We all like lists: The ten best this, the top dozen that; the five worst ranking next thing. That’s why the popularity of the Guinness Book of Records. In “Alice
The public’s perception of physics is that everything is pretty cut-and-dried; all the basics are known and it’s now just a routine matter of getting to that next decimal place in accuracy as well as dotting a few more of this and crossing a few more of that. The days of revolutionary physics that we saw in the early 20th Century with quantum mechanics and relativity are long gone now. Well, all that’s not quite the case. There’s a lot that’s proposed, even accepted by most physicists, that’s not really set in concrete. I think some mainstream physics, even some proposed challenges to the mainstream, are so far off the beaten track, way down south in La-La Land, as to be, for all practical purposes, as near to impossible as makes no odds. I think physics is in for a few more revolutions yet.
1) String Theory is one of those proposed challenges to the mainstream and replaces the standard model of particle physics by substituting tiny vibrating strings for all those particles, like electrons and quarks and neutrinos, etc. that we know so well. Different vibration rates determine whether something is an electron or an up-quark or a down-quark or a neutrino, etc. That in itself isn’t too bad an alteration. Where string theory falls off the rails IMHO is that in order to work, the Universe has got to be comprised of not the standard three special dimensions and the one dimension in time we’re used to existing in, but a total of ten, even eleven dimensions. Sorry, it’s those extra dimensions that tip the weirdness quotient off the scales. String Theory wouldn’t be too bad were there the slightest tad of experimental evidence for string ‘particles’ and those additional dimensions. There isn’t. That wouldn’t be all that unusual if String Theory were something that was brand new. Alas, the theory has been around for way over three decades now, and it still just resides as pure hypothetical, albeit elegant (and extremely difficult to understand), mathematics. String Theory just is not going anywhere. It’s a dead end. As far as I’m concerned, String Theory is impossible physics until such time as even the tiniest shred of experimental evidence is on the board. I’m not holding my breath.
2) The standard model of particle physics often states that elementary particles are ‘Point Particles’. So what are ‘Point Particles’? These are the fundamental particles that are in existence not as little billiard balls but as geometric points, points that are without extension (volume). In other words, a point has zero dimensions – no length, no width, no height, no area and no volume. There’s really something screwy somewhere if that is to be believable! The fundamental flaw is that particles, like the electron, have mass. You cannot cram mass, however tiny, into zero volume! So, an electron must have a volume, therefore an electron cannot be a ‘Point Particle”. So what’s the rational? Though never explicitly stated, I suspect it has an awful lot to do with keeping the maths simple! It’s easier to deal with a ‘Point Particle’ when crunching the numbers than adding in all sorts of other variables and complications like mass and volume. Unfortunately, I’ve read way too many physics tomes where the concept of zero volume seems to be taken literally – at face value. If that’s the case, then those who apparently advocate such a position are akin to the White Queen.
3) Lack of causality in a process really bothers me. It’s akin to getting something from nothing – a free lunch. There are two such ‘free lunches’ advocated. One is the Big Bang scenario that kick-started our Universe off. After a lot of physics and chemistry, that ultimately led to biological entities - you and me. I’ll have more, much more to say about the Big Bang’s free lunch later on.
Meantime, free lunch number two - radioactive decay. The standard scenario goes that one has an unstable atom, or unstable atomic nucleus actually. To achieve greater stability, the atomic nucleus spits out various bits and pieces – alpha particles, beta particles and/or gamma rays. The problem is, there is no rhyme or reason to exactly why and when, especially when, those bits and pieces get spat out. You can take two identical radioactive atomic nuclei. One might go ‘poof’ after a few seconds; the other ‘decides’ to hang tight for several millions of years before undertaking that change of pace. Physicists argue that if there is no rhyme or reason why both don’t behave in identical fashions, seeing as how they are identical atomic nuclei, then causality doesn’t operate. There is no external trigger. There is no overriding cause-and-effect in operation.
Nuts to that! If an atomic nucleus goes ‘poof’, there is a cause-and-effect reason. If two go ‘poof’ at different times, there is a cause-and-effect reason for this too. While the two atomic nuclei might be identical, their surrounding environment isn’t, IMHO. That’s the hidden variable. Take two identical human twins; one stays at home safe and sound while the other goes off to war, bullets flying around him. Though identical, one goes ‘poof’ before the other. There is cause-and-effect in operation. And so it is with unstable atomic nuclei. A ‘bullet’ hits one; no ‘bullet’ hits the other until much, much later on down the track. What that ‘bullet’ is, is open to question, but there’s a ‘bullet’ out there somewhere. Unstable atomic nuclei don’t decay or go ‘poof’ for absolutely no logical reason at all. There is a trigger. Radioactive decay, with no causality attached, as a free lunch, is IMHO an impossibility of physics.
