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



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…



The Many Lives Of Radioactive Nuclei

When you study radioactivity in high school or anything that relates to radioactive dating, you’re drilled in the fact that any and every radioactive (unstable) nuclei decay at a fixed mathematical rate called the half-life. Each ‘brand’ of nuclei has its own half-life that’s applicable or unique to those particular nuclei. What’s probably not drilled into you is that unstable nuclei decay for no reason at all and that tends to make a bit of a hash of the half-life relationship which in turn can’t be explained. Something is screwy somewhere.

Is there a relationship between causality and radioactive decay and the precise pattern to that decay? Why is this important or interesting? Because, at least in IMHO, there’s something screwy somewhere between the three that needs resolution. Radioactivity – exactly when something decays, in this case unstable (i.e. – radioactive) nuclei, is totally random. There is no rhyme or reason for the when. There is no cause according to quantum or particle physicists; therefore there should be no pattern according to me. If, contrary to scientific opinion, cause and effect operate at the quantum level (the micro realm where unstable nuclei go poof) then there are plausible mechanisms, again according to me*, that could account for a pattern – the half-life pattern – which is what we observe. So there’s a conflict here, or as I have stated, there’s something screwy somewhere. 

The central theme here is why do unstable nuclei decay according to a precise mathematical relationship termed the half-life? There are potentially dozens of other precise mathematical possibilities, and a near infinite ones if you abandon any mathematical symmetry altogether. Let’s explore a few of those.

For the sake of what follows, let’s assume a barrel full of 1000 marbles. Each marble represents one of the 1000 identical unstable radioactive nuclei ‘marbles’ or atomic ‘marbles’ that sooner or later will go poof and decay giving off, radioactivity – Alpha, Beta and/or Gamma Rays. The barrel is just to keep all of them in place – say like a 1000 atom lump of uranium. The decay or the poof will originate when someone removes a marble or the marble from the barrel.

Now how many ways can one remove marbles from the barrel – how many ways can unstable radioactive nuclei be made to decay.

For the standard half-life relationship to hold, you are restricted to pulling out half of the marbles that are in the barrel per fixed unit of time. You remove one half of the original lot of 1000 marbles per unit of time; then one half of the remaining 500 marbles per unit of time; then one half of the remaining 250 marbles per unit of time; then one half of the remaining 125 marbles, and so on and so forth – 62, 31, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1 and finally all 1000 marbles have been removed and there is no more instability left. All the 1000 radioactive atoms have now gone poof and decayed. You can plot that on a graph and get a nice pattern. That’s what’s in the textbooks.

Since the half-life works on an ever diminishing scale, one-half of the original, then one-half of what remains, then one-half of what remains after that, and so on, why that and why not other possible but similar relationships?

What about three-quarter lives? If you start with 1000 unstable marbles, after one unit of time you decay 750, leaving 250. Three-quarters of 250 is 188 that bite the dust after another identical interval of time leaving 62 to go. Three-quarters of 62 is 46 more who have decayed. That just leaves 16 radioactive marbles in the barrel. 12 of them go poof in the next time interval, leaving a bare quartet. One more time interval sees just one lone radioactive marble left, which of course will give up the ghost in the next (and final) time interval. 

Now what about two-third lives? If you start with 1000 unstable marbles, after one unit of time you decay 667, leaving 333. Two-thirds of 333 are 222 that bite the dust after another identical interval of time leaving 111 to go. Two-thirds of 111 are 74 more who have decayed. That just leaves 37 radioactive marbles in the barrel. 25 of those go poof in the next time interval, leaving a bare 12. One more time interval sees just four lone radioactive marbles left, three of which of course will give up the ghost in the next to last round, the lone and final survivor going down the gurgler in that next (and final) time interval. 

For another example, why a one-half life relationship in favour of an ongoing diminishing reciprocal to the above one-third relationship? Remove one-third of the 1000 marbles leaves 667. One-third now removed from those 667 leaves behind 445 ‘radioactive’ marbles. Remove one-third of those 445 marbles and you’re left with 297. One-third taken away from 297 leaves 198, then 132, then 88, then 59, then 39, then 26, then 17, then 11, then 7, then 5, then 3, then 2, then one is left which goes poof at that last pick of the draw; in that final unit of uniform time.

