String Theory: A Knotty Theory

String Theory suggests the substitution of tiny vibrating strings for little billiard ball particles, but requiring in the process an extra six spatial dimensions. It gets the thumb’s down until such time as proponents of String Theory get some experimental runs on the board, something not accomplished in over four decades.

String Theory is one of those proposed challenges to mainstream physics and replaces the standard model of particle physics by substituting tiny vibrating strings for all those little billiard ball particles, like electrons and quarks and neutrinos, etc. that we know so well. Differing string vibration rates determine whether some particle 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 spatial dimensions and the one dimension in time we’re used to existing in, but a total of nine, even ten spatial dimensions (plus one of time). Sorry, it’s those extra spatial dimensions that tip the weirdness quotient off the scales.

Spatial dimensions are just a useful mathematical concept consisting of points, length, area and volume that has no actual structure or substance. There’s nothing magical about a right angle. Spatial dimensions are a not-thing, a human invention.  That there are up to ten spatial dimensions (not three) if Superstring Theory or M-Theory* is correct turns a useful concept into nonsense. In the words of the late physicist Wolfgang Pauli, that’s “not even wrong”** which was a phrase adopted by and which gave rise to the title of the anti-String Theory book by Peter Woit (2006).

String Theory wouldn’t be too bad were there the slightest tad of experimental evidence for string ‘particles’ and those additional spatial dimensions. There isn’t. String Theory just resides as a pure hypothetical, albeit elegant (and extremely difficult to understand), branch of mathematics (you could hardly call it real physics). That wouldn’t be all that unusual a situation if String Theory were something that was brand new. However, String Theory in its earliest form dates back to the late 1960’s with Gabriele Veneziano hence Leonard Susskind and others. So, alas, this theoretical can-of-worms is now four decades old without the worms even reaching first base, far less getting so much as even one run on the board. In fact, nobody has even ever seen one of the theoretical worms, which is obviously why they are still theoretical four decades on. Pioneering string theorists nearly qualify for a pension by now and should be looking forward towards downsizing to their retirement village, albeit not quite yet a nursing home!  

String Theory just is not going anywhere. It’s a dead end. As far as I’m concerned, String Theory is impossible physics (even if elegant mathematics) until such time as even the tiniest shred of experimental evidence is on the board. String, Superstring, or M-Theory (as substitutes for the standard model of particle physics) is pure bovine fertilizer on the grounds that after four decades it remains a purely abstract mathematical concept with no experimental verification.  I’m not holding my breath that experimental verification will come anytime soon, if ever.

In conclusion, never in the history of physics have so many spent so much time and energy for so little results. 

* M-Theory is a unified String Theory or Superstring Theory that incorporates differing versions of String Theory that has no substance or structure apart from pure abstract mathematics an thus gets the same thumb’s down as String Theory itself and for the same reason. Another negative is that it must postulate the existence of even a further extra spatial dimension, as if an extra six weren’t already too much of a good thing.

** If you’re ‘not even wrong’, well that’s just about the ultimate insult to a practicing scientist since it’s no crime to be wrong, and most scientists are wrong a lot of the time.



The Big TOE

Quantum Gravity otherwise known as the Theory of Everything (TOE) 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 (which gives you light to see by and radio and TV to enjoy). 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.

To restate the situation, we have the theory of general relativity (gravity) and quantum physics. Both are bedrocks of modern physics. Both are accurate to a high degree of experimental precision. Both aren’t compatible - with each other. Apparently, one (or both) of these theories must be wrong, or at best incomplete. That’s why the unification of the two (a theory of Quantum Gravity) is physics’ Holy Grail. However, that Holy Grail is proving as difficult to find as the Biblical Grail itself! But for the moment, it appears as if the universe has two independent sets of laws (or sets of running software) – one governing the very large (gravity); one the very small (the quantum). This makes no natural or scientific sense.

We have observations of four physical forces yet no theory which unites the three quantum forces (electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force) with the one classical force – gravity. Theory needs to be satisfied. All of the four fundamental forces should be interconnected; some sort of unification principle must be in operation that relates all four, one to the other. However, these four fundamental forces that govern the Universe show no signs of any obvious unification – well actually the three quantum ones do (known as the GUT – Grand Unified Theory), but that’s where the unification ends. Gravity remains the wallflower. If the Big Bang theory is to be proven correct as stated, scientists must of necessity come up with a viable theory of Quantum Gravity that is an acceptable unification of the trio of quantum forces with gravity. There is, to date, no viable theory of Quantum Gravity despite thousands of physicists searching for one over many generations now. Even for the final 30 years of his life Einstein searched for his big TOE but never found it.

In summary, the realm of the micro and the realm of the macro are incompatible, like two different sets of software that are separate and apart but collectively run the cosmos. Again, that makes no sense. It should be relatively easy to unify all four forces. Einstein and thousands in his footsteps have found out the hard way that it’s damn hard to get a TOE. Mother Nature is a bitch!

Now, the real question is what are the implications if there is no such animal as a unified theory or a TOE? What if we have a case of never have so many spent so much time and effort over so little (actually nothing)? With the passage of every day, the missing TOE appears unlikely ever to be found. Then what?

My prediction is that there will never be a TOE because there really are two incompatible sets of software governing the virtual reality cosmos.



