effort has been expended on research and theorising by so many intelligent people in the field of physics?
Merlin: Yes, you could indeed. But then I’d suggest that the means of clearly revealing this something - as much the most elusive of all natural causes and its effects - could also be thought quite extraordinary and improbable. So I say what’s essential for making this cause and effect discovery is the need to reach beyond both the conventional methods and the scope of a physics that assumes the known forces to be all the causes that act universally, and yet still give an account of what’s discovered that can be regarded as properly scientific, although only by examining together much and various natural evidence of where this further cause can be considered to act. So that only thus, I propose, can there be found a general explanation for how the universe is of a certain natural form that resists the action of all the forces.
Although as I’ve been able to develop an account of it so far, anyway, I’m not sure I could convince a physicist of the scientific validity of this discovery, partly because it needs further development while also conflict-ing with certain current theories that are now quite well developed.
Alice: Um, so are you saying there’s another universal force?
Merlin: Not necessarily what you’d call a force, I’d suggest. And that’s because you could think of any force as a cause that has a strength of effect where it in some way acts upon matter and energy by pulling or pushing objects. Whereas I say a central problem for this discovery is how to justify and describe enough details of an invisible cause where it can’t be said to possess the pull, push, attract or repel properties of a force.
Bob: Although prior to that, I would’ve thought, is the question of whether there could be any such cause at all.
Merlin: Well yes. So, by much careful experiment, measurement and mathematical calculation a great deal of evidence of various kinds has now been found and described of matter on the minute scale of its constituents that are called atoms and molecules and of their subatomic components, as well as the parts or quanta called photons of light and other energy that matter can radiate. While the conclusion can be that from none of this evidence could it be definitely shown that any invisible cause acts upon matter and energy in addition to the forces.
Yet suppose from the small scale findings there can be justified and developed a certain kind of hypothesis where appropriate means are used to describe and represent certain essential properties of this further cause from it’s effects. Then it’s found that only this hypothesis can provide clear reasons to consider that, where and how the same cause may act on a larger scale. Then a large amount of observable and detectable evidence can be examined together of where the cause can be considered to act on a larger scale, and by indicating how this supports the initial hypothesis.
Alice: So why would you say that a physicist hasn’t yet developed such a hypothesis?
Merlin: Ah well, I could suggest several reasons. But most crucially, I think, is the fact that this development needs to be so unlike any other theoretical account in physics, and , I’d say, could be thought so speculative by many physicists that, to construct the hypothesis in the first instance, you’d need to have quite strong prior reasons to believe that it could be clearly supported by large scale natural evidence. And I’d say a physicist would be hard put to find such prior reasons. Also, what’s more, I have to admit that the initial hypothesis cannot deduced or justified any new mathematical calculation or formula.
And then again, of course, there’s the whole history of the development of quantum physics that, since 1927, has been dominated by what’s called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. While I propose that a detailed enough theoretical development that begins with this causal quantum hypothesis is the only way of finally demonstrating that the Copenhagen account of the unobservable behaviour of quantum objects is incorrect.
Bob: Ah right, so that sounds as though you’d claim it’s possible to finally solve the problem of particle/wave duality.
Merlin: I would indeed claim that, actually, and without creating a measurement problem. So the Copenhagen interpretation insists that the uncertainties of measurement and prediction plus the dual particle and wave nature of quantum objects means that, beyond any experimental results, quantum behaviour is indeterminate and has no cause. And so, in effect, it’s observation and measurement from the experimental results that determine the properties of quantum objects and their behaviour. Although the problem then arises as to exactly how observation and measurement can do this.
Whereas, essentially, I’m proposing that what needs to be generally explained is how the universe in general can be in it’s particular natural form as matter and the energy it radiates, and given the known action of the forces. While for such an explanation to be possible the assumption, to begin with, needs to be that the invisible behaviour of quantum objects is of a particular determinate form, and that there’s something distinct from all the forces that causes this to be so.
This initial causal assumption means that, so far, the closest to a true account of what occurs beyond the measurable results of quantum experiments needs to be what’s been called the de Broglie-Bohm inter-pretation of quantum mechanics. And one can note, in particular, that in this quantum account some details are described of an invisible cause that would act in addition to the forces, and which is called the quantum potential.
