There are many Big Questions in science, many of which go back to the ancients, even back into prehistory in all probability. One of the best modern set I’ve found recently were sidebars in a book by Emeritus Professor of Physics at the Open University, Russell Stannard. These are my answers, thoughts and commentary to those Big Questions. Many readers might have ‘fun’ trying to come to terms with these in their own way based on their own worldview.
Continued from Part Three.
Q. Why is there no evidence for the existence of magnetic monopoles?
A. Just like theory suggests there should be one heck of a lot of antimatter around, theory also suggests that magnetic monopoles (magnets with only a north pole or a south pole) should be in abundance. That fact that we do not see magnetic monopoles is given as evidence for cosmic inflation, which, due to extreme expansion, diluted the number of magnetic monopoles down to such a very few per volume of space that as far as our volume of space is concerned, magnetic monopoles are as rare as hens’ teeth. Inflation ‘explains’ why we have no evidence for the existence of magnetic monopoles, but only of course if you accept that inflation actually happened, and there was nobody around to cover that event and report it on CNN.
Q. Is it possible to account for the values of the parameters featured in the Standard Model?
A. No. One cannot determine what the values of the physical parameters should be for the particles in the standard model of particle physics from first principles. You cannot calculate from scratch what the mass or the charge, etc. of an electron, proton, neutron, etc. should be. The values can only be determined experimentally, and having done that, determine that there is no rhyme or reason to what those values are. There is no theory that explains why a proton has a mass nearly 2000 times that of an electron, for example, and not some other value.
Q. Is there a Higgs particle?
A. Apparently that has been confirmed by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
Q. How are we to account for the masses of the particles?
A. The masses of the particles cannot be calculated from first principles and can only be determined experimentally. Having done that, explaining why the particles have the value they do is apparently explained by resorting to the Higgs Boson and Higgs Field which does the trick. I gather the analogy is that all things Higgs are akin to a mass of people at a party randomly placed, but when a famous particle like an electron enters the room, the mass of people are no longer randomly placed but crowd around the celebrity electron and hinder its passage across the room. That hindrance, like treacle placed in its path, slows the particle down, or as we interpret it, gives the particle mass.
Q. Does supersymmetry hold and if so, why have we not as yet seen any of the supersymmetric partners?
A. Supersymmetry (SUSY) is one of those dearly beloved concepts that could, if confirmed, put the icing on the cake for string theorists. SUSY basically suggests for every force particle there is a corresponding ‘kissing cousin’ matter particle and for every matter particle there is a corresponding ‘kissing cousin’ force particle. IMHO, string theory confirms the idea of GIGO – [string] garbage in; [supersymmetry] garbage out. The garbage out is SUSY, and, as if confirming that garbage, there has been no verification of SUSY at all. The supersymmetric partners haven’t been detected – they are conspicuous by their experimental absence. Why? Because SUSY is garbage and SUSY is garbage because string theory is garbage.
Q. Does the world-in-itself exist between our discontinuous observations?
A. This is a case of does the Moon exist even if no one is looking at it. Presumably, the answer is yes, even if the observer is just phytoplankton that absorbs photons reflected off the lunar surface. Presumably water must be observing the Moon as it does its tidal thing, a thing it wouldn’t otherwise do if the Moon wasn’t there. So hairy issue number one is what exactly is an observer? An observer can be anything. An electron observes another electron when the two come in close proximity and repel each other. Hairy issue number two is how does the Moon know it is being observed? It can’t, therefore it cannot respond to a state of non-observation by vanishing. What about software? Do those video game characters exist when the game isn’t being played and sitting on your shelf? If we’re simulated beings in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe and the Supreme Programmer leaves the room and does not observe us, presumably we keep on keeping on. So the answer is that the world-in-itself exists whether real or simulated. If real, well the world-in-itself (i.e. – the Universe) got along very nicely before there were observers as we traditionally define them and we traditionally define them as living things that react (observe) to their surroundings. The simulation exists as long as the software exists whether it’s running or not.
Q. Is there any value in Everett’s many worlds hypothesis?
A. The Many Worlds Hypothesis (MWH) is an alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of quantum physics. The CI says that when faced with many possible possibilities or outcomes to a situation, once an observation is made, the many possibilities collapses down to just one outcome. For example, the value of the top card in a shuffled deck of card has 52 possible possibilities. Once an observation is made, only one of those 52 possibilities is realized. The MWH however suggests that all possibilities are realized – one possibility realized in our world; the rest in newly established worlds. So, when you observe the top card, your world divides into another 51 other worlds, each new world corresponding to each possible value of the top card that wasn’t observed when you looked. I guess there is value in that approach, but it’s sort of a sledge hammer approach. When you consider all of the forks-in-the-road the cosmos faces each and every nanosecond, well accepting the MWH means that there are multi-trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of worlds that have a really real existence somewhere out there and they are increasing at a rapid rate of knots to boot.
