The Russell Stannard Questions: Philosophy & Metaphysics

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.

My answers are based mainly with the thought of our being in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe that has been constructed by one or more Supreme Programmers. However, some of the answers apply regardless of what the nature of our ultimate reality is.

Q. Why is there something rather than nothing?

A. If there was nothing rather than something you wouldn’t be here to ask the question! So perhaps the fact that there is something is another case of fine-tuning! Something could be a natural condition that’s part and parcel of any conceivable universe or something could be simulated, the simulation of course arising because something existed on up the line that created the simulation. It could be a case of fine-tuning in that universes than consisted of nothing couldn’t give rise or evolve into a something that could ask the question; only a universe that consisted of a something could evolve something that wondered why there was something rather than nothing.

Q. Where do the laws of nature come from?

A. It’s hard in our ordered cosmos to imagine anything but regularity, so the better question might be where do the irregularities, the violations to those laws of nature come from. When they happen we call them miracles or anomalies or if you’re a professional skeptic, pseudoscience (except those “Twilight Zone” anomalies in quantum physics of course – that’s science). Of course anomalies might be a reflection of our not understanding the laws of nature well enough. Or, violations might be due to intelligence. Intelligence is unpredictable, and often has a quirky sense of humor. So intelligence might be behind those exceptions to the rule, so if you see or experience an exception, an anomaly, think intelligence, and if it can’t be human intelligence in the here-and-now, think Supreme Programmer.  

Q. How are we to understand the built-in creativity of the physical world?

A. Human beings are highly creative beings. We create 2-D and 3-D art and architecture; sports and games; music and storytelling; designing experiments; create new food recipes, create computer simulations, etc. We love to indulge in the ‘what if’ game. Apparently so does the Universe! From a primeval ‘fireball’ of elementary particle ‘soup’, the cosmos created forces and fields, atoms and molecules, and stuff and structures* like galaxies and stars and solar systems full of planets and associated debris, but from our biased point of view or perspective the Universe created life and us. If this creation in particular was inadvertent, it borders on a near miracle given all those pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that have to come together just so. If life was a deliberate creation then you are down to postulating either an infallible supernatural deity (or deities) or a probable flesh-and-blood and fallible Supreme Programmer. 

·        But not just galaxies but spiral galaxies and barred galaxies and elleptical galaxies and irregular galaxies; not just stars but dwarf stars and giant stars and neutron stars and quasars and Black Holes and binary star systems too as well as stars that burp and stars that explode; not just planets but gas giants and icy giants and rocky planets (and I’m sure there’s no planet ever envisioned by any science fiction writer that doesn’t have a real counterpart somewhere out in the cosmos).

Q. What significance, if any, ought we to attach to the self-ordering nature of matter?

A. The cosmos is a highly ordered place. The only real question is why it is so. There are roughly about 60 elementary particles (and antiparticles) grouped into three generations. There’s no theoretical reason why there couldn’t have been trillions of elementary particles grouped into hundreds of generations, or no generational structure at all. The fundamental particles can only combine in just so many ways – you can’t have an atom consisting of one neutron, 5 protons and ten electrons. Atoms can only combine in just so many ways. There are a lot more ways atoms can’t combine than ways they do. The same applies for molecules combining. The ancients noted this ordering by suggesting that everything has its natural place in the cosmic scheme of things. Solids (earth) seek ground level; liquids (water) go down too but rest on top of solids; gases (air) hover above solids and liquids and heat (fire) tries to rise through gases and occupy the top rung. The planets don’t orbit the Sun in a square orbit one year, then switch to a rectangular orbit the next year and switch again to a triangular orbit the year after that. The lunar cycle follows its steady rhythm; ditto night follows day that follows night that follows day, etc. Thunder follows lightning. Plants grow upwards while plant roots grow downwards. In other words, causality operates. If you have X, Y follows (but not A, B and/or C). So the fact we have ordering is significant. But, consider this. Software is the same. Your PC is predictable. If X, then Y (but not A, B and/or C).

Q. The problem of understanding things in themselves.

A. No matter what sort of thing you wish to describe, its properties, you eventually exhaust appropriate concepts and language to dig any deeper. You often hit an ultimate barrier when you come up against the ‘what’ and ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions. We know there is gravity but ‘why’ gravity at all and ‘how’ does gravity actually work. We know an electron has a negative electric charge of one unit but ‘what’ exactly is electric charge and ‘why’ does the electron have the value of electric charge that it has. The problems disappear if one suggests well, this is the programming, the software code that gives us the illusion of all things gravitational and another software code that determines that there be an negative electric charge on an electron and what the value is, also properties that are totally an illusion, or virtual reality. Ultimately those ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions like why introduce gravity and why have an electric charge can best be answered by those who do the (supreme) programming.

Q. Is the task of science to describe the world-in-itself, whether or not it is being observed, or must it confine itself to speaking only of our observations of the world?