Alice: I have actually read a few popular books about quantum physics, so I know something of the Copenhagen interpretation. But I can’t remember reading much about this de Broglie-Bohm version.
Merlin: Well no, and that’s because in such books this causal interpretation is so often mentioned just in a paragraph - or not much more than a page or two, anyway. While I’d say it’s arguable that the reasons for this are more historical than scientific. So, in fact, because the de Broglie-Bohm account has been shown to be consistent with a wide enough range of experimental results and is not in conflict any experiment, just as in the case of the Copenhagen interpretation, this contrary account can’t be demonstrated to be incorrect from any quantum evidence.
Apart from the causal difference between these two interpretations is the fact that the Copenhagen conception views the behaviour of travelling quantum objects that can’t be observed or measured in any experiment to be such that it can’t be visualised. Whereas the de Broglie-Bohm account actually justifies a particular description of this invisible quantum behaviour as objects in motion, which therefore can and has been visualised.
The causal account has been called a hidden variables interpretation, which was developed by the physicist David Bohm and first published in 1952 as two scientific papers. Although the title de Broglie-Bohm derives from a conceptually similar interpretation that was developed by Louis de Broglie, which he called a pilot wave theory, and which he presented at the fifth Solvay Conference in Belgium in 1927. And, in fact, it was at this same conference that details of what was later to be called the Copenhagen interpretation were first made public by three key contributors to the devel-opment of the original quantum mechanics, and who won their argument at the expense of the pilot wave theory. Although a few years earlier De Broglie had played a key role in the theoretical development of quantum physics by indicating, for the first time, enough details of how matter particles should possess a wave property of behaviour similar to that of light.
So, essentially, the hidden variables accounts of both de Broglie and Bohm have in common the conception of travelling quantum objects being particles that are each accompanied by a laterally extended wave. While in certain experiments the quantum wave would steer each particle travelling in a beam to produce effects that are called interference and diffraction patterns. Although in these experiments what produces the patterns can only be observed as the particle-like impacts of quantum objects on a screen. But the use of very low intensity beams showed how these patterns could be produced as the objects hit the screen one at a time.
Bob: Well alright then, so you can say that if this hidden variables inter-pretation of quantum mechanics is correct then the quantum wave would act in addition to the forces as an invisible cause. But from what I know of the development of quantum mechanics and theory a physicist could insist that there are good scientific reasons why this hidden variables account isn’t mentioned much in the popular literature.
So it can be pointed out that a very detailed and successful quantum theory has been developed without the need for any alternative to an inde-terminate interpretation of quantum mechanics. Because this theory has explained a great many chemical, nuclear and other properties of matter, as well as properties of light, and x-rays, microwaves, radio waves, and other invisible electromagnetic radiation. And then you can consider how quant-um theory has predicted the results of further experiments and the existence of previously unknown particles, and has also been essential for the development of technologies that include all those that require transistors and lasers.
Merlin: Yes, none of that be denied, of course, nor the remarkable ingen-uity of many physicists in making all these developments possible. But then you can say that all this has been achieved by finding the appropriate means of measurement and mathematical calculation only from the direct evidence of quantum behaviour. So you can still insist that without any direct means of confirming it from the behaviour of matter or energy, you can’t demonstrate that an acausal indeterminate account of the unobserv-able quantum behaviour is correct. While the existence of a working determinate and causal alternative does mean that the Copenhagen account of what invisibly occurs beyond the experimental results could be wrong. That is, even if the causal interpretation indicates that quantum objects defy - or appear to defy - the known fundamental principles of the observable behaviour of matter and energy.
Also, there are still found to be large problems in constructing a unified theory of physics – or just of gravity and the electromagnetic, nuclear weak and strong forces - that can be confirmed by observation, and that’s based on what’s now called the standard model of quantum theory. And even after all its successes, some prominent physicists have still expressed doubts that a quantum mechanics is satisfactory or complete that can’t give a definite account of quantum behaviour that’s independent of the observer. Although, admittedly, nor have they recommended the de Broglie-Bohm account of quantum mechanics as a providing a possible solution to this theoretical limitation.
But actually, I propose that there are certain crucial limitations to this causal hidden variables interpretation itself. Because to construct the appropriate quantum hypothesis that I’m advocating, there’s a need to justify a description and visual representation of certain details of a cause that could produce the quantum wave in addition to those described of the quantum potential.