In a similar sort of exercise to a third-life, you can substitute the standard half-life for a quarter-life (1000, 750, 562, 421, 316, etc.) or a half-life for a fifth-life (1000, 800, 640, 512, 410, etc.).

Another variation on the theme might revolve around why does not Mother Nature decide, per fixed unit of time, on one-half of the original then one-third of the remaining then one-quarter of what remains after that, hence one-fifth, one-sixth, etc. In our 1000 marble in the barrel analogy, that’s one-half of the 1000 removed or 500 left, then one-third removed of the 500 or 333 remain, then one-quarter removed of the remaining 333 leaves 250 remaining, then one-fifth removal of the 250 leaves 200 remaining, then remove one-sixth of the 200 leaves 167, and so on down the diminishing line.

Or what about an inverse square relationship which is a common relationship in physics. So the diminishing relationship is one quarter, followed by one ninth of what remains, followed by one sixteenth of that, followed by one twenty-fifth, followed by one thirty-sixth, etc.  That is, start with 1000 marbles, then removing one quarter of those 1000 leaves 750, then removing one ninth of those 750 leaves 667, and removing one sixteenth of those 667 leaves 625, then removing one twenty-fifth of those 625 leaves 600, then removing one thirty-sixth of those 600 leaves 583, and so on. Why didn’t Mother Nature opt for that mathematical relationship for radioactive decay?

Now consider the near infinite number of alternatives or possibilities.

You could grab out all 1000 marbles in one fell swoop.

You could equally grab out 500, catch your breath, then grab out 500 more.

You could pull out 1 or 2 or 5 or 10, etc. marbles per unit of time. From say the initial 1000, pull out 25 each grab: 1000, 975, 950, 925, 900, 875, etc. Or, one could pull out any random number of marbles every 25 seconds.

You could pull out 1, then 2 then 3 then 4 then 5, etc. per unit of time. Starting with 1000, you’d have 1000, 999, 997, 994; 900; 985; 979; 972, etc. Or, pull out 1, then 2 then 4 then 8 then 16 then 32 then 64, etc. doubling each time. Or 1, then 4, then 9, then 16, then 25, then 36 more, then 47 more, then 64 more, then 81 more, then 100 more, etc., the squares of 1, 2, 3, etc. Or there’s the cubes of 1, 2 3, etc. – 1, 8, 27, 64, 125 and so on until all the marbles have been grabbed. Another relationship could be pulling out 1, then 2 more, then 3 more, then 5 more, then 8 more, then 13 more, then 21 more, then grab another 34, then another 55, etc. where what you grab out is the sum of the previous two grabs. Then there are the primes – grab 1, then 2 then 3 then 5 then 7 then 11 then 13 then 17, etc. There’s no end to the possible mathematically related sequences that have nothing to do with a half-life. 

If radioactive nuclei go poof for absolutely no reason at all – there’s no cause for the effect – as scientists claim**, then all radioactive nuclei decay should be absolutely random. It just so happens that mathematically the most probable way is a totally random way, a totally random selection of marbles from the barrel since there are way more ways of doing something (removing marbles from the barrel) randomly than doing something by the mathematical book – engineering some precise mathematical relationship that one can put down in equation form and graph as a symmetrical line or curve.

Take say two decks of cards, each numbered 1 to 52 and each shuffled well – then each shuffled again. A randomly chosen card from Deck A decides the number of marbles to be removed; a randomly chosen card from Deck B decides the time before you remove them. Picked cards are re-entered back into their respective decks and the decks shuffled again.

Now this is just a convenient-sized quasi-random number generator one can apply to our 1000 ‘radioactive’ marble sample. In reality, the first ‘deck of cards’ would have to represent every possible positive whole number, and the second time generator ‘deck of cards’ every possible increment of the smallest possible time unit – the Planck unit of time – in which anything meaningful can take place, like a nucleus decaying and going  poof.  Both random number generating ‘decks’ together then can deal with every radioactive nucleus that ever was and is in the entire cosmos.