A. Ideally, science tries to account for those actual observations one makes of the world-in-itself. However, there are numerous bits and pieces in scientific texts that rely on speculation and theory and what ifs and extrapolations and mathematical equations. We can’t observe inside the core of the Sun or inside a Black Hole. Nobody has actually observed an electron or a quark. There are many theoretical things we haven’t observed yet like monopoles or gravity waves or supersymmetric particles or extraterrestrials, yet they too are considered a legit part of science.

Q. Does the world-in-itself exist between our discontinuous observations?

A. This is a case of does the Moon exist even if no one is looking at it. Presumably, the answer is yes, even if the observer is just phytoplankton that absorbs photons reflected off the lunar surface. Presumably water must be observing the Moon as it does its tidal thing, a thing it wouldn’t otherwise do if the Moon wasn’t there. So hairy issue number one is what exactly is an observer? An observer can be anything. An electron observes another electron when the two come in close proximity and repel each other. Hairy issue number two is how does the Moon know it is being observed? It can’t, therefore it cannot respond to a state of non-observation by vanishing. What about software? Do those video game characters exist when the game isn’t being played and sitting on your shelf? If we’re simulated beings in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe and the Supreme Programmer leaves the room and does not observe us, presumably we keep on keeping on. So the answer is that the world-in-itself exists whether real or simulated. If real, well the world-in-itself (i.e. – the Universe) got along very nicely before there were observers as we traditionally define them and we traditionally define them as living things that react (observe) to their surroundings. The simulation exists as long as the software exists whether it’s running or not. 

Q. Can one prove mathematically that science will be forever incomplete?

A. I don’t know about a mathematical proof, but science cannot ever be complete if for no other reason than there is always something over that next hill which we haven’t seen and explored yet. Further, there are just some restrictions on what we can know about, like the fact that there is probably more to the Universe than just the observable Universe, since what we observe or cannot yet observe is related to and by the speed of light. If light from Object X hasn’t had time to reach us yet, will science can’t yet deal with the nature of Object X. The same philosophy applies to say the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, whereby, through no fault of our own, the very act of observing something changes the properties of that something. Other parts of the cosmos might forever be inaccessible to our sciences, like say exploring the insides of a Black Hole. One could explore the inside of a Black Hole but forever be forbidden from getting the nitty-gritty scientific details of what they found out to a wider peer-reviewed audience.

Q. What is the status of mathematics?

A. Mathematics has no status outside of the human mind. Mathematics is an invention of the human mind (since I know of no other life form that makes use of mathematics in any abstract sort of way) to assist humans in dealing with the many (also invented) complexities of human society (like trade, commerce and economics). Mathematics provides practical applications like navigation and provides ordering and predictability in the natural world that rule the human roost. Mathematics is a not-thing since it has no physical properties and cannot be detected via any of your sensory apparatus. Of course if we’re in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe then we totally exist as, and in, a mathematical construct.

*The following questions (Q) are 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.



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.



The Russell Stannard Questions: Part One

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.

The following questions in italics are 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.

My answers are based mainly with the thought of our being in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe that has been constructed by one or more Supreme Programmers. However, some of the answers apply regardless of what the nature of our ultimate reality is.

THE RUSSELL STANNARD QUESTIONS

Q. The problem of consciousness.

A. How can your basic building blocks that are electrons, neutrons and protons combine to form atoms; atoms that combine to form molecules; molecules that combine to form complex molecules - complex molecules like organic molecules, biochemical molecules and molecules part and parcel of neurochemistry; the ultimate result being that this chain from the simple to the complex crosses a threshold from the inanimate to the animate and from the animate to the animate entity that is self-aware. It is a profound mystery why one has a fairly unique structure comprised of the same fundamental bits and pieces that comprise all other structures but yet one that can contemplate itself. That structure is the brain and the mind that resides within that structure. The brain is the only structure in the cosmos that can examine itself and yet that structure is ultimately comprised of just electrons, neutrons and protons. However, is there really a problem if that structure can ultimate figure out how to create another structure that also has consciousness. In other words, intelligent and conscious biological software can deliberately give rise to an artificial intelligent and conscious string of software and in doing so thus create a Simulated [Virtual Reality] Universe that houses or contains an apparent (but artificially) intelligent and conscious biological entity or entities that wonders whether or not there was an artificially intelligent software program that gave rise to it. That sort of reminds me of the human who dreamed she was a butterfly who dreamed it was a human, or was that the butterfly who dreamed it was a human who dreamed she was a butterfly.

  

Q. The free will/determinism problem.

A. I tend to have a belief in absolute causality, much like both Newton and Einstein who believed in a regular clockwork universe. If X happens, Y follows. All the laws, principles and relationships of the natural universe were forged at the time of the Big Bang event and once that clock was set in motion, all else flowed from those first established laws, principles and relationships. So, in other words, determinism rules, okay? That equally holds true if we’re in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe, regardless if we are, like a character in a video game a ‘puppet-on-a-string’ or the avatar as a stand-in in a simulated world for someone in the really real world, or as the consequence of someone programing a set of laws, principles and relationships then hitting ‘run program’ and standing back to see what eventuates. We’d all like to think we have free will, but if we are programmed to believe that, what harm has been done if you really do believe that what you had for dinner was something you freely did choose to have.