The Return of the Hidden Variable

There are many anomalies from the macro-world that can be ‘explained’ by resorting to a Simulated [Virtual Reality] Universe scenario, from statues that walk (on Easter Island according to the natives) to the concepts of an afterlife to those feelings of déjà vu to recollections of previous lives to crop ‘circles’ to ghosts, and so on and so forth. However, most of these anomalies can be classified as belonging to the paranormal or as a pseudoscience and dismissed. Not so easily dismissed are anomalies from hardcore particle (quantum) physics, the most experimentally verified science every known and responsible in gismos and gadgets for over one-third of the world’s economy.

The key to reality in general, including yours in particular, lies in the basics (i.e. – the Standard Model of Particle [Quantum] Physics) and how it builds from the ground up. That reality includes those anomalies and how they can be explained. It’s time to think the unthinkable, so here are a few more reasons why you might wish to consider our Universe to be pre-programmed virtual reality, where heaven knows, anything goes!

Further examples of simulation arguments if any more are necessary.       

* There’s the Pauli Exclusion Principle which notes that no two electrons can occupy the same ‘orbit’ if they have identical quantum numbers or quantum properties. Of course all electrons have the same mass and the same electric charge and the same energy (if they are in the same ‘orbit’) and if in the same ‘orbit’ the same angular momentum and orientation. Pauli came up with another property however that can differentiate between two electrons – ‘spin’. So if there is an electron in ‘orbit’ with one value of ‘spin’ and another electron with the same value of ‘spin’ tries to enter that ‘orbit’ it won’t be able to. If the electron has the opposite ‘spin’ however, then it’s allowed to join in that ‘orbit’. The question is, how does one electron ‘know’ or ‘sense’ what the ‘spin’ of a fellow electron is. That they apparently do is not in question, but it’s damn odd. Take two basketballs and place them close to each other. Spin one clockwise and the other counterclockwise. Neither basketball gives a royal stuff about what the other is doing!  

* Why are all the fundamental particles identical to each of their own kind? Aren’t all up-quarks the same? Aren’t all electron-neutrinos the same? In the macro world no two ‘identical’ products, inanimate or animate, are actually identical down to the Nth detail – not even identical twins. But in the micro world that’s not the case. All photons are identical, even when they have differing energy levels. All heavy hydrogen atoms are identical, ditto so are all those up-quarks or tau neutrinos. Why are all electrons identical? Why this should be so is not readily apparent from first principles on up the line. However, it’s easy to software code any particle, and whenever that code appears, you have an identical particle appear. 

* If something should be but isn’t (say equal amounts of matter and antimatter); or if something is and shouldn’t be (like entanglement’s spooky action at a distance), either is suggestive of artificial manipulation.

* The acceleration of the universe (Dark Energy) and Dark Matter are just the result of the Supreme Programmer not paying enough attention to the finer details when programming the software that serves as the cosmic background wallpaper. It makes sense to skimp on the bits and bytes when it comes to the background wallpaper, but that skimping can backfire.

* If I understand the standard model of cosmology, that Big Bang event, implies that first there was nothing; then there was something. That means the Big Bang event created both matter and energy out of less than thin air. That’s a free lunch. Fortunately, software has a starting point thus explaining the cosmic philosophy of some cosmologists that do indeed claim that first there was nothing; then there was something.

* That Big Bang event also created both time and space out of less than thin air. The day I see a cosmologist replicate that point of view by creating time and space in front of her professional peers (as well as a TV audience), I’ll change my tune. Meantime, IMHO it’s all bovine fertilizer, or software. 

* Apparently the density of Dark Energy remains constant while the volume of the Universe expands. That’s something from nothing. That’s also a free lunch. So how can Dark Energy create more space thus forcing space to expand and the resulting expanding space creating more Dark Energy since Dark Energy is an intrinsic property of space in an endless free lunch loop?

* Apparently, when faced with an energy barrier, particles that lack sufficient energy to surmount the barrier in classical physics, can ‘tunnel’ past the barrier and come out the other side. Now the upshot of that is that this tunneling happens instantaneously. The particle is on the left hand side of the barrier then immediately tunnels and appears on the right hand side of the barrier – instantaneously. Now quantum tunneling implies a velocity faster than the speed of light, which if true would have Einstein spitting chips. Something is screwy somewhere.

* When an electron rises or falls from one energy level to another, when in-between the electron is in limbo, in Never-Never-Land, in The Twilight Zone, in another dimension for all we know. It just can’t be anywhere that’s locatable in-between for if it was – in-between that is – it would possess an in-between energy state that it is not allowed to have. How does an electron vanish from the cosmos or go into a state of non-existence when quantum jumping from one energy state to another?

* Traditional wave-particle duality is according to one interpretation a complementary but either/or phenomenon. Sometimes light/particle experiments show results that prove a pure 100% wave phenomena is responsible; sometimes however other light/particle experiments show results that prove a pure 100% particles phenomena is the only possible interpretation. I’ve also oft seen it described that at point of origin and at the point of detection, you observe a particle. In-between emission and detection it’s a wave. That doesn’t make a great deal of sense unless there is a higher power (a Supreme Programmer) pulling the strings – or programming the program.

* Symmetry holds in 11 out of 12 cases – four forces (electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and the weak nuclear forces) times three symmetry operations (time, charge and parity) with only the parity of the weak force being the odd one out. There’s something screwy somewhere!

* Entanglement (Spooky action at a distance): Pick and remove a card from a standard deck. Don’t look at it. Bury it in a time capsule. Send the rest of the unobserved deck of 51 cards via rocket ship off to the Andromeda Galaxy. Leave instructions. Generations upon generations later, with the deck of 51 safely in the Great Galaxy of Andromeda, you’re great, great, great (add lots more greats) grand-person can dig up and look at lone card in the time capsule. Say it is the Ace of Diamonds. You do not now need to observe the rest of the original deck in Andromeda to know 1) it contains 51 cards, and 2) that it is missing the Ace of Diamonds! That’s entanglement. And entanglement is something that Einstein called ‘spooky action at a distance’ because you can come by information/knowledge instantaneously – faster than the speed of light. Thus, Einstein was not amused!