4) Quantum Gravity (the Theory of Everything) is the Holy Grail of all things physics. Why? Well, there are two types of physics. There is classical physics, the physics you have to deal with in your day-to-day macro world. Then there is quantum physics, the physics of the very, very tiny; the micro worlds which for all practical purposes are, if not irrelevant, at least unnoticed in your day-to-day existence. Another distinction is that macro or classical physics is a continuum, like a ruler. Quantum or micro physics are bits and pieces; discrete units, like money. You can have one and three quarter inches; you can’t have one and three quarter cents. So what’s the problem? Well, there are four fundamental forces that control life, the Universe and everything. Three of these are quantum forces or operate from or within the realm of the micro-micro-microscopic. This trilogy is comprised of the strong nuclear force (which hold atomic nuclei together); the weak nuclear force (which allows atomic nuclei to break apart – radioactivity) and electromagnetism. The other and final force however is a continuum – gravity. It’s like there being three brothers and one sister! As in the sibling’s case, physicists suspect that all four are born of one parentage. Alas, the DNA doesn’t match up! Gravity apparently has different parents! Now that just won’t do. One Universe should allow for, indeed require, one ultimate parentage. Alas, despite all the best efforts of all the finest physics in the world over many generations, the three brothers just don’t share a common DNA with their alleged sister. My resolution is that perhaps that really is the case. The idea that there is quantum gravity is just a straightforward impossibility. There are indeed two sets of parents – one resulting in quantum triplets; the other producing an only child – gravity. The two are unrelated.
5) The Big Bang event is the proposed theory for the origin of our Universe some 13.7 billion years ago. It is supported by various observations: so far so good. Where it falls off the rails is that it also apparently requires, according to the standard Big Bang model, that the creation of our Universe wasn’t from something, but from nothing. That nothing not only spawned matter and energy (two sides of the same coin), but also created both time and space. Oh, and all of this happened in a created space way less than the volume of your standard atom. Now that’s small!
Now number one, IMHO it’s impossible to create from scratch matter and energy. It’s a violation of the basic physics drummed into every high school science student – “matter (and energy) can neither be created nor destroyed but only changed in form”.
Number two is that causality demands that a cause creates an effect – the Big Bang was an effect, something caused it, and that something could only have preceded it in time. Therefore the Big Bang did not, could not, create time. The Big Bang happened while the clock was already ticking.
Number three is that you cannot create a something within a zero volume. Therefore the Big Bang did not create space. It happened in existing space.
Lastly, it’s absurd in the extreme to believe that our entire Universe – everything – could be squeezed into a volume of atomic dimensions. So, yes there was a Big Bang, but there is a lot of associated baggage which is totally impossible by anything approaching what’s taught in Logic 101.
6) Your own reality probably isn’t what you think it is. Take your favourite character from your favourite video game or simulation. That character would be blissfully unaware that they ‘lived’ in a virtual reality. They would be blissfully unaware that there were thousands of copies (or clones) of them (since presumably more than one copy of the game or simulation exists). They would be blissfully unaware that there were thousands of other video games and simulations (universes) in existence.
Now the 64 cent question is, how can you be sure that you too aren’t someone else’s simulated video game or virtual reality character? You can’t be – you’re blissfully unaware or ignorant one way or the other. Maybe you are; maybe you aren’t.
But if your favourite character had to calculate the odds that they and their universe were unique, they would, at gut-level, say they were a one-off. Their universe was a one-off too. But you know better. You know there are thousands of clones of your character and thousands of universes – one universe per unique video game title or simulation.
So is there just one you and one Universe – our Universe – or, one step on up the line are you someone else’s (or something else’s) favourite character; their puppet who’s pulling your reality strings? The odds are vast indeed in favour of what you think is physical reality is actually, while not impossible, highly improbable. That’s because there are many, many, many scenarios that could create a virtual you; only one scenario that would create a really real you. The upshot is that you probably don’t exist in the manner you think you do!
In conclusion, I suspect the applecart of physics will be upset yet again, and again, and again.
No comments:
Post a Comment