Although I’ve found that before tackling the causal problem of the quantum wave it’s best to consider a phenomenon that’s been called quantum entanglement. So there was no need to presume a causal interpretation to find that the quantum mechanics implies a unique kind of connection at a distance between pairs of quantum objects. This implication was pointed out in detail in 1935 in a paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, who insisted that, in reality, there could be no such connection that would be instantaneous and invariable at any distance between objects. At that time there was no experimental means of measuring such a connection at a long distance between quantum objects that have been described as being in entangled states.
My email: mo-wood(at)hotmail.co.uk
Alice: So, Merlin, can you tell us why you think that modern science is a long way from explaining how the universe is the way that it is?
Merlin: Well, one can reasonably assume that modern physics is the science that should provide an understanding of the universe in general. And many physicists have been involved in attempts to develop a single unified theory of matter, energy and forces. Such a unified account has been called a theory of everything. Whereas I suggest that any such theoretical attempts could not reveal something fundamental and universal that’s missing from the present physics but that needs to be discovered and described in enough detail to gain a general understanding of the universe that includes life on Earth.
Bob: OK, so suppose we accept that there is this fundamental and universal something, couldn’t we think it rather extraordinary and improbable that it’s still missing after so much time and effort has been expended on research and theorising by so many intelligent people in the field of physics?
Merlin: Yes, you could indeed. But then I’d suggest that the means of clearly revealing this something - as much the most elusive of all natural causes and its effects - could also be thought quite extraordinary and improbable. So I say what’s essential for making this cause and effect discovery is the need to reach beyond both the conventional methods and the scope of a physics that assumes the known forces to be all the causes that act universally, and yet still give an account of what’s discovered that can be regarded as properly scientific, although only by examining together much and various natural evidence of where this further cause can be considered to act. So that only thus, I propose, can there be found a general explanation for how the universe is of a certain natural form that resists the action of all the forces.
Although as I’ve been able to develop an account of it so far, anyway, I’m not sure I could convince a physicist of the scientific validity of this discovery, partly because it needs further development while also conflict-ing with certain current theories that are now quite well developed.
Alice: Um, so are you saying there’s another universal force?
Merlin: Not necessarily what you’d call a force, I’d suggest. And that’s because you could think of any force as a cause that has a strength of effect where it in some way acts upon matter and energy by pulling or pushing objects. Whereas I say a central problem for this discovery is how to justify and describe enough details of an invisible cause where it can’t be said to possess the pull, push, attract or repel properties of a force.
Bob: Although prior to that, I would’ve thought, is the question of whether there could be any such cause at all.
Merlin: Well yes. So, by much careful experiment, measurement and mathematical calculation a great deal of evidence of various kinds has now been found and described of matter on the minute scale of its constituents that are called atoms and molecules and of their subatomic components, as well as the parts or quanta called photons of light and other energy that matter can radiate. While the conclusion can be that from none of this evidence could it be definitely shown that any invisible cause acts upon matter and energy in addition to the forces.
Yet suppose from the small scale findings there can be justified and developed a certain kind of hypothesis where appropriate means are used to describe and represent certain essential properties of this further cause from it’s effects. Then it’s found that only this hypothesis can provide clear reasons to consider that, where and how the same cause may act on a larger scale. Then a large amount of observable and detectable evidence can be examined together of where the cause can be considered to act on a larger scale, and by indicating how this supports the initial hypothesis.
Alice: So why would you say that a physicist hasn’t yet developed such a hypothesis?
Merlin: Ah well, I could suggest several reasons. But most crucially, I think, is the fact that this development needs to be so unlike any other theoretical account in physics, and , I’d say, could be thought so speculative by many physicists that, to construct the hypothesis in the first instance, you’d need to have quite strong prior reasons to believe that it could be clearly supported by large scale natural evidence. And I’d say a physicist would be hard put to find such prior reasons. Also, what’s more, I have to admit that the initial hypothesis cannot deduced or justified any new mathematical calculation or formula.
And then again, of course, there’s the whole history of the development of quantum physics that, since 1927, has been dominated by what’s called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. While I propose that a detailed enough theoretical development that begins with this causal quantum hypothesis is the only way of finally demonstrating that the Copenhagen account of the unobservable behaviour of quantum objects is incorrect.
Bob: Ah right, so that sounds as though you’d claim it’s possible to finally solve the problem of particle/wave duality.