Q. Is the task of science to describe the world-in-itself, whether or not it is being observed, or must it confine itself to speaking only of our observations of the world?
A. Ideally, science tries to account for those actual observations one makes of the world-in-itself. However, there are numerous bits and pieces in scientific texts that rely on speculation and theory and what ifs and extrapolations and mathematical equations. We can’t observe inside the core of the Sun or inside a Black Hole. Nobody has actually observed an electron or a quark. There are many theoretical things we haven’t observed yet like monopoles or gravity waves or supersymmetric particles or extraterrestrials, yet they too are considered a legit part of science.
Q. How are we to understand quantum entanglement, i.e. ‘spooky action at a distance’?
A. We can’t understand quantum entanglement if the Universe is an ordered and comprehensible place. That’s why Einstein railed against it because it was ‘spooky action at a distance’ and there was no place in an ordered Universe for spooky events, but if there were spooky events, well they happened outside of an ordered and comprehensible Universe and thus weren’t understandable. Of course software can be programmed to produce as much spookiness as the programmer wants.
Q. How many dimensions are there? And why are some curled up, and others extended?
A. There are no dimensions at all. Dimensionality is a human invention, attributing magical meaning to right angles, which do have a practical value in navigating around the world and the universe. Since dimensions are mathematical constructs, and therefore not-things (you cannot detect points, length, area or volume – even the so-called fourth dimension of time - with any of your five senses) then how many dimensions there are is a pretty meaningless question.
Q. Is there an M-theory, and if so, what is it?
A. M-theory is just a consolidation of various string theories that now require even one more additional spatial dimension! IMHO, this is all a case of GIGO – garbage in; garbage out.
Q. Is there any way of proving the validity of some form of string theory?
A. IMHO string theory has no validity on the grounds that it has been examined to death over the past three-plus decades without the slightest experimental run being put on the board. Verifying supersymmetry (SUSY) is the closest string theorists can come to putting their money where their mouths are, but any hope of that has apparently gone by the boards as the Large Hadrn Collider (LHC) hasn’t verified any SUSY at all.
Q. Will we ever be able to formulate a fully satisfactory theory of quantum gravity?
A. No. Quantum gravity is the Holy Grail of physics, the Theory of Everything or TOE. It’s, to date, been another case of ‘never have so many worked so hard for so long for so little results’. The quantum is the realm of the discontinuous unclassical micro; gravity is the realm of the continuous and classical macro. They are, ultimately two entirely different sets of software running the cosmos. If the Universe were really real, a TOE should leap out of the woodwork since there would have to be one unified natural nature. The fact that there is no TOE strongly suggests that the Universe isn’t really real and does not have a unified natural nature. That is, the Universe is virtually ‘real’ and the Supreme Programmer has written two separate and apart sets of software to run it – the micro software and the macro software.
Q. Does complete understanding require more than solely physical explanations?
A. By complete understanding, one has to incorporate those seemingly nebulous things that reside within the time, thinks that seem far removed from the physical world of forces and fields and particles and actions and reactions, etc. These so-called nebulous things revolve around consciousness and the subconscious, thinking (that’s clearly a neurochemical process), memory (clearly chemically encoded), creativity, emotions (definitely chemically driven), morals and ethics, right and wrong, a soul, spirituality, free will, etc. However, all these sorts of concepts reside in the brain or in a part of the brain normally identified as the mind. Whether mind-in-the-brain, or just in or a part of the brain, the brain is ultimately composed of fundamental particles that make up atoms that make up molecules that ultimately make up your neurochemistry and thus your brain and structures within. The proof of the pudding that these so-called nebulous concepts reside in the realm of the physical is that these concepts or things can be altered by physical things – physical happenings like injury (you can be knocked unconscious) or lose consciousness in sleep; chemical things like drugs, lack of sleep, the aging process and related can have decided effects on aspects of your personality, etc.; biological happenings like disease also can have profound effects on some of those so-called nebulous things. They can also be altered by your own self, being creative and via thinking deep thoughts which is an electrochemical process (you might think ‘morals be damned, crime does pay’) and of course closely related, the lifelong learning process (as in learning and altering your learning about say morals/ethics; right/wrong) – as you learn, you may find that what you thought was crystal clear, black and white, is really murky and grey. The learning process (formal or otherwise) can have profound effects on your belief systems and worldviews. Learning clearly has foundations in neurochemistry.
No comments:
Post a Comment