The Russell Stannard Questions: Physics

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.

These are the Russell Stannard Questions* on or about physics:

All Things Classical Physics

Q. Do the physical constants change with time?

A. There is apparently some evidence for this as well as a lot of theoretical speculation that some of the beloved physical constants, like the speed of light, may not be constant but variable over those immense cosmic time frames. In the Simulated (Virtual Reality) Scenario, one could argue, based on experience, that computer code or software needs tweaking every now and then. If fact, we’re all used to getting those software upgrades. So, perhaps our Supreme Programmer, as the simulation scenario unfolds, decides that some tweaking or upgrading is required and we observe that as a change in one or more physical ‘constants’.

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.

All Things Particle Physics

Q. Why is there more matter than antimatter?

A. Theory says that there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter ‘created’ at the time of the Big Bang event. There’s not. Anytime you have a situation where something should be but isn’t (or conversely something shouldn’t be but is), then something is screwy somewhere. The missing antimatter can’t be adequately explained naturally, but a Supreme Programmer could have programmed that difference deliberately, since programming equal amounts of matter and antimatter would have resulted in a pure energy virtual reality cosmos, which, truth be known, would be rather boring.

Q. Why are there three generations of particles?

A. Only the bottom generation of particles plays any role in our day-to-day perception of life, the universe and everything. The second and third generation have bugger-all to do with life, the universe and everything. There is something screwy somewhere! Mother Nature went over-the-top and made way too much of a good thing which is not how we tend to view Mother Nature. Mother Nature is frugal, not extravagant. However, all these additional generations of particles might be the consequence of programming. Natural or software, it’s a mystery that has no obvious rational explanation which suggests to me the irrationality of intelligence. A common theme when it comes to intelligence is that if it is worth doing, it is worth overdoing.

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. Shall we ever be able to verify proton decay?

A. If protons theoretically decay, akin to how neutrons can decay, and you have a large enough collection of protons (that’s easy to accomplish) then it is a straightforward exercise to verify proton decay, even if on average it takes any one proton trillions of years to go poof since if you have trillions of protons on hand, you should see several go poof every year. Such experiments have come up empty. Protons don’t decay so there’s something screwy with the theoretical concept somewhere.

All Things Stringy Physics

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. 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.

All Things Quantum Physics

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. 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. Can we ever be sure that GUT is correct if we cannot experimentally test it at the appropriately high energy?

A. A GUT is a Grand Unified Theory, some sort of unification between the three quantum forces – the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and electromagnetism. One suspects that at the time of the Big Bang event all three forces were unified, only separating or undergoing phase transitions into distinct entities as the universe expanded and cooled. Unfortunately, the energy levels at the point of the Big Bang are such that they are beyond our abilities to achieve and thus any GUT cannot be experimentally confirmed, only theoretically ‘confirmed’. So, if there are competing GUTs, it will be difficult to separate the men GUTs from the boy GUTs. No, unless there’s a breakthrough in experimental high energy physics, the answer is “no”.

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.

*The following questions were taken verbatim from those poised by Russell Stannard in his 2010 book The End of Discovery [are we approaching the boundaries of the knowable?]; Oxford University Press, Oxford. I consider these typical of the sorts of modern Big Questions that are part and parcel of the philosophy of modern science, especially physical science.



Evidence for Our Multi-Path Virtual Reality: Part One

Observations don’t always agree with theory. That’s not usually a problem as theorists can often accommodate the observations as often the error bars around the measurements are wide enough to accommodate the theory. But, when observation and theory really collide, especially when it comes to those fundamental Big Questions, and also especially with the conflicts continue over many, many, years; then it’s time for Mr. Spock to raise those eyebrows! However, there is an easy solution, albeit one which won’t sit well with 99.99% of readers. The solution is that you, the reader, don’t exist! Well you do exist, just not in a real reality sense but as a virtual reality created by others. What’s the evidence?

You do exist, just not in a real reality sense but rather in a virtual reality created by others; you are generated as part and parcel of computer software programming by someone, or something else, as is the entirety of life, the Universe and everything else you perceive with your five senses. Because a simulated or virtual reality can be manipulated or rerun, that leads to a multi-path ‘reality’.

Okay, that’s an interesting idea, but how do you prove it? Presumably the beings that we create in our virtual reality simulations and video games have no comprehension that they are only virtually real. If you could interview them, they would no doubt verify their really real existence, even though we, their creators, know better. In parallel, why would our existence and our perception of that existence, if we are virtual beings created by others, be any different? If we have no comprehension that our reality is a virtual one, what might alter that perception? Well, perhaps by looking at all of the impossibilities and paradoxes that are part and parcel of our reality. If they cannot be understood and resolved, then that might provide an “eureka” moment that we are virtual; we exist in a virtual, not real cosmos.