Q. How close to the instant of the Big Bang are we likely to be able to probe?

A. We can currently probe or observe no farther back than 380,000 years post Big Bang because the cosmos was too opaque from the point of the Big Bang to roughly that point in time, 380,000 years into the post Big Bang era. However, gravity waves from the Big Bang event could take us to Ground Zero in theory. The problem is in the detection of gravity waves – in theory yes; in terms of actual observation (to date), no. Of course that hasn’t stopped theorists from going back to even less than nanoseconds post Big Bang by running the expanding universe film backwards to the greatest extreme possible, thus postulating and assuming a quantum sized object was at the heart of the Big Bang. Theorists have extrapolated back way beyond what is reasonable or even logical IMHO given so many unknowns. Theory should cease where currently observations cease – 380,000 post Big Bang.  

Q. Can we be sure that inflation took place?

A. No, because we weren’t there! Seriously, we have no direct observational evidence of inflation, only indirect evidence that a theory or theories of inflation can explain some observations (or lack of observations, like where are the monopoles). This reminds me of those epicycles once postulated to explain observations related to the motions of the planets in the night skies. Those epicycles eventually bit the dust; inflation might too. 

Q. If so, how are we to choose which type of inflation it was?

A. Pick a card, any card! Whatever theory of inflation best matches the observations and best conforms to what is known about the laws, relationships and principles of physics goes to the head of the class. 

Q. Was there a singularity at the instant of the Big Bang?

A. No, there was no singularity associated with the Big Bang event. A singularity in common usage by physicists implies a region of space that has zero volume and infinite density. Sometimes I think these eggheads need to observe the real world where volumes and densities are finite. In any event, the density at the point in existing space where the Big Bang happened had to be less than that of a Black Hole, otherwise there would be no ‘bang’. That in turn implies the Big Bang was a macro event, something that happened way outside the realm of quantum physics.   

Q. Does it make sense to enquire into the cause of the Big Bang?

A. Yes, absolutely! There had to have been a cause, physical or software, and it is quite legit to ask what that cause was and try to answer the question. Of course I never said that would be easy.

Q. Why is there something rather than nothing?

A. If there was nothing rather than something you wouldn’t be here to ask the question! So perhaps the fact that there is something is another case of fine-tuning! Something could be a natural condition that’s part and parcel of any conceivable universe or something could be simulated, the simulation of course arising because something existed on up the line that created the simulation. It could be a case of fine-tuning in that universes than consisted of nothing couldn’t give rise or evolve into a something that could ask the question; only a universe that consisted of a something could evolve something that wondered why there was something rather than nothing.

Q. Where do the laws of nature come from?

A. It’s hard in our ordered cosmos to imagine anything but regularity, so the better question might be where do the irregularities, the violations to those laws of nature come from. When they happen we call them miracles or anomalies or if you’re a professional skeptic, pseudoscience (except those “Twilight Zone” anomalies in quantum physics of course – that’s science). Of course anomalies might be a reflection of our not understanding the laws of nature well enough. Or, violations might be due to intelligence. Intelligence is unpredictable, and often has a quirky sense of humor. So intelligence might be behind those exceptions to the rule, so if you see or experience an exception, an anomaly, think intelligence, and if it can’t be human intelligence in the here-and-now, think Supreme Programmer.  

Q. Can one prove mathematically that science will be forever incomplete?

A. I don’t know about a mathematical proof, but science cannot ever be complete if for no other reason than there is always something over that next hill which we haven’t seen and explored yet. Further, there are just some restrictions on what we can know about, like the fact that there is probably more to the Universe than just the observable Universe, since what we observe or cannot yet observe is related to and by the speed of light. If light from Object X hasn’t had time to reach us yet, will science can’t yet deal with the nature of Object X. The same philosophy applies to say the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, whereby, through no fault of our own, the very act of observing something changes the properties of that something. Other parts of the cosmos might forever be inaccessible to our sciences, like say exploring the insides of a Black Hole. One could explore the inside of a Black Hole but forever be forbidden from getting the nitty-gritty scientific details of what they found out to a wider peer-reviewed audience.

Q. What is the status of mathematics?

A. Mathematics has no status outside of the human mind. Mathematics is an invention of the human mind (since I know of no other life form that makes use of mathematics in any abstract sort of way) to assist humans in dealing with the many (also invented) complexities of human society (like trade, commerce and economics). Mathematics provides practical applications like navigation and provides ordering and predictability in the natural world that rule the human roost. Mathematics is a not-thing since it has no physical properties and cannot be detected via any of your sensory apparatus. Of course if we’re in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe then we totally exist as, and in, a mathematical construct.

To be continued.



A Quantum Pane In The Glass: Part Two

In quantum physics, you may deduce that those residents of the micro realm, those elementary particles, have some very strange properties bordering on a quasi-free will.  They seemingly have the ability to ‘know’ things about their external world and their relationship to that and make decisions and act accordingly. There are experiments to back this up that include an observation you can make at home to verify this. Look outside your window. What do you see? A very big mystery is what you see, if your window is anything like my window or most windows.