* Though bordering on the fringe, some bona-fide astronomers strongly suggest from actual observation that the extreme large-scale structure of the cosmos exhibits a fractal pattern (and there is some extensive literature on the subject). To me however, fractals are primarily a mathematical construction; the product of a mathematical mind, and as such, if there is a fractal cosmos, that’s very strong evidence for a Supreme Programmer. 

It’s just about time here to cite Arthur C. Clarke’s Third Law, which notes that “any sufficiently advanced technology (i.e. – a Supreme Programmer, for example) is indistinguishable from [quantum physics] magic”. 



The Hidden Variable

You don’t have to read too many books on quantum or particle physics, especially the more popular tomes that replace advanced and technical mathematics for English, to realize the number of times free will and awareness terms like how particles ‘decide’ or ‘choose’ or ‘know’ are used.

If one were to actually suggest that the fundamental building blocks of our reality, those elementary particles like photons and electrons had some sort of ‘awareness’ or ‘self-awareness’ and an ability to exhibit ‘free will’ and make ‘decisions’, let’s just say the vast majority not just of the scientific community but even the general public at large (the great unwashed) would view that person as a loony. Well, since I have no academic reputation to defend, I’ll wax lyrical and promote that point of view, while noting that a particle’s ‘free will’ would be restricted, just as your own free will (assuming you have such a property) is restricted. You can’t flap your arms and fly and live long enough to challenge Methuselah’s longevity, free will be damned.

Here are several quantum reasons why one could adopt such a worldview.  

* Firstly there’s the famous (or infamous) Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum phenomena. This philosophical interpretation of quantum physics suggests that something (micro or macro composed of micro bits) only has reality and thus either/or fixed properties when somebody (or a measuring device proxy like a camera or a screen) is observing whatever that something is. Just like you are aware, even if sometimes via a 6^th sense, that you are being watched (you of course are always either/or since you observe yourself), the Copenhagen Interpretation implies that from the micro ground up, fundamental particles are ‘conscious’ or ‘subconscious’ of the fact that somebody (or device) is watching them. I believe the technical term is that the observer collapses the wave-function of all that is possible down to one actuality. If the elementary particles didn’t ‘know’ you were observing them then everything you observe would remain in a superposition of state and your reality would be a living nightmare.

Schrodinger’s Cat would really be both alive and dead when you looked into the box. But let’s substitute something else for the cat since in theory the cat is an observer and observes itself. Instead of the cat, let’s have a box of a chemical (Y) that will react with the vial of gas (X) that may or may not break depending on whether a radioactive atom does or does not decay in a certain time frame. If the atom decays then the hammer will fall and then the vial will break and release the gas and there will form a new compound (Z). It’s only when you open the box that you find Z, or not Z, though before you looked Z/not-Z was in a superposition of state of both Z and not-Z. When you look, how does the constituents of Z or not-Z (not-Z being the intact gas X and the intact chemical Y) ‘know’ you’ve opened the box?

So how does an electron (or other fundamental particle) ‘know’ you are watching? It can’t. If a photon bounces off an electron, the electron has no way of ‘knowing’ that the photon is heading towards your eyeball. For all the electron ‘knows’ the photon is heading off into the depths of deepest space never to be observed by anyone or anything.

* A particle apparently also ‘knows’ when you are peeking, as in for example that famous, or infamous double-slit experiment (and variations on the theme). The late Nobel Prize winning quantum physicist, Richard Feynman, thought the double slit experiment (and variations on the theme) was the heart and soul behind the anomaly that is quantum physics. It was the ultimate anomaly in a sea of anomalies that could not, in any shape, manner or form, be explained by any sort of, or resort to, classical physics available in the observable Universe. 

If photons, electrons, Buckminsterfullerene molecules (Bucky-balls), etc. are fired in rapid succession at a single slit, with a detector (like say photographic film or a TV screen) behind the slit, then a quasi-blob of impacts are detected. Particles rule, okay!

If photons, electrons, Bucky-balls, etc. are fired in rapid succession at a double slit, with a detector behind the dual slits, then a classic wave interference (constructive and destructive interference) pattern emerges. Waves rule, okay!

If photons, electrons, Bucky-balls, etc. are fired one at a time, at a single slit, such that one photon, etc. completes the journey before the next one is fired off, again with a detector behind the slit, then a quasi-blob of impacts are ultimately detected. Particles rule, okay!

If photons, electrons, Bucky-balls, etc. are fired one at a time at a double slit, such that one photon, etc. completes the journey before the next one is fired off, again with a detector behind the slits, then ultimately after enough firings, a classic wave interference (constructive and destructive) pattern emerges. Waves! However, that implies one photon, electron, Bucky-ball, etc. somehow manages to go through both slits at the same time and thus interferes with itself. That’s absurd. But you ain’t seen anything yet!

The above assumes nobody (human observer or independent measuring device) is peeking and taking the slightest notice of what’s going on – the non-observing nobodies are just looking at the pattern on the detector screen after the fact; after the experiment has concluded. 