Meantime, back to the 1000 marbles in the barrel and the two finite shuffled deck of cards from which numbers of marbles and time frames are picked randomly. I think you’d agree that if you followed the logic of picking and removing the number of marbles from the barrel based on a random shuffling of one deck of cards and doing so at time intervals based on the random shuffling of a second deck of cards, you are unlikely in the extreme to end up with the standard half-life relationship. Something is indeed screwy somewhere.

In conclusion, if you buy say a 24-can case of beer, there will come a point in time when half the contents (12 cans) have been consumed. But you couldn’t call that time interval the half-life of that case of beer since there is no reason to assume that the next six cans (half of the remaining 12 cans) will be consumed in the next identical time interval and the next three cans in an identical time interval following that. The same argument applies to radioactive (unstable) nuclei. The fact that the half-life relationship exists and has been verified in defiance of all that is logical given the lack of causality is suggestive evidence IMHO for the reality of, our reality being; the Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe scenario. It’s all just software programming done from a higher reality. 

* In the nanosecond that separates no decay from decay, something must of happened IMHO to trigger the decay event. I’ve gone on record elsewhere that a plausible mechanism might be neutrinos slam-banging into unstable nuclei, the impact being the tipping point that triggers the decay event.

**Scientists probably conclude that because nothing they do to radioactive nuclei, either chemically or physically makes any difference to the poof rate of that specific type of unstable nuclei. You can hammer them, boil them in oil, piss on them, feed them to bacteria, give them the evil eye, soak them in Holy Water, oxygenate then, play heavy metal music to them, shine a laser beam on them, freeze them, put them in a vacuum, and for all the good those things do, nothing changes. 

Further Reading:

Malley, Marjorie C.; Radioactivity: A History of A Mysterious Science; Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2011:



Those Oops In Physics: Part Two

Some physical scientists – professional skeptics – are quick to jump on what in their opinion are the flaws inherent in what they term pseudoscience or the paranormal. Perhaps they should gaze at their own navels first before criticizing others, as the following hopefully points out.

Continued now from yesterday’s blog…

Oops in Causality     

Causality (the future is contained in the past), cause-and-effect, has to operate across the board if Mother Nature is to be predictable, and prediction and predictability is at the heart of what makes science, science. Yet, some scientists insist some phenomena have no causality. Lack of causality implies that what happens is the result of some sort of ‘free will’ (or variations thereof) which is absurd. That would imply that an electron or a radioactive uranium atom has an independent ‘mind’ of its own. Lack of causality alone in IMHO is nearly sufficient evidence to justify the hypothesis that we are ‘living’ in a simulated (virtual reality) universe.

# Big Bang: Apparently the creation of the Universe (the Big Bang event) happened for absolutely no rhyme or reason at all. That means there was no first cause attributable for the effect that was Big Bang event. Does that strike anyone besides me as odd, as in absolutely impossible?

# Radioactivity: That two identical radioactive (unstable) nuclei will decay (go poof) at different times despite both being in the same place, in the same environment, at the same time. That’s therefore because of the ‘fact’ that an unstable radioactive nucleus will go poof for absolutely no reason at all. If there is no causality behind radioactive decay, then obviously any two identical radioactive nuclei can go poof in a totally random way. But random events shouldn’t result in a precise mathematical relationship, which is what is claimed by observation – the concept of the half-life.

# Electrons: 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!  

# 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. 

Oops in Probability     

# Electric Charge: The electric charge of the proton is exactly equal and opposite to the electric charge on the electron, despite the proton being nearly 2000 times more massive. There’s no set in concrete theoretical reason why this should be so.

# Fine Tuning: In fact, you tend to a violation in probability when it comes to numerous examples of fine-tuning – the fine-tuning that allows the Universe to be bio-friendly. For example, if the force of gravity were slightly stronger, the Universe would have re-collapsed into a Big Crunch rather quickly, and thus there would have been no time allowed for life to form and evolve. If the force of gravity had been slightly weaker stars and galaxies wouldn’t have formed. No stars and galaxies: thus, again, a lifeless Universe.       