Continued from yesterday’s blog...

CAUSALITY & CERTAINTY vs. PROBABILITY & CHANCE

I need state the obvious here – all photons are identical; the pane of glass in question is obviously identical to itself. Therefore, knowing that and only that, one could only conclude that when photon meets window pane, one and only one outcome is possible.

We, the observer say the photon has such and such a probability of going through, or being reflected from, the pane of glass. If seven out of ten photons go through the glass window, then there’s a 70% probability the next photon will go through. Wrong. As far as that photon is concerned, we, the observer, are irrelevant, and it’s 100% certain to either go through the glass or be reflected by the glass. We can be pretty damn sure that a group of photons won’t gather together in the middle of the glass pane and do an impromptu performance of a Wagnerian opera. There’s no probability involved. It’s one or the other. There’s no superposition of state. The photons aren’t in two places at once – passing through and being reflected.

Another way we can be sure causality is operating, albeit going up one level, is that every time you go to the inside of your window pane looking outside, you see both outside and a faint reflection of you and the interior. Not once in a while; not sometimes 100% outside and no reflection; not sometimes a 100% reflection but you can’t see outside (your window isn’t a mirror after all), but 100% of the time, each and every time, you see both the exterior outside the pane and the interior reflected inside the pane. 

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION & RESOLUTIONS

In summary here, some photons from the inside pass through a pane of glass to the outside; some outside photons pass through that glass to the inside; some photons from the inside reflect off the glass back inside and some outside photons reflect off the glass back outside. The big question is, how does the photon decide what to do? Here comes Ms. Photon heading toward the pane of glass. She has to make up her mind whether to pass on through or reflect back: decisions, decisions. To reflect, or not to reflect, that is the question! IMHO, photons should all go through, or all reflect, from the same pane of clear glass at the same time.

We note from the outset that the glass hasn’t been tinted or polarized – not that that would alter the general picture. What we have here is just an ordinary pane of glass.

Further, no external forces are apparently at work here. Both the photons and the glass are electrically neutral. Gravity plays no role and the strong and the weak nuclear forces are only applicable inside atomic nuclei.

To make a long story shorter, causality rules IMHO! Photons are not in a state of superposition; they are not in two places at the same time. Clearly photons are not in a position to ‘know’ anything. Photons have no decision-making apparatus; they have no consciousness of any kind, no free will to be or not to be. That can be demonstrated by adding a little extra thickness and/or density and/or energy.

But first, one could easily suggest that since even seemingly ‘solid’ stuff is 99.999% empty space, that a photon passing through the glass is passing through that entire void, and a photon reflected has hit a glass molecule and bounced back. One exception to that is that the reflection takes place at the surface of the glass pane, none from the interior of the glass. A second exception would be that reflections off of a solid molecular bit in the mainly empty glass pane would be totally scattered in many directions which is what we don’t see. Basic optics – the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. Yet clearly if photons are being reflected, they are bouncing off something. Or, perhaps they are being absorbed by the electrons within the glass matrix and then reemitted, though the photon that’s reemitted might not be the exact same photon – but that’s of no consequence since all photons are identical.    

We note that the greater the thickness or the greater the density the more the pass through to reflection ratio changes. If you look through the exact same pane of glass, but this time edgewise, no photons pass through from one edge to the other edge. The X-ray case study above shows the role of increasing density. Both are an illustration that ultimately things become so thick and/or so dense that while there might not be total reflection, there would be any pass though either. The option for the photon might then be reflection vs. partial penetration. Of course that in itself doesn’t explain the either this or that option the photon takes, at least until such time that it becomes one or the other. In a vacuum it’s 100% pass through and 0% reflection; in the case of a metre thick lump of lead, a light photon will 100% reflect and 0% pass through. Restrictions placed in the photon’s way by density and thickness just tends to confirm an earlier notation that stuff is 99.999% void such that pass through equals boldly going through that void; reflection is a collision with that rare bit of stuff that sometimes gets in your way.

But that’s not the entire story. Thickness is also related to opaqueness though they are not the same thing. Photons can pass through Earth’s entire atmosphere from the fringes of outer space to ground level, yet if you dab a smear of black paint on your pane of glass, well that will strop the photons from passing through albeit black paint is a lot less thick than the Earth’s atmosphere.

Energy plays a role too. X-ray photons are more energetic than visible light photons, which is why X-rays are better for detecting structural flaws (like tooth cavities and bone micro-fractures) which are concealed by external surfaces which are opaque to light.

Air and glass are transparent to light photons, but are generally fairly opaque to the less energetic infrared photons. That’s the general principle or concept behind both the botanical greenhouse and the environmental greenhouse effect, although in the later case not all the components found in air are equally as opaque.

