The Return of the Hidden Variable

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

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

Further examples of simulation arguments if any more are necessary.       

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



The Hidden Variable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Delayed Double-Slit Variation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading:

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

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



The Quantum Realm: Part One



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.

If you take quantum physics to its logical conclusion, you can only deduce that those residents of the quantum realm, those elementary particles, have some very strange properties bordering  on self-awareness, consciousness, quasi-free will, a sort of ‘mind’ of their own but programmed with the social mores of quantum-land. They have the ability to ‘know’ things about their external world and their relationship to that. They can make decisions with respect to those relationships and act accordingly within their programming. They are not totally unresponsive and inert little billiard balls.

I’m also aware that such an assertion crosses the boundary between my being rational and being irrational. I mean how could an electron for example ‘know’ anything and make decisions? Such a proposition makes alien abductions, the Loch Ness Monster and the realm of astrology seem downright normal and acceptable and within the realm of conventional logic! But there is experimental evidence and observations to back this up.  

Case Study #1 – The Double Slit Experiment: Take the infamous double slit experiment (referenced in any and all tomes on quantum physics). Send a stream (lots and lots and lots) of photons at two parallel slits that have a target board of sorts behind them that show where the photons land after they pass through the dual slits. The photons pass through both slits and form on the target board a classic wave interference pattern, thereby showing that electromagnetic radiation, in this case visible light, is a wave. So far; so good. Now fire one light photon at a time at the dual slits, such that one photon will pass through the slits and reach the target board before the next photon is released. What you get – wait for it – is a classic wave interference pattern! That’s ridiculous. It’s as if one photon passes both slits at the same time and interferes with itself. That’s very funny peculiar, not funny ha-ha. In fact, it’s straight out of the “Twilight Zone” again. But wait, it gets worse. Now rerun the one photon at a time experiment but set up a detection device at each slit in order to determine if the photon goes through just one slit or through both. What happens is that the lone photons, fired one at a time, is indeed detected going through one slit or the other slit but not both simultaneously and thus, as you would expect, the classic wave interference pattern vanishes to be replaced with two separate and apart lines on the target board. That’s totally nuts since without detectors at the slits you get that classic wave interference pattern; with detectors, no such pattern. The question is, how did the photon ‘know’ the detectors were there and thus change their behaviour?

Case Study #2 – Entanglement: In the double slit experiment where one photon went through both slits simultaneously, the photon was said to be in a state of superposition – it could be in two places at the same time. In this new study we have two particles with a common origin, linked in some way, and released together out into the wilderness, sort of like Hansel and Gretel. Unlike the fairy tale, the two particles fly off in differing directions. So far; so good. The particles are not quite identical, just like Hansel and Gretel are not quite identical, but complementary, as one particle might be the antiparticle of the other or one is either spin up or spin down and the other is either spin down o spin up. The two particles are again considered to be in a state of superposition – each is simultaneously a particle and its antiparticle; or both are in a state of spin up and spin down. In other words, as in the case of the double slit experiment, there is doubt about who’s who and what’s what until a detector is put into place. I this example both particles fly off until they are on opposite sides of the Universe. Then, a detector is put into position in the pathway of one of the pair (i.e. – someone peeks). When someone peeked (i.e. – the detector detected) as in the double slit experiment, the photon was required to go into an either/or state. Ditto here. If the particle turns out to be Hansel, you know the particle on the opposite side of the Universe must be Gretel. Or, if one particle is observed to be an antiparticle, or say spin up, its partner clear across the Universe instantaneously must cease its superposition of state and become a particle or solidify into a spin down state. That one particle across the Universe somehow ‘knows’ that the superposition of state jig is up since its counterpart has been caught in the act (i.e. – observed or detected). Einstein had a phrase for this. He called it “spooky action at a distance”. Einstein wasn’t happy since this instantaneous communication implied superluminal speeds, faster than the speed of light, which his Special Theory of Relativity gave the thumbs down to. Now apparently, if I’m to understand things correctly, it’s noted that restrictions on the speed of light as the ultimate cosmic speed limit only applies if actual information is being transmitted. Pure gibberish can be transmitted instantaneously and ‘communication’ between two entangled particles isn’t actually information. How the cosmos ‘knows’ whether or not something is, or is not, bona fide information and thus employs photons travelling at the speed of light, or gibberish and thus allows instantaneous ‘communication’, is, IMHO gibberish! The whole issue is resolved if you just eliminate the concept of superposition of state. Something cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same place.