Merlin: I would indeed claim that, actually, and without creating a measurement problem. So the Copenhagen interpretation insists that the uncertainties of measurement and prediction plus the dual particle and wave nature of quantum objects means that, beyond any experimental results, quantum behaviour is indeterminate and has no cause. And so, in effect, it’s observation and measurement from the experimental results that determine the properties of quantum objects and their behaviour. Although the problem then arises as to exactly how observation and measurement can do this.
Whereas, essentially, I’m proposing that what needs to be generally explained is how the universe in general can be in it’s particular natural form as matter and the energy it radiates, and given the known action of the forces. While for such an explanation to be possible the assumption, to begin with, needs to be that the invisible behaviour of quantum objects is of a particular determinate form, and that there’s something distinct from all the forces that causes this to be so.
This initial causal assumption means that, so far, the closest to a true account of what occurs beyond the measurable results of quantum experiments needs to be what’s been called the de Broglie-Bohm inter-pretation of quantum mechanics. And one can note, in particular, that in this quantum account some details are described of an invisible cause that would act in addition to the forces, and which is called the quantum potential.
Alice: I have actually read a few popular books about quantum physics, so I know something of the Copenhagen interpretation. But I can’t remember reading much about this de Broglie-Bohm version.
Merlin: Well no, and that’s because in such books this causal interpretation is so often mentioned just in a paragraph - or not much more than a page or two, anyway. While I’d say it’s arguable that the reasons for this are more historical than scientific. So, in fact, because the de Broglie-Bohm account has been shown to be consistent with a wide enough range of experimental results and is not in conflict any experiment, just as in the case of the Copenhagen interpretation, this contrary account can’t be demonstrated to be incorrect from any quantum evidence.
Apart from the causal difference between these two interpretations is the fact that the Copenhagen conception views the behaviour of travelling quantum objects that can’t be observed or measured in any experiment to be such that it can’t be visualised. Whereas the de Broglie-Bohm account actually justifies a particular description of this invisible quantum behaviour as objects in motion, which therefore can and has been visualised.
The causal account has been called a hidden variables interpretation, which was developed by the physicist David Bohm and first published in 1952 as two scientific papers. Although the title de Broglie-Bohm derives from a conceptually similar interpretation that was developed by Louis de Broglie, which he called a pilot wave theory, and which he presented at the fifth Solvay Conference in Belgium in 1927. And, in fact, it was at this same conference that details of what was later to be called the Copenhagen interpretation were first made public by three key contributors to the devel-opment of the original quantum mechanics, and who won their argument at the expense of the pilot wave theory. Although a few years earlier De Broglie had played a key role in the theoretical development of quantum physics by indicating, for the first time, enough details of how matter particles should possess a wave property of behaviour similar to that of light.
So, essentially, the hidden variables accounts of both de Broglie and Bohm have in common the conception of travelling quantum objects being particles that are each accompanied by a laterally extended wave. While in certain experiments the quantum wave would steer each particle travelling in a beam to produce effects that are called interference and diffraction patterns. Although in these experiments what produces the patterns can only be observed as the particle-like impacts of quantum objects on a screen. But the use of very low intensity beams showed how these patterns could be produced as the objects hit the screen one at a time.
Bob: Well alright then, so you can say that if this hidden variables inter-pretation of quantum mechanics is correct then the quantum wave would act in addition to the forces as an invisible cause. But from what I know of the development of quantum mechanics and theory a physicist could insist that there are good scientific reasons why this hidden variables account isn’t mentioned much in the popular literature.
So it can be pointed out that a very detailed and successful quantum theory has been developed without the need for any alternative to an inde-terminate interpretation of quantum mechanics. Because this theory has explained a great many chemical, nuclear and other properties of matter, as well as properties of light, and x-rays, microwaves, radio waves, and other invisible electromagnetic radiation. And then you can consider how quant-um theory has predicted the results of further experiments and the existence of previously unknown particles, and has also been essential for the development of technologies that include all those that require transistors and lasers.