Ultimately invoking variations in properties like density, thickness, energy levels and opaqueness doesn’t totally explain why identical particles, with all other factors being equal too, have this Jekyll and Hyde property whereby some do and some don’t; some will and some won’t.

But we see that while things aren’t totally explained yet, we’re well on the way to determining the real factors that decide the photon’s fate, and it’s not photon’s free will either. 

A Quantum Pane In The Glass: Part One

In quantum physics, you often deduce that those residents of the micro realm, those elementary particles, have some very strange properties bordering on a quasi-free will. They sort of possess a ‘mind’ of their own. They seemingly have the ability to ‘know’ things about their external world and their relationship to that. They make decisions with respect to those relationships and act accordingly. They are not just little inert billiard balls. There are observations to back this up that include an observation you can make at home to verify this. Look outside your window. What do you see? A very big mystery is what you see, if your window is anything like my window or most windows.

Even if you don’t know or understand very much about quantum mechanics, or quantum physics (same difference), you have probably associated it with weirdness. Unlike the certainty and causality domination of your day-in and day-out macro world, the realm of the quantum is centred on probability, chance and randomness where things happen for absolutely no reason at all and identical scenarios will yield different results. One oft given example you can (and have) witnessed – how light (photons) interacts with a common pane of window glass.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

Here is a common happening that you have experienced at home or in the office or in the car that you probably never gave a second thought to. That unregistered oddity you experienced is seeing the reflection of AND the passing through of light waves (photons) with respect to a pane of glass simultaneously. What’s so odd about that? Well, what’s odd is that light is both passing through and reflecting from the same pane of glass at the same time. Why both? Why not one or the other scenario? What’s odder still, assuming you are inside, is that not only can you see your reflection or the reflection of what’s in your background but what’s also outside and through your own reflection. You see your reflection and the outside image, both superimposed on top of each other. So photons are both passing through the glass (you can see the outside while you are inside) from the outside to the inside and at the same time reflecting from the inside to the inside (you can see the inside from the inside) both happenings at the same spot on the glass.

And if you go outside the reverse is also true. The outside is partly reflected by the glass surface back to you while you are outside looking in while at the same time light photons from the inside are passing through the entire glass so you can see inside your room though you are standing outside, both inside and outside as superimposed images.

Further, the ratio of pass through to reflection also depends on the thickness of the glass, so presumably the photon ‘knows’ in advance what that thickness is and acts accordingly. If all of that doesn’t strike you as odd, nothing will, though it’s so commonplace it probably doesn’t strike you as odd.

OTHER EXAMPLES

This ‘do I or don’t I’ oddity doesn’t just apply to panes of glass. This applies to a wide range of transparent, even translucent stuff. The same pass through vs. reflect back applies for example to your eyeball. Some photons enter your eye and deliver their message; some photons hit the identical spot but are reflected back, but can then hit a mirror and reflect back again this time entering your eye so that you see your eye that reflected in the mirror.

Speaking of eyes, you can ‘see’ an external bright light even with your eyelids shut, yet some of the light is also being reflected off the external surface of your eyelids.

Sunglasses are another obvious example. You can see your reflection in the outer side of the lenses, but clearly the sunglasses let through without any obstruction photons too.

You can see your reflection in still water and the bottom beneath the surface too if the water is pretty clear and the bottom is fairly shallow. This should also apply to say a polished diamond or other similar gemstones or crystal(s).

Another visual example – you see sunlight reflected off of the tops of clouds when in an aircraft that’s flying above them. As you descend through them and land, though the day is now overcast, clearly some sunlight photons are passed through the clouds. It’s the same clouds; and the same sunlight; and the same observer; but differing outcomes. So the pass through vs. reflection enigma applies equally to translucent objects (like clouds) too.

Though this is an obviously visual puzzle, well that in itself is obvious since we can only see visible light photons. However, photons come in a wide range of forms, from ultraviolet to radio; infrared to microwave; gamma rays to X-rays. Presumably this pass through vs. reflection phenomena takes place with non-light photons too. The most obvious example is that radio, TV or cell phone reception tends to be better outside than inside – one reason for your TV aerial or antenna. So, some radio/TV/cell phone photons are reflected off of the outside of your solid building but some pass through too, but this has nothing to do with frequency or wavelength since these transmissions are on a very narrow bandwidth.

In a similar vein, it’s been advocated for decades that the ideal location to do radio astronomy and/or SETI, searching for alien radio signals, is on the far side of the Moon because the Moon’s bulk is 100% opaque to terrestrial and human generated radio signals that just add unwanted noise to the signals the astronomers are looking for.

One clue that the pass through vs. reflection conundrum must be density related, not just thickness related, comes from X-rays. We’ve all seen X-ray photos of the human hand. The bones stand out; the wedding ring more so, but the flesh is visible too though less so. So some X-ray photons were reflected, greater reflection related to the density of the stuff the X-ray photon was hitting. Yet clearly some X-ray photons passed through since the image of the fleshy bits isn’t as strong as the bones and the bones weren’t as solid an image as the ring. Yet it was the exact same X-ray dose that hit all three substances – flesh, bone and metal.  