Case Study #3 – Electron Energy Levels: We are aware from elementary chemistry class that there is a cloud of electrons that surround the nucleus (protons plus neutrons) of atoms. Nucleus plus electrons equal whole atoms. The electrons only exist in specific quantified energy states. If they didn’t, they’d collapse and crash into the nucleus and that would be the end of chemistry as we know it! An electron can absorb a unit (or a quanta) of energy, or maybe two (or more) units and jump up a notch or two or three, or give off a unit(s) of energy and drop down a notch or two or three (but never to zero and hit the nucleus). The energy is absorbed or emitted by the absorption or emission of photons. So here comes along a photon minding its own business and runs smack into an electron which gobbles it up and jumps into the next higher energy state. Okay, that makes sense, so far; so good. That’s an example of cause-and-effect. The issue arising is how and why does the electron release the photon from bondage at a later stage and drop back down a level in energy? There seems to be causality working in one direction (absorbing the photon) but not the other way around. So it almost appears as if the self-aware electron wills itself rid of the photon at some point in time and drops down into a more comfortable energy state. However, I gather that there’s a possible explanation in that another photon comes along, hits the electron, and knocks the first photon out thus dropping the electron to a lower energy state. Since nobody has ever witnessed a photon hitting an electron, I guess that’s all conjecture. Still, any natural explanation is better than none.

However there are many other instances apart from the scenario of an electron in ‘orbit’ where electron-photon intersections (absorption and emission) are described, most notably in those [Richard] Feynman diagrams known and loved by particle physicists everywhere. These diagrams illustrate the various electron-photon exchanges but lack explanation as to how photons are given off or escape from the electron’s clutches. It’s all rather mysterious, rather like radioactive decay. 

While on this subject, I should point out another anomaly. Electrons can have just-so quanta energy levels, like 1, 2 3, etc. but not in-between. Energy states of say 1.5 or 2.2 or 3.7 are not allowed. So, when an electron jumps up or down an energy level or two to another energy level, they must do so without going through the spatial intermediaries. First they are here; then they are there, but never in-between. That’s all closely related to the concept of quantum tunnelling where say you are on one side of a wall and then you are on the other side of the wall but you didn’t go through, up over, dig under, or go around the wall. You can’t do that, but elementary particles can. Neat trick that one.

Case Study #4 – Neutrinos: There are three types of neutrinos. There are electron-neutrinos; muon-neutrinos and tau-neutrinos (just like there are electrons, muons and tau particles). Neutrinos, and their antiparticle counterparts, are given off in numerous ways like in various nuclear reactions taking place in the hearts of stars, including our Sun. Billions of these neutrinos pass right through you (without harm) each second. So far; so good. What’s odd is that while in transit, each morphs or shape-shifts into the other neutrino forms and back again and forth and back and forth. It’s like one was in its birthday suit, one in casual wear and one in formal attire and on their journey always keep changing their attire. There doesn’t appear to be any causal reason for this, so perhaps this is what is known as neutrino free will!

Case Study #5 – Antimatter: We’re all aware of the concept of antimatter. Each fundamental particle has an equal but opposite counterpart called its antiparticle. The most common example is the electron and the anti-electron, otherwise known as the positron. We’re also aware that when a particle meets and greets its antiparticle you get a big ka-boom! The two will annihilate each other producing pure energy. But, and this is my understanding, it has to be a particle and its very own corresponding antiparticle. So an electron meets and greets a positron – ka-boom. And so if a proton and an anti-proton meet and greet – ka-boom. But if a proton and an anti-electron (positron) meet and greet – nothing happens because they are not equal and opposite though they are matter and antimatter. Ditto if an anti-proton and neutron meet and greet – nothing happens. The question arises, how do these various particles and antiparticles recognise friend from foe? When foes meet like the positron and the electron, its annihilation. When a positron meets a proton, it’s a friendly meet and greet. How do these particles ‘know’?

