When the illustrious Dr. Guth’s digital watch “materializes”
out of the vacuum will it be in motion or not?
It appears no quantum calculations can supply the answer as to how
gravitons shall affect the putative watch. If the theorists can not even “imagine” how
to detect gravitons how can they “insist” they exist at all? Each particle, thus, in this view, must emit
gravitons on a continuous basis in order to be able to “attract” all other
particles. So, if no one “looked” there would be no
particles!! Even a vibration is a wave,
continually in motion, it is not a fixed particle. So, every vibration attracts every other
vibration and no vibration has any means of not vibrating, of becoming affixed
to a particular point in a field. No
field, thus, can ever be fixed either in terms of time or in terms of
space. But quantum field theory
“insists” a field must exist even when there is no matter there, even if no
waves or vibrations exist. This is the
equivalent of putting the cart before the horse, of misidentifying which is the
independent variable.
The
first problem is obvious: does every
point in space “vibrate?” Are points in
space, the constituents of the quantum field, subject to the theory itself vibrating? Are points particles? “A field exists at every point in space” begs
the question of the definition of a “point in space.” Is the point in space itself subject to “the
uncertainty inherent in quantum measurement?”
Or, is a point in reality resolvable to a precision afforded by infinite
number of decimal points? Why does
quantum theory rely on π, a number which has been carried out to millions of
decimal points? The idea of the quantum is simple
enough: nature provides energy in
“packets” incapable of further subdivision.
But, of course, the packet itself may be more energetic or less
energetic depending on its frequency. A
gamma ray photon is more energetic than a radio wave photon, but it is the same
quantum, the same packet. It all depends
on what process emits the photon, the most energetic of these processes being
gravity driven, as during a supernova as a one time millisecond event or what
appear to be multi million year processes which have resolved themselves into
quasars. Quantum mechanics must thus
answer whether it is arbitrarily mixing apples and oranges in terms of
assigning x number of decimal places to a particular class of operators, zero
decimals to others, and infinite decimals points to another variety of
variables or constants. If at every
point in space a multitude of quantum fields exists and if every point in space
is describable with infinite precision because it can be measured with a
variable capable of being carried to an infinite number of decimal places then
how does quantum field theory “deny” this same precision to a value of a
particle affixed to any point in the field?
In other words, the field itself can be affixed to a point in space
measurable with infinite precision but the points inside the field are not even
“in principle” measurable with infinite precision. Does this not make the field itself bigger
than the point it occupies in space? On
this basis physics must confront and resolve a most (if not the most)
basic of questions: does the universe
contain any rounding errors? If every
point in space is assignable a set of coordinates represented by an number
consisting of an infinite number of significant digits then the universe is
analog, not digital, and the quantum digital world is merely as “subset” of the
larger infinitely precise universe. The
quantumists theorize quantum field theory is more fundamental than classical
theory because the entire universe is permeated with quantum fields none of
which have ever been observed, allowing the quantumists to speculate “what we
can possibly see is only a small subset of what really exists.” What they are really saying is they have no
means of calculating the various physical actions to an infinite degree of
precision and are ergo imposing a
self styled decimal point limit on the universe and are de facto proving there is rounding error in the universe. But there is zero evidence the universe makes
even a single error, let alone is pervaded with error on the most fundamental
level. When a particle vibrates around a
certain value quantum mechanics assigns only a finite number of values as the
set of possibilities in order to compute a most likely value for the particular
particle. If quantum mechanics assigned
an infinite number of possible values to the particle then if these values were
within a certain range (at each end of the range the value would approach a
limit), the only way they could be infinite is if each value were computed
instantaneously to infinite number of significant digits, i.e., to infinite precision.
This is why the good Dr. Guth must say “roughly speaking, anything can happen in a vacuum, although
the probability for a digital watch to materialize is absurdly small.” How many significant digits would be required
to prove Dr. Guth’s thesis as a viable explanation of reality? Is the proton’s life time greater than 3 x 1032
years only because the instruments can not be calibrated to a higher degree of
precision? Many quantumists were very
disappointed with the proton’s resilience.