However, if someone, human observer or independent measuring device, is peeking and taking absolute and total notice of what’s going on, and determining at the precise time of passage which of the two slits the lone photon, etc. is actually going through (on the grounds that one entity cannot pass through two doors at the same time) then the wave interference pattern doesn’t eventuate and you get a quasi-blob of particle hits on the detector behind each of the two slits. Somehow the photon, etc. is ‘aware’ that it is being observed and changes it’s self-interfering behavior accordingly – keeping in mind that the very act of observing before-the-fact unobserved properties of a photon, etc. alters those properties after-the-fact, since you can’t observe something without mucking around with it.  

The Delayed Double-Slit Variation:

What if someone, human observer or independent measuring device, peeks, but only after the photon, etc. has already passed through presumably, but absurdly, both slits simultaneously and self-interfered with itself? That shouldn’t affect the ultimate wave outcome since it’s now too little to late for the photon, etc. to change its ‘mind’. Or so you would think. But again, irregardless, the wave interference pattern disappears even after the peeking is done after the photon, etc. has passed through both slits and self-interfered. The one very nasty and anomalous implication is that the photon, etc. has traveled back in time to just before, or when it was, initially emitted so as to now make the ‘correct choice’ and thus will pass through one and only one slit to correlate what it actually does with what is actually detected. How can ‘free will’ and time travel be accounted for in the delayed variation of the double-slit experiment? 

Summary: If you turn your back and don’t peek, and there’s a double slit available, the detector screen, and therefore you, will detect a wave pattern at the conclusion of the experiment because the photon, etc. will pass through both slits and self-interfere.

If you don’t turn your back away from the action, but do a peeping-Tom act, double slit notwithstanding, the detector screen and therefore you will detect a particle (quasi-blob) pattern behind each slit.

The two very disturbing facets are that a photon, etc. displays ‘awareness’, and ‘free will’, as well as exhibiting the ability to travel backwards in time. Photons, etc. not only ‘know’ before-the-fact whether or not both slits are open (two open slits equals wave behavior); or that one or the other slit is open (either/or equals particle behavior), but also whether or not someone is peeking. If both holes (slits) are open and nobody is peeking we end up having wave interference behavior; if someone is peeking even if both holes (slits) are open, we get particle quasi-blob behavior. That means the photons, etc. ‘know’ (how is that possible?) and adjust and exercise their ‘free will’ (how is that possible?) accordingly.

* But wait, there’s more! How does an electron ‘decide’ to emit a photon and thus drop to a lower energy level (and where the hell is the electron anyway while between energy levels). That an electron will drop to a lower energy level by emitting a photon for absolutely no reason at all is strange given that an electron will jump to a higher energy level by absorbing a photon’s worth of energy. There’s no causality in the downward direction; there’s causality in the upwards direction. That’s nuts! 

* And how do the constituents of an unstable (radioactive) nucleus ‘know’ when it is their turn to go poof in order to maintain that precise mathematical half-life relationship of whatever substance they represent (i.e. – uranium, radium, technetium, etc.).

* Quantum Tunneling: Apparently, when faced with an energy barrier, particles that lack sufficient energy to surmount the barrier in classical physics, can ‘tunnel’ past the barrier and come out the other side. Now the upshot of that is that this tunneling happens instantaneously. The particle is on the left hand side of the barrier then immediately tunnels and appears on the right hand side of the barrier – instantaneously. Now that implies a velocity faster than the speed of light, which is a no-no. Strike one. Quantum tunneling also apparently happens for no reason at all. It just happens. Strike two. But the real question is, how does a particle ‘decide’ to tunnel at all? Not all particles will tunnel when trapped behind an energy barrier. Strike three. Something is screwy somewhere.

* And then there’s that pane in the glass.  You have one light source. You have one normal everyday clear and clean pane of glass. Some of the light (photons) from the light source will pass clear through the clear glass, but some of those identical photons will reflect off the clear surface of the pane of glass. One set of circumstances yields two differing but simultaneous outcomes. That violates cause-and-effect. That’s crazy, but it happens as you can verify for yourself. So how does a light photon ‘decide’ whether to pass through or reflect off of the pane of glass? Alternatively, how does a radio photon ‘decide’ whether or not to pass through your brick walls and enter your radio, or reflect off of your brick wall and thus fail to contribute to the strength of your radio’s broadcast transmission? 

Conclusion:

To his dying day, Einstein insisted that there were hidden variables that would, when discovered account for all these various quantum anomalies – quantum magic. Those hidden variables would ultimately unite quantum physics with classical physics. Unfortunately for Einstein, experiments have since ‘proved’ that there are no hidden variables of the type Einstein had in mind. That’s because IMHO the hidden variable, which Einstein couldn’t have envisioned in even his wildest imagination, is a Supreme Programmer who creates our Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe. 

What Is the Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe Hypothesis? #

The human species, especially since the proliferation of the computer and associated technologies, have created thousands of simulated landscapes and virtual beings, from the humble Microsoft office assistant to pilot training simulators to video games that cater to all types of interests and age groups. Entire movies are now computer generated simulations – no actual on-location travel required; no humans need apply in hopes of earning an eventual Oscar for best actor. In view of the explosion of simulation technologies, and it’s only going to increase and get ever more realistic than it already is, the question has arisen, if we can create virtual worlds, might not we in turn be virtual beings ‘living’ in a simulated landscape programmed for some purpose or other, by other beings which might be futuristic humans recreating their past history, or ET’s video game version of “The Life and Times on the Third Rock in the Sol Planetary System”. It’s a best seller on Krypton! Though once just sci-fi speculation, that profound idea that we don’t really exist as flesh-and-blood is now taken very seriously indeed.