Case Study #6 - Quantum Tunnelling: Every now and again we just want to bust out of our day-to-day existence and escape to that greener grass on the other side of the fence. Alas, there’s usually some barrier, economic, geographical, language, cultural, etc. that prevents us from busting out. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could wave a magic wand and bust through whatever factor(s) is holding us back? Well, sadly to say, it’s not usually the case where we can. Lottery wins are few and far between, and even if money were no object, there are other considerations holding us back from that get-up-and-go. Subatomic particles also face barriers in their micro world, barriers of matter and energy, fields and forces, which prevent them from doing their thing. However, subatomic particles have sold their soul to the devil that inhabits quantum land and in exchange have been issued a get-out-of-jail card. It’s called quantum tunnelling and it suggests that subatomic particles can tunnel around, over or through any matter and energy, force or field, restriction. The interesting bit is that the tunnelling happens for no reason at all, involves absolutely no effort on the part of the tunneller, and it all happens instantaneously. So, an electron on one side of a brick wall can instantaneously find itself on the other side without any causality in operation. It’s like our Edgar Rice Burroughs hero John Carter who just wishes himself to Barsoom (i.e. – Mars) and there he is! Perhaps quantum tunnelling is the micro version of the macro wormhole!

In general I think you’d need to agree that there are some decidedly odd goings on here from lack of causality to tiny particles that seem to ‘know’ how to behave either when face-to-face with an observer, or in other either/or situations. Now the odds that these tiny particles actually have the ability to make decisions and exhibit free will divorced from causality, and to ‘know’ things that influence that decision making process is, well nearly infinity to one against. Yet, these anomalies exist and have been verified again and again. So, IMHO, the only other rational explanation is that there must be some sort of guiding power or force, some sort of as yet uncovered hidden variables, maybe programming of some sort, which is responsible. Exactly what that might be – well your guess is as good as mine.

To be continued.

Radioactive Decay And Causality

We’re all frightened by radioactivity. We associate it with high level nuclear waste; atomic weapons and the mass destruction of nuclear war; Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; radioactive fallout that causes cancer and biological mutations. What I’m most frightened about radioactivity is that there is no rational scientific explanation for it! That’s probably because radioactivity resides within the realm of quantum physics, and there’s no rational scientific explanation for that either.

In high school science classes, we are told about a class of elements that have nuclei that are unstable; these are the radioactive elements and they emit radioactivity – Alpha, Beta and Gamma radiation. This emission is their attempt to go from an unstable state to a less unstable state and eventually to a stable state. This progression happens at a fixed mathematical progression termed the element’s half-life. In class you get an awful lot of the what – what decays; what are the daughter products; what is the measured half-life; what is the significance, etc. But you don’t get very much, if any, explanations as to the how and the why of events. That’s probably because any attempt to actually explain and how and the why of radioactivity ends up as pure bovine fertilizer.

There are two main anomalies here. Firstly, why would two identical unstable particles in the exact same environment will decay or go poof at different times; secondly why any collection of identical unstable particles will decay or go poof while marching to the beat of a mathematical drum.

DESCRIPTION

Radioactive Decay: We all know about radioactivity (nuclear fission) and how some atomic nuclei are unstable and will at some point decay into more stable forms. So far; so good. The first issue is that nobody can predict when any particular unstable nuclei will go poof. There is no ultimate reason why one nucleus will go poof in five minutes and its next door neighbour won’t poof over the next five hundred years. There is no apparent causality involved. That alone is “Twilight Zone” stuff, but wait, there’s more. As we learn in high school, though the why is never explained, unstable (radioactive) nuclei decay or go poof in a fixed mathematical way, known by the phrase called the “half-life”.  An example would be if half of the unstable nuclei went poof in one year; one half of what remains unstable goes poof during the next year; one half of what is still unstable decays in the third year; one half of what remains after that goes poof in the fourth year, and so on down the line until all the unstable nuclei have gone poof. So if you start in the beginning with say sixteen million unstable nuclei, after one year there’s still eight million unstable nuclei; after two years there’s four million left to go; after three years two million still haven’t gone poof; after four years one million; one year later there’s still a half million left, and so on and so on.

