05 October 2010
My email: mo-wood(at)hotmail.co.uk
Here the following is held to be the case:
(1) Given that it can be assumed that the universe consists just of matter/energy and the forces, what is called the standard model of quantum and particle theory does not make sense of the evidence found of matter and energy on the smallet scale. And given any assumption that the known forces are all the causes that act universally, no theory can be successfully developed that generallly explains how the universe is the way that it is.
(2) How an invisible cause could act universally in addition to the forces cannot be demonstrated by measurement and calculation from any evidence found of matter and energy on the smallest scale. Nor can it be demonstrated that this cause acts in the world from any such evidence found of atoms, molecules, their subatomic components or photons of radiant energy when examined alone. This is a cause that, rather than attracting or repelling objects with some measurable strength, acts so that matter can remain in its naturally organised forms despite the action of the forces, and produces the effects that are called quantum wave, spin and entanglement. And only by sufficiently justifying and describing enough details of this cause by examining together enough available natural evidence of where it acts can it be explained how matter can exist at all while consisting almost all of the space be between its subatomic components as particles.
(3) Modern physics lost its rational scientific aim at the fifth Solvay Conference in October 1927 where an indeterminist interpretation of quantum mechanics was first propounded - and subsequently incorporated into the language of all quantum physics textbooks - in what was to be called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. The 1927 conference was also where Louis de Broglie's pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics was rejected.
(4) The closest to a true account of quantum behaviour and its cause yet to be published was argued for in two papers by David Bohm entitled "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of 'Hidden Variables' I & II"(1952). This account was a more sophisticatd version of De Broglie's Pilot Wave account, and was shown to be consistent with all the experimental evidence from which the original quantum mechanics was derived. Bohm's causal interpretation demonstrated that the uncertainties and probabilites of measurement in quantum meechanics could be understood as limtations in any experimental set up, rather than real properties of quantum behaviour beyond the experimental results. And these observed results could be accounted for by quantum objects being both waves and particles with definable trajectoreies while in motion. As such Bohm's account can be described as a determinate nonlocal causal interpretation of quantum mechanics.. http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v85/i2/p166_1 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
(5) The probabilities and uncertainties of measurement of quantum behaviour that led to the Copenhagen interpretation were a diversion from the fact that matter had been discovered to consist of so little of of anything that could be called material objects. So that just this discovery in 1909 of the minute atomic nucleus was a clear indication the matter needed to consist of more than mere particles. Then the discovery of the electron wave property and Schrodinger's wave equation were clear indications that the quantum wave needed to exist universally as a real property for matter to exist at all as atoms and molecules.
(6) The present Standard Model of quantum and particle theory is severely limited by its lack of a causal explanation of quantum wave, spin and entanglement behaviour, and its description of virtual particle exchange and vacuum energy is not a true account of what occurs on the small scale beyond the measurable results of experiments. And there is no large scale evidence to support the existence of either virtual particals or vacuum energy in the quantity thaat quantum field theory predicts. But rather, the cosmological evidence is of a mysterious 'dark energy', of which there is less than the quantum fiels theory vacuum energy by many orders of magnitude This huge anomoly exists because, rather than causally explaining quantum behaviour in termsof objects in motion, quantum field theory assumes that Heisenbers's Uncertainty Principle applies to the actual behaviour of quantum objects in motion, while there is no direct evidence to justify this assumption. The Standard Model is thus successful as a mathematical scheme that accounts for many properties of matter by describing quantum behaviour just as directly detected and measured. But this model does not causally explain the quantum behaviour itself, and thus provides no scientific explanation of how the natural form and organisation of matter in general is possible.
(7) No sufficiently detailed expanatory cosmology can be developed on the assumption that the known forces or fundamental interactions are all the causes that act universally upon matter and energy. So that an appropropriate nonlocal causal hypthesis needs to be developed to deduce enouigh properties of a cause of quantum wave behaviour. This hypothesis then provides sufficient reasons to consider that and how a nonlocally acting cause could act universally on the astronomical scale.