Now either you’ve got to believe we exist in The Twilight Zone No. One where denizens of the micro world have an ‘awareness’ of their surroundings and possess some degree of ‘free will’ to react to and within those surroundings, OR you believe we live in The Twilight Zone No. Two where said denizens of the micro world are programmed by higher authority (which I’ll just call the Supreme Programmer) to behave in the way we see and measure them behave.

Either you have to accept that the fields, forces and particles that collectively make up the Standard Model of Particle (nee Quantum) Physics have ‘free will’ and thus are somehow ‘alive’ and ‘animated’ in some sense (although their ‘free will’ comes with some restrictions just like your free will comes with restrictions as noted above – you can’t commit suicide by going back in time and killing your younger self or hold your breath underwater for three straight hours), OR  else it is all programming software which implies an intelligence (that Supreme Programmer) somewhere on up the line.

Okay, having had my rant, now you may all now call those nice young men in their clean white coats to come and take me away, ha-ha, he-he, to the funny farm!

# What I’m driving at here is the hypothesis (not original to me by the way) that we ‘live’ in a Simulated Universe as virtual reality. Interested parties might like to have a look-see at http://www.simulation-argument.com/

Further reading:

Maier, Bruce; Reality is Virtual or Why the Universe is the Way it is; Infinity Publishing; west Conshohocken, PA; 2010:

And the related website: http://www.realityisvirtual.com



The Speed of Light (and Gravity?)

Within Relativity Theory, if there is anything unintuitive it is the fact that in the entire Universe, it is the speed of light (and gravity?) alone that is absolute or fixed, not something like space being absolute or time being absolute. It’s unintuitive in that all the other not-light bits and pieces that are in motion can be added or subtracted. The lone exception to that universal rule that velocities can be mathematically combined is the speed of light (and gravity?).

Repeat for emphasis: the anomaly here is that in any other scenario, anything that is not-light and in motion, velocities can be added and subtracted. Repeat again: with that one speed of light exception, velocities may be added or subtracted. If you are on a treadmill that’s moving left at 5 MPH, and you’re on it walking to the right at 5 MPH, to an external observer you are waking yet standing still. You’re much more likely to hit a home run if the wind is blowing towards the outfield fences; planes fly faster with a tailwind than with a headwind; you swim in the river faster going with the flow than against the current. If you are in a train that is moving at say 100 km/hour and you throw a ball at 10 km/hour in the direction at which the train is moving, to an observer outside the train, your ball is traveling at 110 km/hour. If you throw the ball towards the rear of the train, an outside observer will measure the ball as moving at 90 km/hour. If on the other hand, you shine a flashlight in the train, an outside observer will see the velocity of the resulting light beam moving at the speed of light – not the speed of light PLUS the velocity of the train, or the speed of light MINUS the velocity of the train, but at the speed of light! That’s nuts, but it’s scientifically nuts and been proven again and again in any experiment you care to devise. I have no issue with experimentally verified results. That doesn’t mean I don’t have issues with the anomaly.

The velocity of light is a constant to an external observer no matter what. Why that should be no one knows, but it is so. However, my take on this can of worms, which as a consequence requires somewhat counter-intuitively that both time and length have to be flexible, is one should always be a bit suspect when it comes to the lone ranger, the lone ranger being the exception to the rule*. I don’t tend to like exceptions to the rule. There’s something weird afoot here. Mother Nature is trying to tell us something we haven’t figured out yet.

All that said, the speed of light isn’t really a constant if you take into consideration the differing mediums that light can travel through. However, the speed of light is probably also a constant within whatever other medium it happens to be in. The speed of light in air at STP (standard temperature and pressure) is less than the speed of light in the relative vacuum of outer space; even less traveling through pure water and less again traveling through clear glass. One would presume that just as the speed of light in space is constant for observers regardless if they are traveling in a high velocity spaceship or as an astronaut ‘stationary’ on the International Space Station, the speed of light in water sould be a constant for the crew in a submarine that’s underway thus in motion or a diver standing on the seabed.  

That makes me sort of wonder, theoretically, if you could get an underwater submarine to go faster than the speed of light in water (or an aircraft to outpace the speed of light in air), though in either case that would be less than the speed of light in a vacuum, could you then claim, albeit with qualifiers (in water; in air), that you actually traveled faster than the speed of light, if only for the bragging rights? 

Apart from light (photons), presumably gravity, or gravity-waves, also propagate at the speed of light and thus a gravity-wave would have a constant speed regardless of any frame of reference for any observer. But I also presume that necessitates finding the hypothetical graviton particle (to mirror the photon) and that, for the moment, resides in the unknown basket.

That brings up yet another puzzlement. Is gravity just geometry as per General Relativity or is gravity a force transmitted by a force particle, the theoretical graviton, and thus more akin to electromagnetism’s photons (infinite extension; obeys the inverse square relationship) apart from lacking EM’s negative counterpoint – in the case of gravity, that’s antigravity.

Speaking of gravity (gravitons) and light (photons), if gravity can have an effect on light (i.e. – the gravitational lens), then it should be a two-way street and light should be able to have an observable affect on gravity, but I can’t recall ever reading about that aspect of the relationship. 

As per the speed of light being medium dependent; one speed in a vacuum, another in water, well that makes for an interesting question when considering gravity. If a gravity-wave is approaching Earth, will it have one constant velocity in the vacuum of space for all observers, then a differing velocity as it passes through our atmosphere, then another value as it passes through the ocean and yet others as it hits the various density layers inside the planet?    

As is often the case, there tends to be more questions than answers!