On a human level, apart from the nasties given in the abstract, radioactivity provides an abundant energy supply without any greenhouse gas emissions as well as a ways and means of dating historical events. On a cosmic level, radioactive decay turns complex unstable parent nuclei into simpler stable daughter nuclei by emitting Alpha, Beta and Gamma radiation, the former two being nothing more exotic than helium nuclei (the Alpha) and electrons (the Beta). Gamma radiation is best avoided since it is extremely high energy photons that can do your body a mischief.

STANDARD EXPLANATIONS

The standard quantum model attributes radioactivity or radioactive decay to a magical phenomenon called Quantum Tunnelling. Translated, radioactive decay happens for absolutely no reason whatsoever. There is no causality. There is no cause and effect. Things go poof – well, things just go poof.

To get your head around the concept of Quantum Tunnelling, imagine one hundred convicts milling around a prison courtyard with twenty foot walls and no external exits. Then, for no obvious reason, fifty of those convicts vanish from inside the courtyard just to reappear somewhere outside the courtyard, and hence quickly make themselves scarce. One second they are confined within the prison walls; one nanosecond later they are scattering in all directions heading for the hills. They have tunnelled their way past the prison courtyard wall without actually physically doing any tunnelling! The escaped convicts in this analogy are of course those bits and pieces confined (or imprisoned) in the quantum realm, the Alpha, Beta and Gamma radiation part and parcel of radioactive decay. 

In the quantum realm, though the nuclei might be unstable, the bits and pieces are held in place by an energy barrier, the equivalent of the twenty foot prison courtyard wall. In the macro world, they don’t have enough energy to clear the barrier, just like a long fly ball that doesn’t have enough oomph to clear the outfield fence and become a homerun – it’s just a long out. But in the micro realm, for reasons nobody comprehends, the unstable and restless-to-escape bits of the unwieldy unstable nuclei can cheat and tunnel past the energy barrier even though they don’t have sufficient theoretical oomph to do so. Not only can they quantum tunnel through, when they do they so instantaneously. And there’s no rhyme or reason behind it. There’s no causality. One second they are inside the radioactive nucleus; the next nanosecond after they are free as a bird and outward bound.

Not that in and of itself is absurd, but absurdity is piled upon absurdity when you consider that the ‘convicts’ don’t escape not only for no reason, but they do so in a precise military precision or mathematical sort of way. So our one hundred convicts become fifty in one hour; then twenty-five of those remaining ‘tunnel’ to freedom in the next hour; thirteen of those twenty-five vanish through the wall in the third hour; six of the remaining twelve head for the hills during the fourth hourly interval; three more go walkabout in the fifth hour; two more vanish in the sixth hour; and the last one standing makes an unexplainable vanishing act in the seventh hour, leaving the prison courtyard in a pristine and very stable state indeed without an inmate in sight. 

How can you have both a total lack of causality AND maintain such military or mathematical (half-life) precision? It’s pure bovine fertilizer.  

PROBABILITY vs. CAUSALITY

The standard model suggests that radioactive decay happens for no apparent reason at all since Quantum Tunnelling happens for no apparent reason at all. It’s all pure probability, even if it dances to a precise military/mathematical tune. The idea that Quantum Tunnelling is just pure probability yet results in a really neat graph when plotted goes rather against the grain of common sense.