Merlin: Yes, none of that be denied, of course, nor the remarkable ingen-uity of many physicists in making all these developments possible. But then you can say that all this has been achieved by finding the appropriate means of measurement and mathematical calculation only from the direct evidence of quantum behaviour. So you can still insist that without any direct means of confirming it from the behaviour of matter or energy, you can’t demonstrate that an acausal indeterminate account of the unobserv-able quantum behaviour is correct. While the existence of a working determinate and causal alternative does mean that the Copenhagen account of what invisibly occurs beyond the experimental results could be wrong. That is, even if the causal interpretation indicates that quantum objects defy - or appear to defy - the known fundamental principles of the observable behaviour of matter and energy.
Also, there are still found to be large problems in constructing a unified theory of physics – or just of gravity and the electromagnetic, nuclear weak and strong forces - that can be confirmed by observation, and that’s based on what’s now called the standard model of quantum theory. And even after all its successes, some prominent physicists have still expressed doubts that a quantum mechanics is satisfactory or complete that can’t give a definite account of quantum behaviour that’s independent of the observer. Although, admittedly, nor have they recommended the de Broglie-Bohm account of quantum mechanics as a providing a possible solution to this theoretical limitation.
But actually, I propose that there are certain crucial limitations to this causal hidden variables interpretation itself. Because to construct the appropriate quantum hypothesis that I’m advocating, there’s a need to justify a description and visual representation of certain details of a cause that could produce the quantum wave in addition to those described of the quantum potential.
Although I’ve found that before tackling the causal problem of the quantum wave it’s best to consider a phenomenon that’s been called quantum entanglement. So there was no need to presume a causal interpretation to find that the quantum mechanics implies a unique kind of connection at a distance between pairs of quantum objects. This implication was pointed out in detail in 1935 in a paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, who insisted that, in reality, there could be no such connection that would be instantaneous and invariable at any distance between objects. At that time there was no experimental means of measuring such a connection at a long distance between quantum objects that have been described as being in entangled states.
My email: mo-wood(at)hotmail.co.uk
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Manifesto for the Real World Scientific Revolution
Here the following is held to be the case:
(1) Given that it can be assumed that the universe consists just of matter/energy and the forces, what is called the standar model of quantum and particle theory does not make sense. And given any assumption that the known forces are all the causes that act universally, no theory can be successfully developed that generallly explains how the universe is the way that it is.
(2) How an invisible cause could act universally in addition to the forces cannot be demonstrated by measurement and calculation from any evidence found of matter and energy on the smallest scale. Nor can it be demonstrated that this cause acts in the world from any such evidence found of atoms, molecules, their subatomic components or photons of radiant energy when examined alone. This is a cause that, rather than attracting or repelling objects with some measurable strength, acts so that matter can remain in its naturally organised forms despite the action of the forces, and produces the effects that are called quantum wave, spin and entanglement. And only by sufficiently justifying and describing enough details of this cause by examining together enough available natural evidence of where it acts can it be explained how matter can exist at all while consisting almost all of the space be between its subatomic components as particles.
(3) Modern physics lost its rational scientific aim at the fifth Solvay Conference in October 1927 where an indeterminist interpretation of quantum mechanics was first propounded - and subsequently incorporated into the language of all quantum physics textbooks - in what was to be called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The 1927 conference was also where Louis de Broglie's pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics was rejected.
(4) The closest to a true account of quantum behaviour and its cause yet to be published was argued for in two papers by David Bohm entitled "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of 'Hidden Variables' I & II"(1952). This account was a more sophisticatd version of De Broglie's Pilot Wave account, and was shown to be consistent with all the experimental evidence from which the original quantum mechanics was derived. This account demonstrated that the uncertainties and probabilites of measurement in quantum meechanics could be understood as limtations in any experimental set up, rather than real properties of quantum behaviour beyond the experimental results. And these observed results could be accounted for by quantum objects being both waves and particles with definable trajectoreies while in motion. As such Bohm's account can be described as a determinate nonlocal causal interpretation of quantum mechanics.. http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v85/i2/p166_1 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
(5) The probabilities and uncertainties of measurement of quantum behaviour that led to the Copenhagen interpretation were a diversion from the fact that matter had been discovered to consist of so little of of anything that could be called material objects. So that just this discovery in 1909 of the minute atomic nucleus was a clear indication the matter needed to consist of more than mere particles. Then the discovery of the electron wave property and Schrodinger's wave equation were clear indications that the quantum wave needed to exist universally as a real property for matter to exist at all as atoms and molecules.