Oops in Theory vs. Observation

# Matter & Antimatter: Theory predicts there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the Universe. Observation shows that there is a massive predominance of matter over antimatter. Something is screwy somewhere.

# Vacuum Energy: Theory suggests a certain value for the vacuum energy. Experimental observation shows quite a different value for the vacuum energy. In fact, the difference between theory and observation is 120 orders of magnitude. Something is definitely screwy somewhere.

# Protons: Some theories suggest that like an isolated neutron, the proton is, over the long term, unstable and should go poof and decay. Alas, experiments, and there have been many of them, have failed to detect even one proton decay event. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

General Oops: WTF?

# Inflation: In addition to the above, the Big Bang event as a standalone event raised lots of problems, collectively known as the flatness problem; the horizon problem; and the monopole problem. To resolve those issues, a secondary theoretical and rather ad hoc expansion event, termed Inflation, was proposed. Alas, it lacks any shred of actual independent and observational evidence (apart from dealing with the Big Bang issues as noted), and has its own set of problems, not least of which there are many variations on the Inflation theme; how and why Inflation started and how and why Inflation stopped. If the Big Bang were really a comprehensive theory of everything with respect to the origin and early evolution of the cosmos, there wouldn’t be a horizon, flatness and monopole problem requiring an ad hoc tack-on.

# Dark Matter: There apparently isn’t enough mass contained within our galaxy (and others as well) to account for its structure and how it stays together as a collective conglomerate of stars, planets, interstellar dust, etc. So, with a wave of a magic physics wand, physicists and astrophysicists invent out of thin air an ad hoc explanation – all that missing matter must be “dark matter”, matter which we can’t see, can’t detect, and haven’t a real clue as to what it might be

# Cosmic Rays: Cosmic rays tend to be very high energy particles like electrons and positrons, protons and antiprotons, alpha particles and other atomic nuclei that originate from beyond our solar system. After that, things get iffy. Their actual point(s) of origin are anywhere and everywhere and to be honest their origin(s) are rather mysterious. You name the astronomical object and someone will have tagged it as a, if not the, source of cosmic rays. Among the candidates are supernovae, active galactic nuclei, magnetic variable stars, quasars, gamma-ray bursts, even the Crab Nebula (a pulsar) and the radio galaxy Centaurus A. It all seems to be a case of picking a number out of a hat or throwing a dart at a dartboard labeled with astronomical structures. Your guess (and that’s what they are) is as good as mine.

# The Fine Structure Constant: The mysticism over the number 137 (i.e. - actually 1/137) – the Fine Structure Constant – has the same sort of cultist fascination and impact on some physicists and the physics community in general as the dimensions and mathematical relationships and their significance inherent in the Great Pyramid (at Giza, Cairo) has to occultists, numerologists, mystics and pseudo-archaeologists. Then there’s all that endless numerological speculations on and significance of 666 to Christians. A rose by any other name applies here.

Conclusions

As we have seen, there are many ghosts that haunt the academic corridors of academic physics. Physicists need to exorcise those demonic spirits first, before trying to inflict their exorcisms on the rest of the irrational world.

* What can escape from a Black Hole is called Hawking radiation, but in that massive a Black Hole, the one required for a pinhead sized start to the cosmos, that radiation leakage would take a very, very, very long time to ooze out; hardly what you’d call an explosive event.

     

Some Interesting Reading

Baggott, Jim; Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth; Pegasus Books, New York; 2013:

Jones, Sheilla & Unzicker, Alexander; Bankrupting Physics: How Today’s Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility; Palgrave Macmillan, New York; 2013:

Smolin, Lee; The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of Science and What Comes Next; Penguin Books, London; 2006:

Woit, Peter; Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics; Vintage Books, London; 2007:



Those Oops In Physics: Part One

Some physical scientists – professional skeptics – are quick to jump on what in their opinion are the flaws inherent in what they term pseudoscience or the paranormal. Perhaps they should gaze at their own navels first before criticizing others, as the following hopefully points out.