If due to general relativity space and time are spacetime, inseparable
in principle into time and space, then the time coordinate, just as the space
coordinate, is computable to an infinite number of significant digits, meaning
the calculation in reality must be instantaneous and which also means Planck
time is an approximation. As soon as the
number of significant digits in reality is reduced to a very small number, such
as 43, over a very short duration the rounding error becomes massive, would
cause the universe to tear itself apart.
Curiously, any rounding error is yet to be observed, on the classical
level the universe is extremely stable, eminently predictable. Earth’s orbit has not decayed in billions of
years, with a rounding error where would the Earth be now? Just because quantumists can not solve the
three body problem due to rounding error this same inability should not be
arbitrarily imposed on the real universe.
Change is a special category of motion. While general motion is unwritten, change is
special motion because it is written.
Thus change is potentially a deliberate act, not a preprogrammed or
automatic act. General unwritten motion
is substantive, never formal, but special motion, change, may be substantive or
it may be formal, literally depending on what is written. What is written may be due to luck or randomness. The jury is still out as to whether given an
infinity of time 10,000 monkeys (or is it 99,000) with typewriters could in
fact by sheer luck hammer out Hamlet. Even given an eternity it must not
necessarily happen. At the other end of
the spectrum, the most substantive or least formal writing discovered to date
is DNA. But, of course, this is only
this writer’s opinion. Others may have
other opinions. Regardless, here is the
point: DNA is an insulating agent
against changeless motion. Yes, the Sun
shines, protons are fused at its hot core, it is a machine in motion, but there
is no change, it is motion without change as “change” is defined here. There are no deliberately contemplative acts,
every solar act is automatic, perfectly deterministic. The reason, as defined here, is because the
Sun is not written, it does not come into being as a result of a written
plan. Every physical act in the universe
is perfectly automatic, no proton or photon or phonon needs to consult a manual
to ascertain what it must do. The
contrast could not be greater. Yes, the
physical acts of the universe are substantive because no science, or anything
else, has to date rigorously demonstrated any ability to violate gravity, for
example, except in the movies which does not count. On the other hand entropy, it seems, is a two
way street, it generally increases but in special cases it may decrease as it
does in the special case of DNA. Inside
life entropy has been steadily reduced, defying the general case of which the
Sun is an example, due to DNA evolution, which is nothing more than editing of
the written by deliberate selection, or at least not fully automatic or totally
mindless selection. Selection implies
competition, as when a female may select from several eligible males, or when
several eligible males compete to gain reproductive access to a herd of
females. The reality of less entropy means greater organization, less
chaos, a species with less entropy has on balance a greater chance of winning a
competition, and this ability to have less entropy is written, not
unwritten. The Sun attains the point of
minimum entropy when it first ignites after the self-organizing principle built
into gravity has collapsed the original cloud of molecular hydrogen. Thereafter the Sun’s entropy slowly rises until
it runs out of fuel. This action can be
predicted for every star ever “born,” even if the universe contains a infinite
number of stars. How does DNA manage to reduce entropy over an
evolutionary time scale? The unwritten,
although incapable of being violated, is “dumb” in contrast to the written
which is “smart” because the information captured with the written, with DNA,
can not exist physically anywhere else in the universe, and due to the cell
cycle, the duplicability of DNA, the capturing of information is cumulative
thusly the requirement of slow, steady change the end result of which is a
reduction in entropy, an increase in how much information is captured with a
given number of words. There is little
doubt the physical atoms are organized by DNA into life, DNA is an intermediary,
is an absolute necessity. The process of
modifying life in writing is “change,” it is not merely “motion.” A base pair is added (not all DNA is of equal
length) or dropped, the code is edited sometimes by blind luck (mutation), or,
most often (for the eukaryotes), due to selection, by a non automatic process
leading toward less and less systemic entropy.