THE STANDARD SOLUTIONS

The basic postulate postulated by quantum physicists is that the photon pass through vs. reflection anomaly is an anomaly because it all happens for absolutely no reason at all. It’s all random. It’s all probability. Some photons pass through via the luck of the draw; other photons get reflected by that same random luck of the draw. How is that possible given that we have, in the original example, one identical pane of glass with identical photons impacting? Well, if you don’t invoke causality, you can just about get away with anything anomalous.

The other accepted answer is that any one photon is in a superposition of states. It can be in two places at the same time, so it can both reflect, and pass through the pane of glass at the same time. Either that or the photon has awareness of its external surroundings; it has a mind of its own and decides what it wants to do!

Superposition of state has been experimentally demonstrated via the classic quantum double slit experiment whereby particles, like a photon (but any type of particle will do, like an electron) fired one at a time at two parallel slits, will pass through both slits and thus will interfere with itself and cause a classic wave interference pattern on a target board behind the slits. The only logical conclusion has to be that one particle was in two places at the same time. Personally, I find that absurd, but it’s hard to debate hardcore experimental results.

The one flaw I find in that standard pane of glass situation explanation is that if the photon is in two places at the same time, then both the inside reflected image and the external image – the pass through the glass image – should be equally as vivid. Usually the pass through the glass image is the more obvious of the two superimposed images assuming just one light source, say external sunshine, or the reflected image is the stronger, assuming the prime light source is inside, like say at night.

To be continued…

My Personal Ongoing Worldview: Part Two

Everybody has his or her own particular worldview, philosophy, a set of truisms, a concept of reality, and overall, a degree of certainty on just how the world works. Equally true, that worldview evolves as you grow older. Santa Clause was probably part of your worldview when you were five years old, but unlikely at fifty-five. I’m no exception to the rule, so here are my latest ‘set-in-cement’ thoughts on how the world operates.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

HUMAN AFFAIRS

* There is no God or supernatural deity (or deities) of any kind. Religion can however serve useful purposes, not the least of which it keeps some percentage of the human population employed.

* As suggested earlier, in an infinite cosmos there is no need for a deity of any sort. Therefore it is rather improbable that there is no Heaven or Hell (or associated places) since these must represent actual physical geographies. That being the case, we would have probably discovered them by now.

* No deities, specifically no Christian God does mean that there ain’t no end times, no second coming, no apocalypse or Armageddon, no rapture, no end-of-days or end times. In fact, all religious texts, all those allegedly that are divinely inspired, are pure bovine fertilizer.

* There is no before-the-fact meaning or purpose to your existence other than what you yourself give it. There is nobody from ‘on high’ tapping you on the shoulder or whispering into your subconscious mind that the following (fill in the blank) is your destiny or ultimate fate. 

* There is no such thing as a separate-and-apart part of you termed a soul, spirit, or any other related concept associated with a soul.

* You have no free will. That follows on from my belief that causality (a predetermined clockwork universe) rules absolutely – yesterday, today, and tomorrow. However, free will, even if illusional, serves a useful social purpose forming the general foundation for humanity’s legal system – you are responsible for your actions.

* Death is not something to be afraid of. You experience dying, but not death since once dead, you have no existence and you need to have an existence, you have to be alive, in order to experience something, anything, even death. So you never experience death, only that which is up to but not including death.

* Death is final – there is no afterlife. Post-death is an identical state to pre-life or pre-conception. You get one go per universe between conception and death – make the best of it and enjoy. However, if there are an infinity of universes in space and/or in time, then you can expect to be reincarnated both as yourself and with variations on the theme of yourself (i.e. – you might marry someone else as an example). Perhaps, just perhaps, that’s the real meaning behind the phrases of life everlasting (or everlasting life) or eternal life (or life eternal).

* Given the wide range of highly improbable human characteristics – human uniqueness such as a bipedal gait and high IQ – and extremely rapid rise to a state of having culture and ‘civilization’, the odds are extremely high that human origins and evolution were all genetically engineered by outsiders – aliens for lack of a better word.

* It’s a sweeping generalization I know, but the philosophy of the average human is “it’s all about me. I and my needs come first.”

* If the human species was created, it was a very bad mistake on someone or something’s part. If the human species was an unplanned accident of evolution, Mother Nature screwed up big-time. If one is honest, one would be very hard pressed to name another terrestrial species that has caused more unwarranted death, destruction and overall suffering to all and sundry than Homo sapiens. To be honest, while I can’t speak for the rest of the cosmos, we are surely the scum of the earth and the cosmos should rejoice if we cause our own extinction. It would be well deserved.

* Behind every mountain of mythology lies a molehill of reality. So, as an example, there are mountains of mythological deities; there is a molehill that acquaints these deities as actual realities, the reality being flesh-and-blood extraterrestrials.

* Probability is a human concept with relevance to human worldviews but which has no relevance or application outside of the human experience, or perhaps that should be extended to any self-aware life forms. The real world that’s totally divorced from human affairs and the human species, deals with certainties, not probabilities. But what about quantum physics, surely that’s probability personified. But when you read all about quantum physics, sure you get probability this and probability that, but the references are all with respect to observers and measurements – in other words, with respect to human worldviews.