*Not that the differing rules for the speed of light vis-à-vis other not-light velocities is the only exception to the rule in modern physics. Quantum tunneling is one of those exceptions to the rule of causality. With respect to the standard model of cosmology and the Big Bang, first there was nothing; then there was something. That means the Big Bang event created both matter and energy out of less than thin air. That’s also a free lunch and one of those exceptions to the rule of physical law usually expressed as the conservation of matter and energy. All these exceptions to the norm suggest that some of the final chapters in modern physics haven’t yet been written.



Quantum Physics and Virtual Reality: Part Two

Most physicists don’t have much of a philosophical streak. Most philosophers don’t usually have the technical background to come to terms with modern physics. Whether physicists or philosophers, they don’t promote ideas far outside their subject’s standard model. It’s not usually considered a wise career move. I have no academic career to damage, so I’m going to combine physics and philosophy and think way outside of the established box. It’s going to be physics ‘explained’ by appeal to the Simulated (Virtual reality) Universe scenario.

Continued now from Part One…

# ALL THINGS [NOT] TRANSPARENT

The standard macro analogy to an atom (nucleus and electron cloud surrounding it) is trying to picture a gnat (the nucleus) in the middle of Westminster Abbey with a cloud of bacteria (the electrons) around the walls, ceiling and floor and thus surrounding the gnat. In other words, there’s a hell of a lot of empty space inside your everyday atom. That might suggest that electromagnetic radiation, photons, would have no trouble in passing right on through an atom without intersecting anything and thus being hindered on its uninterrupted journey.

So why isn’t everything transparent? Why doesn’t light go right through you? Why are some things transparent (air, glass) and some things (of equal density and thickness) opaque for a specific wavelength/frequency of ‘light’ (light here being not just visible light but infrared light and radio light and microwave light, etc. not that the energy value of the photons of ‘light’ should matter since it is traveling through what’s for all practical purposes ‘empty’ space). Further, photons have no electric charge properties that would hinder their passing straight through your average atom. 

A quick anomalous point – light passes through air. You can look clear through roughly 100 miles of atmosphere and see the sun and moon and stars, etc. Add a bit of smog or fog and things get a bit on the opaque side, yet the overall thickness and density of the clear air, or air-smog mix, isn’t drastically different. It’s still 99.99% empty space. Something’s screwy somewhere unless of course there’s additional programming that counters the scenario.

# SYMMETRY & PARITY

One of the fundamental bedrocks beloved by physicists is their love of symmetry, especially with respect to time, charge and parity.

Physics should work as we know it whether time is considered positive or negative***. It doesn’t matter if you go 50 miles per negative hour for 10 negative hours, you still travel 500 miles. Or, imagine two electrons (call them A and B) traveling towards in time, each approaching the other. When they get close enough, they will repel each other (both being of the same negative charge) by exchanging a virtual photon. But which electron emitted the virtual photon? It might have been A to B forward in time, but it is just as probable that it might have been B to A backwards in time. It’s symmetrical either way you care to look at it. And of course any negative time that’s squared in any equation reverts to positive time.

Physics and chemistry should work as we know it even if positrons (antimatter electrons) ‘orbited’ around nuclei comprised of antiprotons and antineutrons (collectively anti-nucleons). So charge is symmetric.

Parity is your left-right mirror image. Physics should remain the same when viewed in a mirror. Mirror light still comes out of a mirror image flashlight; gravity still makes mirror image apples fall to the mirror image ground. The distinction between left and right should hold no sway in physics. Unfortunately, while charge and time are totally symmetrical with respect to the operations in physics, there’s an ‘oops’ in parity. The ‘oops’ is not in electromagnetism, nor in gravity, nor in the strong nuclear force (which hold the nucleons (protons and neutrons) in a tight embrace in the nucleus. Parity however is not conserved in weak nuclear force interactions. Physicists might say that Mother Nature has a slight bias towards the left; some theologians might suggest that God is a weak lefthander; I might put it that our Supreme Programmer introduced into some software subroutines a code favoring a slight left-handed slant.   

So symmetry holds in 11 out of 12 cases – four forces (electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and the weak nuclear forces) times three symmetry operations (time, charge and parity) with only the parity of the weak force being the odd one out. There’s something screwy somewhere!

# UNIQUENESS

In the macro world no two ‘identical’ products, inanimate or animate, are actually identical down to the Nth detail – not even identical twins. But in the micro world that’s not the case. All photons are identical, even when they have differing energy levels. All heavy hydrogen atoms are identical, ditto so are all those up-quarks or tau neutrinos. Why this should be so is not readily apparent from first principles on up the line. However, it’s easy to code any particle, and whenever that code appears, you have an identical particle appear.  

# CHEMISTRY

It’s not at all clear (to me at least), how the rather limited properties we associate with electrons, neutrons and protons, can, just by changing their relative numbers in association with each other, morph into all of the wide variety of properties associated with the chemical elements.

Further, it’s not at all clear (to me at least), how the properties of the chemical elements can ‘combine’ to form molecules with vastly differing properties from those of its parents. For example, a yellowish and to us poisonous gas (chlorine), plus an explosive (in water) silver metal (sodium) can morph into properties we associate with a whitish quasi-translucent solid crystal - table salt (sodium chloride).

Further again, it’s not at all clear (to me at least), how memory and creativity (and not just in humans) can be stored and manipulated in terms of chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry or neurochemistry. Of course it’s easy to encode ‘memory’ into software and with the rise and rise of artificial intelligence, can creativity be far behind?