Dealing with radioactive decay, well we (the observers) say the odds (probability) that an unstable atomic nucleus will go poof in say one hour (just a measure of time which is a human concept) is 50/50. Actually, it’s 100% certainty if you replace “one hour” with the phrase “sooner or later”. There is no actual probability involved. Now let’s go up one level. Each kind of unstable atomic nuclei, be it uranium (U-235 or U-238), plutonium (Pu), Technetium (Tc), Radon (Rn), Radium (Ra) and all those normally non-radioactive elements that have unstable isotopes, like radioactive carbon (C-14), and many others too numerous to mention, has its own unique half-life. That in itself tells you that causality must be operating. All differing nuclei are only different because they have different numbers of protons and neutrons that comprise them. Yet each, say U-235 nuclei, has the exact same number of protons and neutrons. That’s what makes U-235, U-235. That’s causality, not probability. And U-235 has a specific and unique half-life. That’s causality, not probability. The fact that differing configurations of protons and neutrons result in differing half-lives, and any one unique configuration results in one unique half-life, tells you that things are not random. Causality is operating; certainty follows. I have no idea what is the causality behind Quantum Tunnelling, only that I’m certain there is one.

DISCUSSION

Now IMHO that radioactive half-life decay progression makes absolutely no sense. If nuclei go poof for no reason at all, all those that go poof should do so in a totally random fashion – no fixed pattern. Since there is a fixed pattern that suggests to me that the unstable nuclei have to ‘know’ about this half-life obligation they are required to follow. They are self-aware enough to know when it is their turn to suicide (decay) in order to keep up appearances; maintain the quantum social order, and keep the half-life relationship valid.   

Regarding Quantum Tunnelling, well firstly this violates Einstein’s cosmic speed limit – the velocity light travels in a vacuum. That’s because any gap instantaneously crossed by a particle undergoing Quantum Tunnelling – well, instantaneously means infinity and infinite velocity is greater than the speed of light.

Even scientist and science writer Marcus Chown described quantum tunnelling as “The apparently miraculous ability of microscopic particles to escape from their prisons”. When a scientist starts invoking miracles, you know something is weird!

Presumably if it wasn’t for that energy barrier holding together the bits and pieces of nuclei, stable or unstable, everything within would escape all at once and the micro world would go to hell in a hand-basket, just like if there were no prison walls all the convicts would flee in the immediate here and now. But if that energy barrier (or prison wall) could be breached (via Quantum Tunnelling) the question arises, if the ‘convicts’, macro or micro, can dematerialise and rematerialise elsewhere instantaneously, why don’t they all escape at the same time?

And I fail to see how invoking the wave property nature of elementary particles helps any since that would apply equally to stable and unstable (radioactive) nuclei. The wavelength would be larger than the nucleus, or in our analogy, the convict would be so spread out such that they would be larger than their prison courtyard. Everything, all the bits and pieces in each and every nuclei, should break out and break apart and escape immediately.  

When it comes to radioactivity, apparently nothing chemical or physical can be done that will alter the nature of that radioactivity. Something that’s unstable, radioactive, will decay when it damn well feels like it. You can boil it in oil, sledgehammer it, soak it in acid, swear at it, even invoke the name of Jesus and it won’t alter anything. That in itself is more than just a little bit anomalous – not the Jesus bit but the fact that nothing you can do to an unstable nucleus in any chemical or physical shape manner or form will cause it to decay before it feels like it. 

SUMMARY

Enigma number one is why two identical non-living things in an absolutely identical environment should individually act as something possessing free will, which is acting with seemingly minds of their own. That’s just plain bizarre. If they don’t have self-awareness, and it’s absurd to suggest that subatomic nuclei have consciousness, then the alternative is that things happen for absolutely no reason at all. That’s also just plain bizarre. Further heading into “The Twilight Zone”, well the mathematical half-life behind the concept of the decay of unstable radioactive nuclei is just not the sort of natural behaviour that you’d expect. All unstable nuclei of the same type and in the same environment should all go poof at nearly, if not exactly, at the same moment. They don’t. That too is an enigma, IMHO.