Some people for example claim that some UFOs are actually extraterrestrial spacecraft and get bucketed for their point of view. No evidence; no proof is the mantra of the skeptic – usually a physical scientist. However, IMHO, some physicists (or other equivalent physical scientists like astronomers) make even greater outrageous claims without a shred of evidence, far less proof. The attitude of some scientists seems to be along the lines of ‘do as I say, not as I do’.

Physics tends to be a subject that lots of ordinary folks shy away from, probably because physics tends to rely heavily on mathematics, and usually highly complex mathematics at that, advanced mathematics that aren’t taught until well into third or fourth year at university and into gradate school. However, even when modern physics is explained minus the mathematics, in what I guess would be termed layman’s language, physics turns out to be really, really weird. The mathematics tends to hide the weirdness from the uninitiated (since everything is double Dutch to them) but it’s there all the same. These are some of the examples I’ve come up against – a wall that one tends to bang one’s head against in frustration. The frustration tending to be in the first instance, what’s wrong with me that I can’t do an end run around the (only apparent) weirdness? Once one accepts that it’s not you, but the physics that’s weird, well that doesn’t eliminate the frustration or the feeling that one still needs to bang their heads against the wall! Of course maybe it’s not the physics that are weird but the physicists. It wouldn’t be the first time – but that’s another story.

Oops in Common Sense - Theory

Now I am aware that common sense is not an acceptable criterion in science, but there is a limit to what pills I will swallow. With the exceptions of the speed of light and neutron decay (see below under observations) there is no observational or experimental evidence for any of this theoretical nonsense.

# Point Particles: Particle physicists often use the term “point particles” when talking about the fundamental or elementary particles that make up matter, like electrons, etc. However, a point particle has zero dimensions, and as such takes up zero volume. The upshot is, if particles have no dimensionality, then matter cannot exist. Matter is made up of these elementary particles, and if each particle has zero volume, well zero plus zero plus zero equals zero. All of matter would have zero volume and that’s clearly not the case. Alternatively, point particles couldn’t smash together in say the Large Hadron Collider or in any other particle accelerator.

# Dimensions: That there are up to ten spatial dimensions (not three) if Superstring Theory or M-Theory is correct. In the words of the late physicist Wolfgang Pauli, that’s “not even wrong”. 

# Big Bang: That the first nanosecond of creation crammed the contents of our observable Universe into a volume less than a pinhead. In any event, if you could squeeze the contents of the observable Universe down into a pinhead’s volume, you’d end up with the Mother of all Black Holes from which nothing* would escape. Therefore there would be no Big Bang and thus our Universe would not have been brought into existence. 

# Big Bang: That the Big Bang event created time itself. This can’t even be done in theory, far less in actual practice. Pull the left leg!

# Big Bang: That the Big Bang event created space itself. This too is beyond the theoretical limits of modern physics and certainly cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. Now pull the right leg!

# Theory of Everything (TOE): There are three quantum (micro) forces that rule the roost – the strong nuclear; the weak nuclear; and electromagnetism. All three have been unified into the Standard Model of particle physics that’s called the Grand Unified Theory (GUT). There is also one force that rules that rules supreme in the classical (macro) world – gravity. Since the micro and the macro are both part of the larger picture – Mother Nature – it should seem obvious that gravity can and should be unified with the Standard Model to provide what’s known in the trade as a Theory of Everything (TOE). Alas, despite the best minds working on unification over many, many decades, nothing of substance has surfaced. 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. That makes no sense. It should be relatively easy to unify all four forces.    

# Gravity: Centuries after Isaac Newton, the puzzlement that is gravity has still not been completely solved. There appears to be two competing theories. One, gravity is geometry, otherwise wrapped around Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Mass tells space how to curve; curved space tells mass how to move. Two, gravity is a force somewhat akin to electromagnetism in that it has an associated particle that conveys the gravitational force, like a photon conveys the electromagnetic force. That hypothetical or theoretical particle is termed the graviton, and remains to date undetected. You’d think by now the issue would have been settled. 