# FRACTAL COSMOLOGY

Though bordering on the fringe, some bona-fide astronomers strongly suggest from both the observational and the theoretical point of view that the extreme large-scale structure of the cosmos exhibits a fractal pattern (and there is some extensive literature on the subject). To me however, fractals are primarily a mathematical construction; the product of a mathematical mind, and as such, if there is a fractal cosmos, that’s very strong evidence for a Supreme Programmer. 

# CONCLUSIONS

It’s just about time here to cite Arthur C. Clarke’s Third Law, which notes that “any sufficiently advanced technology (i.e. – a Supreme Programmer, for example) is indistinguishable from [quantum physics] magic”. 

To his dying day, Einstein insisted that there were hidden variables that would, when discovered account for those various quantum anomalies – quantum magic. Those hidden variables would ultimately unite quantum physics with classical physics. Unfortunately for Einstein, experiments have since ‘proved’ that there are no hidden variables of the type Einstein had in mind. That’s because IMHO the hidden variable, which Einstein couldn’t have envisioned in even his wildest imagination, is the Supreme Programmer who creates our Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe. 

Not only can the Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe scenario account for the above hardcore but seemingly magical anomalies in physics (and chemistry), but perhaps the Supreme Programmer left us these clues, inadvertently or deliberately, such as, in the macro world, those enigmatic crop ‘circles’ for which no other theory makes any absolute sense, common or otherwise.

***Not to be confused with the concept of running a film backwards.



Quantum Physics and Virtual Reality: Part One

Most physicists don’t have much of a philosophical streak and they don’t tend to ask what they study all means. Philosophizing doesn’t pay their mortgage. Physics works, so they just go with the flow; they just shut up and calculate. Most philosophers on the other hand don’t usually have the technical education and background to wax lyrical and come to terms with modern physics. Whether physicists or philosophers, they don’t tend to advertise themselves too far out of their establishment’s standard model box. It’s not usually considered a wise career move, especially if you’re on the academic road upwards and tenure. As for myself, I have no academic career to damage or destroy, so I’m going to combine physics and philosophy and think way, way, way outside of the standard model box. It’s going to be quantum (particle) physics ‘explained’ by appeal to the Simulated (Virtual reality) Universe scenario. If I’m right, the Nobel Prize committee knows where to find me! 

There are many anomalies from the macro-world that can be ‘explained’ by resorting to a Simulated [Virtual Reality] Universe scenario, from statues that walk (Easter Island) to the concepts of an afterlife to those feelings of déjà vu to recollections of previous lives to crop ‘circles’ to ghosts, and so on and so forth. However, most of these anomalies can be classified as belonging to the paranormal or as a pseudoscience and dismissed. Not so easily dismissed are anomalies from hardcore particle (quantum) physics, the most experimentally verified science every known and responsible in gismos and gadgets for over one-third of the world’s economy. Despite all the runs on the board, points of view on the subject of Quantum Mechanics tend to be along the lines of…

Albert Einstein: God does not throw dice.

Niels Bohr: Anyone who is not shocked by the [quantum] theory hasn’t understood it.

Richard Feynman: Nobody understands quantum physics.

And that’s comments by noted quantum physicists.

However, the key to reality* in general, including yours in particular, lies in the basics (i.e. – the Standard Model of Particle [Quantum] Physics) and how it builds from the ground up. That reality includes those anomalies and how they can be explained. It’s time to think the unthinkable!

# CAUSALITY

You tend to associate lack of causality, on the macro scale, with free will. What you decide to have for dinner tonight has no prior cause, just your spur-of-the-moment whim. It’s all free will and free will alone, pure and simple.

However, on the micro scale of fields and forces and particles, you often find they also do whatever they damn well please – no causality need apply. A perfect example is radioactivity. There’s no apparent cause why one unstable nucleus goes poof and an identical clone living next door doesn’t. In fact if something like radioactivity happens for no apparent reason at all, yet that happening follows one precise mathematical relationship (one out of numerous theoretical possibilities) then that surely implies some sort of intelligent manipulation behind the scenes. The Virtual Reality writing is on the wall for all to see.

Either you have to accept that the fields, forces and particles that collectively make up the Standard Model of Particle (nee Quantum) Physics have free will and thus are somehow ‘alive’ and ‘animated’ in some sense (although their free will comes with some restrictions just like your free will comes with restrictions – you can’t flap your arms and fly or hold your breath underwater for three straight hours), OR  else it is all programming software which implies an intelligence (a Supreme Programmer**) somewhere on up the line.

# THE PARTICLE THAT WAVES

Traditional wave-particle duality is according to one interpretation a complementary but either/or phenomenon. Sometimes light/particle experiments show results that prove a pure 100% wave phenomena is responsible; sometimes however other light/particle experiments show results that prove a pure 100% particles phenomena is the only possible interpretation. That doesn’t make a great deal of sense unless there is a higher power (a Supreme Programmer) pulling the strings – or programming the program.

# DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENTS

The late Nobel Prize winning quantum physicist, Richard Feynman, thought the Double Slit Experiment (and variations on the theme) was the heart and soul behind the anomaly that is Quantum Physics. It was the ultimate anomaly in a sea of anomalies that could not, in any shape, manner or form, be explained by any sort of, or resort to, classical physics available in the observable Universe. 

1 - If photons, electrons, Buckminsterfullerene molecules (Bucky-balls), etc. are fired in rapid succession at a single slit, with a detector (like say photographic film or a TV screen) behind the slit, then a quasi-blob of impacts are detected. Particles rule, okay!

2 - If photons, electrons, Bucky-balls, etc. are fired in rapid succession at a double slit, with a detector behind the dual slits, then a classic wave interference (constructive and destructive interference) pattern emerges. Waves rule, okay!