Causality: Founded on Bedrock, or in Quicksand? Part One

Every effect has a natural cause which preceded it in time. You live your entire life confident in the reality of that principle. If you do (or don’t do) such-and-such, a further down-the-track such-and-such will (or won’t) happen. If any violation of that principle happened to you, you’d come to doubt your reality, thinking instead you’d entered “The Twilight Zone” or the world of “Alice in Wonderland”! Yet, sometimes scientists will tell you that something happens for no reason at all.

The logical connection between cause and effect (causality) is one of the, if not the, most fundamental principles in the physical sciences*. If A happens, B follows. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If an electron meets a positron – ka-boom! If sodium reacts with chlorine, you get table salt – not some of the time, but all of the time. Stars larger than a certain mass will end their stellar lives in a supernovae explosion. Solar and lunar eclipses, the tides, sunrises and sunsets can be determined with high accuracy mega-centuries in advance. You’d be in shock if you fired a bullet at a piece of tissue paper and it bounced back off and hit you, to say nothing of firing up the kettle for your morning coffee only to find ice inside instead of boiling hot water afterwards. Our entire lives are based around the certainty and predictability of causality. If things happen, they happen for a reason, even unusual or unexpected things. See, you weren’t aware of the steel plate behind the tissue paper, or that your better half played an elaborate joke on you having previously stashed an identical kettle in the fridge and performed some slight-of-hand! Anyway, and easily verifiable, you’ll see that physical science textbooks contain many thousands of examples of everyday, and not so everyday, cause and effect situations.

Causality is to me at least, a 100% certainty relationship. It’s not a 99.99% of the time relationship. That is, if A happens, B follows. If B happens, C follows. If C happens, D follows. Causality is not a case of if A happens, B or C follows. If C happens, D maybe follows. Now it doesn’t matter to me that causality can be reversed – if A happens, B follows. If B happens, A follows. That’s allowable because at the micro level the laws of physics aren’t time dependent. An electron and a positron can annihilate and form energy (in the guise of a gamma photon). A gamma photon can spontaneously form an electron-positron pair.

That 100% causality certainty suggests the following. There must be such a thing as predetermined or predestined outcomes. In the beginning were created trillions upon trillions upon trillions of matter particles (electrons, etc.) and force particles (like photons). They were all set in motion – in specific directions with specific velocities. The relationships between all of the elementary particles are fixed, and we call them the physical constants. The particles are fixed. The velocities and directions are fixed. The relationships are fixed - All else follows. Particle A has fixed properties.  Particle B has fixed properties. The relationship between particles of the A kind and of the B kind are fixed. Particle A meets particle B. If causality is fundamental, the outcome is 100% fixed; 100% certain. Thus, the initial ‘in the beginning’ set of conditions, once set in motion, will produce with 100% certainty, right on down the line, the exact sort of world or Universe we experience today. At the time of ‘in the beginning’, you became an inevitability. At least that’s one philosophy, but one I suggest must be so if causality is a valid concept.  

As a generalization, all of biology is ultimately based on chemistry. Chemistry is ultimately based on physics. Physics, at its fundamental core, is structured around mathematics and equations. Equations tend to equate things – obviously. Say 1 + 1 = 2, which in effect says if you cause two separate objects to come into an association, the effect is two objects in association with each other! Equations are also prediction devices. If you know the values of A, B, and C, you can predict D. If you then measure D, you find prediction (theory) and reality (fact) match – not every now and again, not only on weekends and public holidays, but all of the time. If you solve for D, knowing A, B, and C, you will have 100% confidence that in reality D is what you calculate it to be. That confidence can only arise if cause and effect operate 100% of the time. If cause and effect did not operate 100% of the time, then to use a well known literary example, Winston Smith could indeed believe that 2 + 2 = 5 and wouldn’t have to rely on Big Brother to ram the point home.

So, it’s surprising that there are those who suggest that sometimes things happen for no reason at all, like the origin of the Universe. First there was nothing; then there was something! Another example often given is an unstable radioactive atom, say an atom of uranium. It can remain in a unstable state for eons, then go ‘poof’, and for no [apparent] reason. I insert ‘apparent’ because I refuse to accept that the uranium atom goes ‘poof’ for absolutely no reason at all. But it is puzzling in that you could have two identical uranium atoms, sitting side by side, and one goes ‘poof’ and the other does not.