(6) The present Standard Model of quantum and particle theory is severely limited by its lack of a causal explanation of quantum wave, spin and entanglement behaviour, and its description of virtual particle exchange and vacuum energy is not a true account of what occurs on the small scale beyond the measurable results of experiments. And there is no large scale evidence to support the existence of either virtual particals or vacuum energy in the quantity thaat quantum field theory predicts. But rather, the cosmological evidence is of a mysterious 'dark energy', of which there is less than the quantum fiels theory vacuum energy by many orders of magnitude This huge anomoly exists because, rather than causally explaining quantum behaviour in termsof objects in motion, quantum field theory assumes that Heisenbers's Uncertainty Principle applies to the actual behaviour of quantum objects in motion, while there is no direct evidence to justify this assumption. The Standard Model is thus successful as a mathematical scheme that accounts for many properties of matter by describing quantum behaviour just as directly detected and measured. But this model does not causally explain the quantum behaviour itself, and thus provides no scientific explanation of how the natural form and organisation of matter in general is possible.
(7) No sufficiently detailed expanatory cosmology can be developed on the assumption that the known forces or fundamental interactions are all the causes that act universally upon matter and energy. So that an appropropriate nonlocal causal hypthesis needs to be developed to deduce enouigh properties of a cause of quantum wave behaviour. This hypothesis then provides sufficient reasons to consider that and how a nonlocally acting cause could act universally on the astronomical scale.
(8) The only possible empirically verifiable account that may be called a theory overything will be a natural explanation of everything that cannot be explained by the action of the forces alone. This account could be more accurately called a General Theory of Natural Organisation, where a determinate nonlocal causal nterpretation or hypothesis of quantum wave, spin and entanglement behaviour is supported by an examination of sufficient large scale natural evidence, and thus demonstrates, in enough detail from its observable effects, that and how a cause acts universally, constantly and nonlocally in addition to all the forces.
(9) In a General Theory of Natural Organisation the evidence examined on the large scale will be of available astronomical findings in relation to the evolution of the presently observed large scale structure of the cosmos and the formation of galaxies, stars and planetary systems; as well as living organisms in relation to the nature of the mind as a part of a nonlocal cause, the evolution of consciousness and general features of organic behaviour. This theory may be regarded as a sufficient general explanation of how the universe that includes living organisms is the way that it is, but is capable of indefinite further development.
(10) The General Theory of Natural Organisation may be regarded as a scientific explanation which demonstrates that the real universe makes eough sense of life from a human point of view and will allow human beings to make more sense of their lives by their actions.
(1) Given that it can be assumed that the universe consists just of matter/energy and the forces, what is called the standar model of quantum and particle theory does not make sense. And given any assumption that the known forces are all the causes that act universally, no theory can be successfully developed that generallly explains how the universe is the way that it is.
(2) How an invisible cause could act universally in addition to the forces cannot be demonstrated by measurement and calculation from any evidence found of matter and energy on the smallest scale. Nor can it be demonstrated that this cause acts in the world from any such evidence found of atoms, molecules, their subatomic components or photons of radiant energy when examined alone. This is a cause that, rather than attracting or repelling objects with some measurable strength, acts so that matter can remain in its naturally organised forms despite the action of the forces, and produces the effects that are called quantum wave, spin and entanglement. And only by sufficiently justifying and describing enough details of this cause by examining together enough available natural evidence of where it acts can it be explained how matter can exist at all while consisting almost all of the space be between its subatomic components as particles.
(3) Modern physics lost its rational scientific aim at the fifth Solvay Conference in October 1927 where an indeterminist interpretation of quantum mechanics was first propounded - and subsequently incorporated into the language of all quantum physics textbooks - in what was to be called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The 1927 conference was also where Louis de Broglie's pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics was rejected.
(4) The closest to a true account of quantum behaviour and its cause yet to be published was argued for in two papers by David Bohm entitled "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of 'Hidden Variables' I & II"(1952). This account was a more sophisticatd version of De Broglie's Pilot Wave account, and was shown to be consistent with all the experimental evidence from which the original quantum mechanics was derived. This account demonstrated that the uncertainties and probabilites of measurement in quantum meechanics could be understood as limtations in any experimental set up, rather than real properties of quantum behaviour beyond the experimental results. And these observed results could be accounted for by quantum objects being both waves and particles with definable trajectoreies while in motion. As such Bohm's account can be described as a determinate nonlocal causal interpretation of quantum mechanics.. http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v85/i2/p166_1 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
(5) The probabilities and uncertainties of measurement of quantum behaviour that led to the Copenhagen interpretation were a diversion from the fact that matter had been discovered to consist of so little of of anything that could be called material objects. So that just this discovery in 1909 of the minute atomic nucleus was a clear indication the matter needed to consist of more than mere particles. Then the discovery of the electron wave property and Schrodinger's wave equation were clear indications that the quantum wave needed to exist universally as a real property for matter to exist at all as atoms and molecules.