* Philosophy is like jazz – 95% of it is crap, but what’s good is very, very good. [At least jazz comes out vastly better percentage-wise than rap, hip-hop, heavy metal, ‘music’ which is 100% crap.]

* For obvious reasons, empty what’s full; fill what’s empty; scratch where it itches.

* Finally, you may have to grow old, but there’s no requirement to grow up!

My Personal Ongoing Worldview: Part One

Everybody has his or her own particular worldview, philosophy, a set of truisms, a concept of reality, and overall, a degree of certainty on just how the world works. Equally true, that worldview evolves as you grow older. Santa Clause was probably part of your worldview when you were five years old, but unlikely at fifty-five. I’m no exception to the rule, so here are my latest ‘set-in-cement’ thoughts on how the world operates.

After posting some 250-plus essays, it wouldn’t be surprising if I hadn’t solidified some sort of worldview. While not yet the be-all-and-end-all of my worldviews, it’s a good start, and a good exercise. When setting down all your fundamental beliefs, at least based on my doing so, I found out that I’ve sometimes ended up trapping myself into believing two entirely contradictory things. That in turn required a total re-examination of my overall set of worldviews. As I said, it’s a useful exercise and an ever ongoing one (#).   

Normally one has certain fundamental principles that form the bedrock foundation of their worldview on life, the universe and everything. I’ve boiled my fundamental principles down to two absolutes.

ABSOLUTE BEDROCK FOUNDATIONS

* Something cannot be created from absolutely nothing. Conservation laws rule.

* Something cannot happen without any reason at all. Causality rules too.

THE COSMIC CONNECTION

* Why is there something rather than nothing? Let’s say there’s a 50-50 probability between a universe that contains nothing and one that contains something. Or even make the ratio 60-40 or 99-1 or even odds of a billion to one, as long as the probability of a something universe isn’t zero. Then, well that’s something to be said for a something universe. Now a nothing universe isn’t bio-friendly and a something universe can be, so since we’re a friendly bio-entity that must mean we live in a something universe. So, as far as we are concerned, that’s what there is something rather than nothing, because if there was nothing we wouldn’t be here to ponder the issue.

                              

* Since I have shown (to my satisfaction anyway) that space, time and matter/energy cannot have been created by a Big Bang event (or by any other means), then of necessity the Big Bang event happened in existing space, time and with matter/energy already in existence too. Therefore there was a before the Big Bang and if there was one such before the Big Bang event there could have been more than one, in fact an infinite number of before the Big Bang events, or in other words, an infinite number of Big Bangs.

* The Big Bang could not have been a micro event, as to stuff the contents of our Universe into a tiny volume would result in the Mother of all Black Holes and while a Black Hole can evaporate, our Universe condensed down into a Black Hole would result in a Black Hole of large enough size that it would take trillions upon trillions of years to do so. That’s in contrast to the standard model of the Big Bang event which suggests it was more akin to a ‘wham-bam thank you ma’am’ quickie. I like to think of the Big Bang more as the Mother of all Pseudo-Supernovae. I say ‘pseudo’ because the Big Bang wasn’t literally a supernova since the ratios of elements created in the Big Bang don’t parallel that created by real supernova. I see the pseudo-supernova more akin to zillions upon zillions of people all increasingly squeezing together while madly rushing the department store front door at the start of the post-Xmas sales (collapsing universe) then fanning out again (Big Bang and expansion) once past the door and into the store proper, rather than an actual explosion. 

* Though I personally consider both time and space to be concepts, and not things, others believe that time and space are indeed things. Be that as it may.

* To avoid awkward questions regarding space and time, as in what’s beyond and what came before, I just plain postulate an infinite time and space without any quantum ‘atomic structure’. In other words, both time and space are infinitely divisible into smaller and smaller segments. There is no ultimate structure involving time and space that cannot be further divided. If you don’t care for the word “infinite” then substitute “forever” or “eternal”. 

* That an infinite cosmos exists in both time and space makes sense since there are forces which (in theory) can extend their influence out to infinity in time and in space – gravity and electromagnetism. If you shine your flashlight, beam it out into space, there’s nothing to stop it going on indefinitely through space and in time.

* If time and space are infinite then that implies a cyclic cosmos in that everything that can happen does happen and infinite number of times. So, you get another go and another and another and another. However, because you have no consciousness of time between the time of your demise and the time of your next hatching, which could be millennia later in a distant galaxy far, far away, your existences are pretty continuous.  However, you’d never know the nitty-gritty of your previous existences, though perhaps it might explain senses of déjà vu. But, in addition to multi-universes in the same space, but over time, there is multi-universes spread out in space at the same time. That follows if the cosmos is infinite in volume. Of course if the cosmos is infinite in volume then right now there are up to an infinite number of you in all possible variations. My use of “you” refers not so much to your various physical forms and lifestyles but to your mind which gives you our sense of “you”. Your mind after all really is what defines “you”.