Gravity as self-organizing principle applied to atoms in a free, gaseous
state, forms a star which arguably is in a state of lower entropy than the
original gas cloud, it appears the same self-organizing principle is in
operation with respect to writable information in the form of DNA. The writing itself changes in such a way as
to have a tendency to produce organisms of lesser entropy, therefore because
the lesser entropy organisms are more organized, because their DNA is packed
with more information, this leads to a greater variety of behavioral responses
to changes in the biotic environment, enhancing survival chances. If it is hypothesized the biotic environment
is information rich then tendency toward the ever lowering of organizational
entropy makes sense because the “animal” which processes and possesses more
information, has senses which are sharper, more precise in terms of delivering
information than of another animal, has the edge, is more competitive, has
attained a state of lower informational entropy.
Just how information rich is
the biotic, planetary environment?
Humans are about to find out for their own actions have put humans,
literally, “under the gun.” To put it
another way, it is “crunch time” for the planet in general and humans in
particular. The burden to know
information has never been more acute, there shall be no second guessing, no
Monday morning quarterbacking. Decisions
humans make collectively during the next few decades shall prove their worth. Natural disasters, tsunamis, eruptions,
earthquakes are not subject to human control, this is not what the information
burden is all about. It is products,
including commercialism, propaganda, humans have created artificially,
technologically, which humans today do not have control of, it is about this “stuff”
which decisions shall be made or not
made. As time moves a informational bell
rings, meaning a decision to change is expected, and if the decision is not
forthcoming the moment passes, the favorable historic conditions never to
return, technology’s machinery marches on, on its own time table, the humans
losing the chance due to procrastination.
When a man looks in a mirror does time flow
backward when reflected by the mirror?
So, some images are mirrored, while others, like time, are not
mirrored. Time knows no mirrors. Time can not be reflected by any means. Without time all of physics would be
completely impossible, yet none of physics captures time in any way, squirrels
it away in an equation or formula. The
smallest theoretical measurement of time, the tiniest tick of the clock, is
Planck time, 10-43 seconds.
There exists no means in physics to break time down into smaller
increments, into true infinitesimals.
This alone by itself without anything else proves human thought is
perfectly disconnected from physics. If
mind were perfectly connected to physics it would be impossible to think of
infinitesimals, it would literally be impossible to imagine Planck time divided
into an infinite number of units. This
is the basis for the theory of the infinite realm of abstractions. To say 10-∞ is perhaps
mathematically allowed but physically 10-∞ is nonsense, is not
allowed due to the Planck constants, due to a minimum assignable scale to a quantum
of action which, clearly, must be physical, not merely mathematical. A photon is at the very edge of physicality
because it is massless, the jury is still out on the neutrino. The photon has a temporal duality: (1) it is the yardstick of time, and (2) it
does not experience time. Even if a
photon travels 10 billion light years, from the perspective of the photon not a
single Planck second has passed, not a single Planck distance has been
traversed. “From a photon’s point of
view, it is emitted and then instantaneously reabsorbed.” [phys.org].
This is “true” for a photon which “from our point of view has traveled
for over 13 billion years.” Our temporal
point of view is possible because we are more than photons, we are mass and
photons. If the photon is
instantaneously absorbed, it could be said this action is faster than the
minimum Planck time. No time whatsoever
expires. There is no entropy, no loss or
gain is possible due to the instantaneous nature of the action. Neither space nor time can be affected,
although the photon is said to have “relativistic momentum.” It is observed to propagate through space and
time in one direction. Not until it is
reabsorbed can it change direction. If
there were no mass there could be no photons because mass is a requirement for
photon emission. No photon can emit
itself from itself. On the other hand,
it seems mass is incapable of not emitting photons. The photons in space and time are free of
mass for a duration the photons do not experience but everything else
experiences a duration. If the
universe is in balance then duration must also be in balance. If the photon is evidence of the shortest
duration, of an infinitesimally small duration when it is emitted and
instantaneously reabsorbed then a similar rule could apply to mass inasmuch the
duration of mass is the opposite, the symmetrical counterpart of
instantaneity: a single tick of the
clock which lasts an eternity. Mass is
not absorbed or emitted, it always exists, although E = mc2 does
apply but this consumes but the tiniest portion of mass. An out of balance, symmetry broken condition
would exist if photons are emitted and reabsorbed instantaneously and mass was
in existence less than eternity. If
symmetry is not broken, the counterbalance to zero time, instantaneity, is
infinite time, eternity.