But then, let’s look at a macro case. Say we have two identical twins standing side-by-side. All of a sudden one keels over dead – the other doesn’t. Would you consider that mysterious? Probably not, as an autopsy might reveal that the one who kicked the bucket had a heart attack.

So, what about those two side-by-side ‘identical’ uranium atoms where one goes ‘poof’ and one doesn’t go ‘poof’. Did it happen for no reason? Unfortunately, it’s way more difficult to perform an autopsy on a ‘poof-ed’ uranium atom, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t suffer the micro equivalent of a heart attack. I think the alternative to the ‘no reason’ argument is that there was some, ever so subtle and maybe in-deterministic quantum event that triggered the ‘poof’ in one. Perhaps something caused the phenomena called ‘quantum tunnelling’ inside the uranium atom’s nucleus forcing it to spit out an alpha or beta particle or maybe a gamma ray. The escape, the ‘poof’, turned the previously unstable radioactive atom into a stable non-radioactive atom. As a best guess, maybe the uranium atom that went ‘poof’ had its nucleus hit by a passing neutrino or cosmic ray that triggered the quantum tunnelling that caused the ‘poof’. We may never know exactly what that something was, but it was a something, not a nothing.

Akin to the radioactive atom example, there are those who suggest that quantum physics have undermined causality. That’s because in quantum physics one of the central planks is the uncertainty principle, better termed the Principle of Indeterminacy in the professional literature. In effect, the guts are that the very act of measuring something changes the characteristic(s) or nature of what you are trying to measure. A macro example would be you wanting to measure the temperature of your cup of coffee. Alas, sticking a thermometer into the cup in itself changes the temperature from what it was before you stuck the thermometer in.

A micro example – say there’s this electron travelling along minding its own business, and say you want to stick your nose into its business by wanting to know where it is now, how fast it’s travelling, and in what direction its heading. Now to detect this electron, something else has be interact with both the electron (firstly) and hence with you (or more likely as not your recording or measuring instrument). Unfortunately,  that interaction with the electron, say a photon hitting it and then the deflected photon being detected by you (or your instrument), knocks the electron away from the position it was in, changes its velocity and its direction or pathway you were interested in. You now ain’t got a clue where the electron is which is what you were trying to establish in the first place. Ultimately, the position, a combination of its velocity and pathway, become only a probable or possible or indeterminate or uncertain or even, to our perception, a random one. There’s a certain probability the electron is now within a certain range; a higher probability or certainty it’s within a larger range and a even greater probability it’s within an even greater range. Probably the only thing you’re 100% certain about is that it’s somewhere in the Universe! So even though you can’t know exactly where the electron is to the Nth degree, it’s somewhere and it’s in an exact place (has coordinates) and has a pathway, and there’s a reason behind it. That’s a micro example of say a small marble hitting a large marble and deflecting the large marble’s position, velocity and direction. There’s still cause and effect in operation.

What about the duality nature of light? Sometimes light (photons) acts like a wave, sometimes like a particle. [The same applies to other fundamental particles, like electrons.] Even though this is considered strange doings (to us anyway used to nature in the macro realm), there’s still no violation of causality. Identical experiments, regardless who, where or when performed, produce identical results. It’s just that experiment #1, #3 and #5 produce wave-like behaviour 100% of the time, and experiment #2, #4 and #6 produce particle-like behaviour, again, 100% of the time. If a total novice comes along and does experiment #2, you can bet particle-like behaviour will result. Confusing? Yes. Do we have a long road ahead of us before we come to terms with this duality and what nature is trying to tell us? Yes. Is wave/particle duality a violation of causality? No.

To be continued…

*In the biological sciences, even under the most tightly controlled laboratory conditions of temperature and pressure, etc., the experimental organism will do what it damn well pleases! (Nudge, nudge; wink, wink.)