(8) The only possible empirically verifiable account that may be called a theory overything will be a natural explanation of everything that cannot be explained by the action of the forces alone. This account could be more accurately called a General Theory of Natural Organisation, where a determinate nonlocal causal nterpretation or hypothesis of quantum wave, spin and entanglement behaviour is supported by an examination of sufficient large scale natural evidence, and thus demonstrates, in enough detail from its observable effects, that and how a cause acts universally, constantly and nonlocally in addition to all the forces.
(9) In a General Theory of Natural Organisation the evidence examined on the large scale will be of available astronomical findings in relation to the evolution of the presently observed large scale structure of the cosmos and the formation of galaxies, stars and planetary systems; as well as living organisms in relation to the nature of the mind as a part of a nonlocal cause, the evolution of consciousness and general features of organic behaviour. This theory may be regarded as a sufficient general explanation of how the universe that includes living organisms is the way that it is, but is capable of indefinite further development.
(10) The General Theory of Natural Organisation may be regarded as a scientific explanation which demonstrates that the real universe makes eough sense of life from a human point of view and will allow human beings to make more sense of their lives by their actions.
13 September 2010
22 August 2009
There have been industrial and technological revolutions and those for democracy or based on a theory of history. But no revolution has been brought about by pure scientific knowledge and that has really changed the status quo. So the findings of Copernicus, Newton and Darwin may have changed the minds of many but have not, just as such, led people to change their world in any radical way. And although it could be said that Marxism may not have come about without the influence of scientific findings, the influence of Marxist thought itself has now much diminished.
But suppose there could be a scentific discovery that clearly showed that the universe that includes all life on Earth is not as it appears to be?
Such a discovery could be regarded as a completion of the quantum revolution. For given the discoveries of matter and energy on the smallest scale it can be asked how can matter in any form, including human beings and all other living organisms be and remain composed out of its smallest parts? Doesn't matter in all its forms exist despite the action of all the forces and if so, how could this be so? Could these questions only be answered by discovering and describing enough details of an invisible cause acting in addition to the forces? And could such a cause also act in the universe on the very large scale?
From the scientific findings of the naturalworld so far it can seem very much as though the world is governed just by the push or pull forces and that the universe has no real purpose from a human point of view. But what if a discovery and description of a further universal cause from its effects showed that a viable cosmos could last indefinitely, and finally revealed the true nature of the mind and consciousness...?
06 August 2009
Such a physics can construct the most successful of all scientific theories in the form of the Standard Model of quantum and particle theory and yet cannot explain how matter or the energy it radiates exists or is subatomically organised.
Why not? Because the theory does not explain how matter and radiant energy possesses behaviour that is called quantum wave, spin and entanglement.
Thus, like atoms and molecules themselves, the Standard Model is virtually hollow at the core without an explanation of how matter persists while being composed of so little that can be detected as material objects and be organised into elements and compounds. But instead this model tries to interpret and calculate the quantum wave out of existence, or argue that its explanation is of no significance or has already been explained by the quantum theory.
Whereas it can be asked:
How can any theory that, like the Standard Model, assumes the action of the forces alone, explain quantum wave spin and entanglement?
How can matter consist almost all of the space between its smallest or subatomic parts without the quantum wave?
Surely isn't the quantum wave something in addition to the forces that cannot be explained by them since the wave allows atoms and molecules to remain in their forms despite the action of the forces and can be measured when the subatomic particle are not components of atoms and molecules?
13 July 2009
We have a Big Bang theory of the birth of the cosmos and only the known forces to account for the presently observed universe. The theory says that, by the time the cosmos was about 400,000 years old, matter on the small scale had evolved into hydrogen and helium. But describe just the forces to explain how atoms of hydrogen and helium are the way that they are and you get no answer. So why should such forces alone explain how galaxies are the way that they are of how stars and planetary systems form?
Construct a quantum theory that rules out the possibility that anything exists apart from matter/energy and the push or pull forces as causes, and you are stuck with a cosmology that requires the addition of vast amounts of mysterious and invisible matter and energy, plus a theory of the early cosmos that defies relativity, to possibly explain how the universe is the way that it is