# Observation/Measurement: That the lack of observation or of measurement (same difference) has a bearing on the reality of what’s not being observed or not being measured is absurd. That’s like saying the Moon doesn’t exist, or may or may not exist, or exists and yet doesn’t exist at the same time, if nobody is looking at it. In any event, to but the worms back into that can, during the early history of our Universe, there were no observers (i.e. – no life forms of any kind) and the cosmos got along just hunky-dory. The Universe doesn’t give a rat’s ass about observers. Things either are, or they are not.

# Electrons: 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.

Oops in Common Sense - Observations  

# Velocities: Velocities maybe 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. Now the exception to that universal rule is the speed of light. 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 require both time and length to be flexible, is one should always be a bit suspect when it comes to the lone ranger, the exception to the rule. There’s something weird afoot here.  

# Neutron Decay: One isolated neutron will decay in roughly 15 minutes into an electron, a proton and an antineutrino. That’s probably why a hydrogen atom hasn’t a neutron you’d think; there’s only one electron around a nucleus of one proton. Unfortunately heavy hydrogen is heavy because it has one neutron, so that blows that idea. Apparently therefore, any neutron inside or part of a nucleus is stable. So obviously two or more neutrons together (i.e. – part of a nucleus or within a neutron star) will not decay. Why one isolated neutron is unstable, yet a neutron or neutrons (two or more together) as part of a nucleus or as a neutron star are stable, is to me a mystery that defies logic. I mean, by analogy, an isolated radioactive (unstable) nucleus behaves no differently than its clone or twin that is cheek-by-jowl with others of its kind. 

Oops in Conservation Laws – The Free Lunch     

# Dark Energy: Apparently the density of Dark Energy remains constant while the volume of the Universe expands. That’s something from nothing. That’s a free lunch.

# 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.

To be continued…



The Quantum Realm: Part Two

Now the really interesting thing about quantum physics isn’t so much the physics but the philosophy behind it all. Why is it so? What does it mean? That these philosophical issues matter and should be of interest is because you, the macro reader, is made up entirely – from the ground up – out of the residents of the realm of the micro, the inhabitants of the realm of the quantum.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

As a review, with commentary, these are my takes on quantum strangeness:

Case Study #1 deals with that double slit experiment. IMHO photons fired one at a time at the double slit should not form a classic wave interference pattern with or without slit detectors in place. The concept of superposition belongs in “The Twilight Zone”, though apparently, so the scenario goes, what’s emitted is a particle; what’s detected is a particle; but the flight or pathway in-between is a wave-of-probability. It’s the slit detector that changes wave-of-probability into location, but that exact location must have existed even had the detector (our stand-in observer) not been in place. How does that explain the one photon at a time interfering with itself and causing that classic wave interference pattern? It doesn’t, but it’s a better bet than trying to come to terms with the idea of a thing being in two places at the same time.

Case Study #2, dealing with entanglement, well let’s just say that a particle on one side of the Universe should be independent of the fate of a particle on the opposite side of the Universe. More superposition equals more of “The Twilight Zone”.

Case Study #3: There needs to be a bona fide causality inspired reason why an electron gives away a photon and drops to a lower energy level. It’s not a whim thing. Maybe it’s another photon bumping into the electron and discharging the absorbed photon, maybe not, but it’s not a whim thing.

Case Study #4: Neutrinos should not endlessly change their clothes on route. The fact that they do contributed to some serious reflection that the core of our Sun had actually shut down. Scientists when looking for electron-neutrinos emitted by the Sun’s solar furnace didn’t see enough of them and thought the worst. It wasn’t until much later that they realised they had missed all those electron-neutrinos that the Sun had actually given off but which had changed their attire between the Sun and the Earth.

Case Study #5 notes that if you are made of matter, it would not be a good idea to shake hands with your antimatter twin self! But why matter and antimatter should go poof at all is a bit strange. An electron has a negative charge and its antimatter twin has a positive charge (hence the name positron). They go poof upon contact. But a proton has a positive charge equal and opposite to that of an electron and they don’t go poof when brought into contact so there’s more than just opposite charges annihilating each other at work here obviously. There’s no question that chemical reactions can give off energy, but total annihilation – wow. 