* Because space is infinite in time, and time is infinite in space, there was no first cause; therefore, there’s absolutely no requirement for any supernatural deity or deities to act as a creator.

* Cyclic universe: As suggested above, there was a Big Bang but there was also a before the Big Bang. IMHO there was a Big Bang before that and another before that. Despite the observation that our Universe is ever expanding, and ever expanding at an ever faster rate, there are ways and means, alternative cosmologies, that can result in, and require, a cyclic universe scenario, which, if you wish to count each universe as separate and apart, results in a Multiverse at least over the time dimension. As hinted above, there would be an infinite number of these cyclic universes.

* There is a Multiverse; that follows of necessity if you postulate an infinite yet dynamic cosmos in time and space. Apart from a cyclic Multiverse as per above, there can also be a spatial Multiverse – universes existing not as discrete universes at the same point in space at differing times, but discrete universes existing in differing points in space but at the same time.

* The interior of a Black Hole is the absolute final frontier of all final frontiers left as the undiscovered country. Here there are dragons for sure!

* Causality rules as per my absolute bedrock foundations – there is absolute predetermination (therefore no free will). No matter what happens, that happening had a cause, and more likely as not, that happening will in turn be the cause of a further happening, and so on down the line (or up the line if you run the film backwards). In cosmology terms, the Universe did not, could not, create itself because a cause cannot cause or bootstrap itself.

* Causality rules in classical (macro) physics. Probability rules in quantum (micro) physics, at least that’s the standard micro model as proposed by physicists. However, quantum mechanics has IMHO deeper cause-and-effect principles. Probability as a concept is observer dependent. In a universe without any observers, without any life, would it be meaningful to invoke the idea of quantum probability or uncertainty? It’s not that difficult to imagine a universe without life. In fact that no doubt was the state of our universe for several billion years post the Big Bang event. Before any life evolved anywhere, the cosmos ticked along in clockwork (cause-and-effect) fashion very nicely, thank you very much. If it did so before humans were thought of in anyone’s philosophy, it can and will continue to do so despite humans being now present and accounted for and befuddled by the realm of indeterminacy exhibited by quantum mechanics. Ultimately quantum physics will be founded in causality just like classical physics.

* There are no free lunches as per my absolute bedrock foundations – no creating something-from-nothing is allowed. That’s because IMHO conservation laws governing the creation and destruction of matter and energy, even time and space, are absolute.

* String Theory as an alternative to the standard model of particle physics is absolute nonsense and will remain so until proponents put some experimental runs on the board.

* General Relativity and Quantum Physics have been, are, and forever will remain separate and apart. They are incompatible in theory as well as in practice and never the twain shall meet. Translated, there never will be a unified theory of quantum gravity.

* There is no meaning or purpose to the cosmos – it just is. That puts the kibosh on the Strong Anthropic Principle which suggests that the Universe was designed to be the way it is in order to give rise to life and intelligent life. It was the Universe’s way of being able to contemplate its own navel.

* The Weak Anthropic Principle is however stating the bleeding obvious, which is that because life exists in the Universe, the Universe must possess laws, principles and relationships that make the Universe a bio-friendly or Goldilocks Universe.

* In infinite time and space and a Multiverse, extraterrestrial intelligence will have come to pass if at least one such universe is a Goldilocks universe, which is actually required since in an infinite Multiverse anything that can happen does happen – an infinite number of times. 

* The Universe is the way it is. Whether the Universe is good, bad or ugly; indifferent or malicious, there’s nothing you can do about it, so cross it off your ‘need-to-worry-about-this’ list.

(#) It recently struck home how often we shift our worldviews. We have no worldview at birth. Our worldview at five is one that’s full of self, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, imaginary friends, and parties with lots of cakes, cookies, soda pop and presents. All of that certainly changes, and drastically so, when you hit the teens when your worldview shifts to the opposite sex and sex and rebellion against all things adult. Maybe somewhere there’s an easing in period, a first stirrings, where you start to acquire a worldview of a God and heaven and angels and all things bright and beautiful (that’s probably imposed on you by parents and social mores). Then you get thrust out (usually by choice) into the adult world that’s full of bills and responsibilities and employment and/or family life raising your own brats. During all of this you probably never really think of the ‘natural’ cosmic context you find yourself in. But that tends to come as you pass the half-way mark and start heading downhill. The Big Questions come more to the fore and you start to adopt a worldview that makes comforting sense away from the normal routine worldview of taxes and nasty bosses and your kids in trouble with the police again. Again, for most, that tends to revolve around God and heaven and angels, etc. But some people start thinking more outside the comforting religious box and more about space and time, and before and after, and finite vs. infinity and what non-religious Big Picture makes the most philosophical and logical common sense. And whatever specific you come up with can also shift as you reflect on your earlier reflections without end as new concepts and connections come into being or focus which you’ve got to ponder and fit into the master worldview jigsaw puzzle you’ve established.

To be continued.