(6) The present Standard Model of quantum and particle theory is severely limited by its lack of a causal explanation of quantum wave, spin and entanglement behaviour, and its description of virtual particle exchange and vacuum energy is not a true account of what occurs on the small scale beyond the measurable results of experiments. And there is no large scale evidence to support the existence of either virtual particals or vacuum energy in the quantity thaat quantum field theory predicts. But rather, the cosmological evidence is of a mysterious 'dark energy', of which there is less than the quantum fiels theory vacuum energy by many orders of magnitude This huge anomoly exists because, rather than causally explaining quantum behaviour in termsof objects in motion, quantum field theory assumes that Heisenbers's Uncertainty Principle applies to the actual behaviour of quantum objects in motion, while there is no direct evidence to justify this assumption. The Standard Model is thus successful as a mathematical scheme that accounts for many properties of matter by describing quantum behaviour just as directly detected and measured. But this model does not causally explain the quantum behaviour itself, and thus provides no scientific explanation of how the natural form and organisation of matter in general is possible.
(7) No sufficiently detailed expanatory cosmology can be developed on the assumption that the known forces or fundamental interactions are all the causes that act universally upon matter and energy. So that an appropropriate nonlocal causal hypthesis needs to be developed to deduce enouigh properties of a cause of quantum wave behaviour. This hypothesis then provides sufficient reasons to consider that and how a nonlocally acting cause could act universally on the astronomical scale.
(8) The only possible empirically verifiable account that may be called a theory overything will be a natural explanation of everything that cannot be explained by the action of the forces alone. This account could be more accurately called a General Theory of Natural Organisation, where a determinate nonlocal causal nterpretation or hypothesis of quantum wave, spin and entanglement behaviour is supported by an examination of sufficient large scale natural evidence, and thus demonstrates, in enough detail from its observable effects, that and how a cause acts universally, constantly and nonlocally in addition to all the forces.
(9) In a General Theory of Natural Organisation the evidence examined on the large scale will be of available astronomical findings in relation to the evolution of the presently observed large scale structure of the cosmos and the formation of galaxies, stars and planetary systems; as well as living organisms in relation to the nature of the mind as a part of a nonlocal cause, the evolution of consciousness and general features of organic behaviour. This theory may be regarded as a sufficient general explanation of how the universe that includes living organisms is the way that it is, but is capable of indefinite further development.
(10) The General Theory of Natural Organisation may be regarded as a scientific explanation which demonstrates that the real universe makes eough sense of life from a human point of view and will allow human beings to make more sense of their lives by their actions.
Saturday, 19 September 2009
The limits of present scientific explanation
Scientific research has found the material universe to be of a certain form and an intricate organisation on the small scale. Yet the standard model of modern science only describes push or pull forces as causes to explain how the universe is the way that it is. So that universally, the world appears to consists just of matter/energy and these forces.
Present physics describes matter and light and other energy as possessing a wave property that can be regarded as universal. Yet there is no sufficient cause and effect explanation of how this quantum wave occurs. While the question could be asked Does this quantum wave not need to exist for matter to be and remain in all its forms as atoms, molecules and living organisms?
So that matter is found to consist almost all of the space separating subatomic particles as its smallest parts, and it can be thought that matter could have no form at all without these component parts also possessing an extended wave property of behaviour.
Present physics describes matter and light and other energy as possessing a wave property that can be regarded as universal. Yet there is no sufficient cause and effect explanation of how this quantum wave occurs. While the question could be asked Does this quantum wave not need to exist for matter to be and remain in all its forms as atoms, molecules and living organisms?
So that matter is found to consist almost all of the space separating subatomic particles as its smallest parts, and it can be thought that matter could have no form at all without these component parts also possessing an extended wave property of behaviour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)