Case Study #6: Quantum Tunnelling should happen for a reason – it doesn’t. Quantum Tunnelling shouldn’t happen instantaneously since that violates the cosmic speed limit – the speed of light. The fact that in the micro world, barriers, well ain’t, makes all human inmates wish they were subatomic particles! 

The overall image that keeps springing to mind is all those Hollywood special effects. They would be an excellent explanation for all of the above weirdness. Think about it!

Finally, we should also note that most of the above examples or case histories involve quantum probability, uncertainty, indeterminism, etc. with respect or relative to the observer which could be you or me.

Case Study #1 suggests that photons (or electrons or any other fundamental particle) are in a superposition of state, which suggests that they can be apparently in two (or more) locations at the same time, and it’s only based on probability as to exactly where that location is. But it is in just one location as the addition of actual slit detectors verifies. So, the key point is that the photon or electron or whatever is 100% at a specific set of coordinates even if the double slit experiment suggests that the photon or electron or whatever is smeared out over a wide ranging area and only probably here or probably there.  So probability really bites the dust since location (one slit or the other) is confirmed by observation – there’s location, location, location; not probable, probable, probable!

In Case Study #2 we have more about that superposition of state whereby a particle may actually be a particle or an antiparticle (probability is 50/50) or spin up or spin down (probability 50/50). But you know, and I know, that in reality, one particle IS a particle (probability 100%) and the other IS an antiparticle (probability 100%) or one particle IS spin up (100% probability) and the other IS spin down (100% probability). There is no indeterminacy even if there is no observer, there is only determinacy, positive actuality, whether or not one or the other is observed. There is no across the universe communication. There is no ‘spooky action at a distance’. There is no probability involved other than 100% probability, otherwise known as a sure thing.

In Case Study #3 we have an electron that absorbs a photon’s energy and thus quantum jumps to a higher energy level. It then becomes a matter of probability as to when that electron emits that photon and jumps back down to a lower energy level. But, as in the case of radioactive decay, the odds are 100% that it will happen. Probability need not apply here. Probability is not applicable. The key concept here is again, ‘sooner or later’.

In Case Study #4, we might not know why the neutrino changes clothes, or exactly when and under what circumstances, so, as far as we are concerned it’s all boiled down to statistical probability what clothes any particular neutrino will be wearing when detected. However, there’s no doubt in my mind that causality is operating and that it’s 100% certain that the neutrino is wearing the clothes that causality has dictated. There’s no probability involved, only the probability that we’re probably pretty dumb for not figuring out why.   

Finally, in Case Study #5 somehow particles and antiparticles seemingly ‘know’ when they meet and greet whether to go poof or not go poof. The mystery is how they ‘know’. But it’s total certainty one way or the other and the observer has no relevance or say in the matter.

Case Study #6: Quantum Tunnelling, as already noted, happens for no reason at all. It’s responsible for radioactive decay which happens for no apparent reason at all. There is no way, rhyme or reason that enables one to predict when a quantum tunnelling event will transpire. It’s all probability. Either that, or a subatomic particle has a free will mind of its own and the knowledge and the ability of a Harry Houdini.

I have one other observation while on the issue of causality and probability if you please. If something quantum happens for no reason at all (i.e. – unstable subatomic nuclei goes poof) why doesn’t everything micro happen for no reason at all. Or, if some quantum happenings are just probabilities, why aren’t all micro happenings probabilities. Now IMHO if 99.999% of all physical effects can be traced back to one or more causes, it’s pretty safe to suggest, even conclude if you’re a betting person, that 100% of all physical can be traced back to one or more causes, even if those causes remain as yet unknown.

Lastly, consider and reconsider the quantum mantra: Anything that isn’t forbidden is compulsory; anything that can happen will happen. Does that sound like a probability statement to you?

I suggest this puts the kibosh on quantum physics being steeped in probability. There is no probability once you eliminate the observer and the observer’s fixation on either where things are; where something is, or whether something is or is not going to happen, and when something is going to happen. Before there were observers, things were somewhere, fixed and absolute, things did their thing without any guesswork or decision-making involved, and things happened sooner or later with absolute certainty.