In baseball terminology, here’s the knuckleball! There’s only one way I know of to generate convincing impossibilities – virtual reality; a simulated universe where there need be no connection at all between what you observe and what theoretically caused the various things that you observe.

If you construct a simulation or virtual reality of any kind, the backdrop against which the real interest or action is played out is just loosely sketched in. You don’t waste time, energy, expenses and resources on what’s aesthetically pleasing but relatively minor and not overly relevant in what transpires. That’s very obvious say in animated or cartoon features. And so we note that most theory versus observation anomalies tend to be background ones. So while you don’t expect gross violations or anomalies in physics in your day-to-day affairs (you get out of bed, you don’t float out of bed) that doesn’t apply to your background environment where attention to detail isn’t as relevant and so that’s where anomalies are probably going to occur. Translated, the required details in the software that generate you and all of what impacts on you directly must be not only highly detailed but consistent. What’s not overly relevant can be generated with much less detail and thus you will get an ‘oops’ now and then.    

So I’ll start with my universal “Resolution” to theory versus observation anomalies - Our reality, our Universe starting with the Big Bang (and leading up to ultimately you) is nothing but a computer-generated program, software created by some entity, probably an extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI). Having set up the parameters, it’s just a matter of ETI hitting the ‘start program’ key and seeing what happens. We humans have already done this sort of virtual creation activity; not just video games but for all sorts of  practical applications as well – like training exercises and simulating interesting like  ecosystems for example - so there’s nothing implausible about this possibility.

Now I’ve often wondered if some great extraterrestrial computer programmer (our ETI)  specializing in generating or simulating virtual reality worlds and universes would leave enough clues to his (its) created ‘subjects’ that they in fact were just software generated virtual beings in a simulated universe. One such type of clue, as hinted above, would be their simulations, their software, isn’t sophisticated enough through design or accident to reconcile their creation’s observation with their creation’s theories when it comes to the backdrops. One such case, of many, is the case of the Big Bang event backdrop which I’ll get to momentarily.

So what follows are a number of theory-versus-observation anomalies coupled with four bits that come before the already given virtual reality ETI “Resolution” – “Theory”, versus “Observation”, the resulting “Conflict” and a what-does-it-all-mean “Discussion”. We’ll start with the biggest of all the Big Questions – the origin and evolution of life, the Universe and everything via the Big Bang event.

THE BIG BANG EVENT: This is no doubt a concept that nearly everyone has heard about, and swallowed hook, line and cosmological sinker because scientists present the scenario as fact. It’s not fact; just the most viable theory of many theories and it has serious flaws.

Theory: The creation or event that kick-started our Universe off not only created all of matter and energy, but all of time and space, and this creation event all took place in a volume less than that of a pinhead.

Observation: At best observations that support this are indirect being made some 13.7 billion years after-the-fact. Those indirect observations that provide evidence for the Big Bang event are the fact that the Universe is expanding; the Universe has a temperature – the remnants from the hot Big Bang called the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) and the amounts and ratio of hydrogen to helium. In reality there are no direct observations as nobody was present at Ground Zero all those billions of years ago.

Conflict: The conflict is three-fold. You have a violation of causality. You have a violation of several conservation laws or relationships. You have a violation of pure common sense that tells you that you can not stuff the contents of the Universe into the realm of the quantum.

Discussion: What if the Big Bang is a theoretical impossibility of physics pure and simple, despite the observational evidence? My scenario: the expansion; the CMBR; the ratio of hydrogen to helium, are all simulated evidence, probably by ETI.

QUANTUM GRAVITY: 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.

Theory: All of the four fundamental forces should be interconnected, some sort of unification principle that relates all four.

Observation: There are four fundamental forces that govern the Universe and no observation of any obvious unification.

Conflict: 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. There is no viable theory of quantum gravity despite thousands of physicists searching for one over many generations now.

Discussion: It’s like there are two sets of different software running the Universe. Well, how many sets of software collectively operate all of your PC operations?

MONOPOLES: We all know about magnetic fields having two sides, whether it’s a bar magnet or the Earth’s magnetic field (or those part and parcel of many other astronomical bodies) – there’s a south pole and a north pole; a positive and a negative. It will probably come as a surprise that there should also be a monopole – a magnet with just one pole, north OR south; positive OR negative.

Theory: One of the many Big Bang ‘in the beginning’ predictions of theoretical things is magnetic monopoles – magnets with either a south pole or a north pole, but not both.

Observation: Alas, we’ve never ever found and confirmed the reality of even one monopole.

Conflict: Theoretical prediction and observation are not in harmony.

Discussion: So strange is this anomaly that a new concept states that the very early Universe underwent an additional oomph of very rapid inflation which so diluted the Big Bang created monopoles that there are no longer any monopoles in our neck of the woods. That does appear a bit like clutching at straws. Of course resorting to ETI and virtual reality is also a clutch, but equally as viable, maybe more so.

To be continued…