3 - If photons, electrons, Bucky-balls, etc. are fired one at a time, at a single slit, such that one photon, etc. completes the journey before the next one is fired off, again with a detector behind the slit, then a quasi-blob of impacts are ultimately detected. Particles rule, okay!

4 - If photons, electrons, Bucky-balls, etc. are fired one at a time at a double slit, such that one photon, etc. completes the journey before the next one is fired off, again with a detector behind the slits, then ultimately after enough firings, a classic wave interference (constructive and destructive) pattern emerges. Waves! However, that implies one photon, electron, Bucky-ball, etc. somehow manages to go through both slits at the same time and thus interferes with itself. That’s absurd. But you ain’t seen anything yet!

4A - The above assumes nobody (human observer or independent measuring device) is peeking and taking the slightest notice of what’s going on – the non-observing nobodies are just looking at the pattern on the detector screen after the fact; after the experiment has concluded. 

4B - However, if someone, human observer or independent measuring device, is peeking and taking absolute and total notice of what’s going on, and determining at the precise time of passage which of the two slits the lone photon, etc. is actually going through (on the grounds that one entity cannot pass through two doors at the same time) then the wave interference pattern doesn’t eventuate and you get a quasi-blob of particle hits on the detector behind each of the two slits. Somehow the photon, etc. is somehow ‘aware’ that it is being observed and changes it’s self-interfering behavior accordingly – keeping in mind that the very act of observing before-the-fact unobserved properties of a photon, etc. alters those properties after-the-fact, since you can’t observe something without mucking around with it.  

4C - What if someone, human observer or independent measuring device, peeks, but only after the photon, etc. has already passed through presumably, but absurdly, both slits and self-interfered with itself? That shouldn’t affect the ultimate wave outcome since it’s now too little to late for the photon, etc. to change its mind. Or so you would think. But again, irregardless, the wave interference pattern disappears even after the peeking is done after the photon, etc. has passed through both slits and self-interfered. The one very nasty and anomalous implication is that the photon, etc. has traveled back in time to just before, or when it was, initially emitted so as to now make the ‘correct’ choice and thus will pass through one and only one slit to correlate what it actually does with what is actually detected. 

5 - Summary: If you turn your back and don’t peek, and there’s a double slit available, the detector screen, and therefore you, will detect a wave pattern because the photon, etc. will pass through both slits and self-interfere.

If you don’t turn your back away from the action, but do a peeping-Tom act, double slit notwithstanding, the detector screen and therefore you will detect a particle (quasi-blob) pattern behind each slit.

The two very disturbing facets are that a photon, etc. displays awareness, and free will, as well as exhibiting the ability to travel backwards in time. Photons, etc. not only know before-the-fact whether or not both slits are open (two open slits equals wave behavior); or that one or the other slit is open (either/or equals particle behavior), but also whether or not someone is peeking. If both holes (slits) are open and nobody is peeking we end up having wave interference behavior; if someone is peeking even if both holes (slits) are open, we get particle quasi-blob behavior. That means the photons, etc. know (how is that possible?) and adjust and exercise their free will (how is that possible?) accordingly.

6 – Conclusion: Now either you’ve got to believe we exist in The Twilight Zone #One where denizens of the micro world have an awareness of their surroundings and possess some degree of free will to react to and within those surroundings, OR you believe we live in The Twilight Zone #Two where said denizens of the micro world are programmed by higher authority** to behave in the way we see and measure them behave.

# MISSING IN ACTION

An electron can have this amount of energy corresponding to this ‘orbit’ (around an atomic nucleus) or that energy level corresponding to a different ‘orbit’ or this other energy level corresponding to a third possible ‘orbit’, etc. but not any energy level (and thus ‘orbit’) in-between (since energy comes in single indivisible quantum packets). Energy thus is a discontinuous phenomenon; just like you can have coins in multiples of five cents (I’m talking Australia here) like five cents, ten cents, fifteen cents, etc. You cannot have a coinage value of seven cents or of nine-point-three cents.

Here’s the rub. When an electron gains or loses energy, it rises or drops it’s ‘orbit’. But where the hell is it when it is rising, or falling between allowable ‘orbits’? Is it in The Twilight Zone or in another dimension or in Wonderland keeping Alice company? Being in-between allowable ‘orbits’ equates to having a forbidden energy level that would correspond to that in-between state. It would be like having a six, then seven, then eight, and then a nine cent coin as you increased the value of your pocket change from five cents to ten cents.

A similar situation could be had for the anomaly known as quantum tunneling. A particle is here on one side of a barrier, then it is there on the other side of the barrier – instantaneously – never to be found in-between.

Of course virtual reality software could easily have our electron disappear and reappear as it quantum jumped from one allowable ‘orbit’ to another allowable ‘orbit’ or as it tunneled over, around or through the barrier.

*It is impossible to know the absolute really real nature of reality since we cannot know the properties of the micro world without measuring/observing them and the act of measuring/observing affects, even distorts, those properties. But, the measuring device is unbiased and independent measurements yield identical results so the disturbances, if any, are at least consistent. Further, theoretical predictions about the properties and reality of potential fundamental particles have all been realized. The predictions that there had to be neutrinos, antimatter, quarks, the particles that convey the weak nuclear force, even the Higgs Boson have all come to pass, so really real reality can’t differ all that much from what we observe and measure. 

**Not by any means of necessity a deity! A real deity wouldn’t stuff things up and give us a Universe that has all the hallmarks that enable me to say that something is screwy somewhere!

To be continued…