There are no rules by which physicality can
become imperfect, by which physicality can be made to err, meaning if any
imperfection is detected it is a performance in the abstract realm only, never
in physicality’s domain. Physicality has
no counterpart, it is a single infinite set, while every abstraction has at
least two “flavors:” perfect and
imperfect and must thus occupy at least two infinite sets. More shadings are, in fact, possible, down to
the level of infinitesimality, where an abstraction is perfectly imperfect, not
merely imperfectly imperfect, etc. etc. In
fact, there are an infinite number if infinite abstract sets some of which are
“countable” while others are “uncountable.” Uncountability, if it does nothing else, by
itself implicates imperfection, an inability to make certain conclusively,
comprehensively. The issue implicitly
crystallizes: if physicality is not life
and if abstractions (perfect or imperfect) are not life, can any
combination involving the two nonliving realms somehow create life? Or, must a third, hitherto undiscovered,
element be not absent, must by implication (thusly) an actual a priori “living thing,” i.e., having the ability to use two
admittedly dead domains for its own purposes, exist? There seems to be no doubt, the two dead
realms combine to form life, but how? Is
physicality and abstraction dead perfectly?
Can any life be found in an atom?
Is the concept of a living abstraction an oxymoron? Both are seemingly perfectly dead, they
nonetheless combine to form life, meaning, by implication there is a “secret
ingredient” enabling the combination.
Alone by itself abstraction can not do it, physicality alone by itself
can not do it, and nothing seemingly exists in either by which the combination
resulting in life is initiated, both are dead letter law. Implicitly a real [unknown] exists (can not
but be implicated) which real [unknown] combines dead abstraction and dead physicality,
and no matter how invisible the real [unknown] seems, the result, LIFE, the ever opening, evolving
flower, is not in doubt, is everywhere.
Does the scientific method have any
exceptions? Is observation always
required? The big bang singularity’s appearance
out of nowhere is a tabula rasa
moment. Nothing else exists. Instantaneously the “cosmic egg” begins to “expand”
into the “space” it creates for itself.
The law of cooling is invoked: as
a hot object expands so it cools. On an
immediate basis quantum uncertainties and fluctuations make their
appearance. Does the singularity begin
its “life” as a wave or a particle? Or
both? Why and how does it take the very
first, initial, tiniest step toward expansion?
At the moment of creation is it spherical? Why not any other shape? Does it have a shape? It produces the physics we see today but its
physics is absolutely and totally unknowable.
Does its physics exist today? If
not, did its physics vanish in the twinkling of the eye, the moment expansion began, and
today’s physics was en masse
substituted? The singularity, obeying
none of today’s laws, appears from nowhere, in less than a Planck instant of
time all the laws it obeys vanish, wink out, and all laws physics knows today
materialize. This transformation from an unknown law to a known law is many
orders of magnitude less plausible, in need of a very precise explanation, than
the singularity’s appearance out of nowhere.
Nobody knows what happened prior to the first tick of the Planck clock
and everybody knows what happened at every subsequent tick. If this is not tautology, nothing is. The Planck constants are the first to
materialize out of the unknown physics.
As the clock is run backward all the Planck units are available and
utilized, and suddenly, without explanation, they vanish. But, somehow, the idea of expansion does not
vanish, it proceeds to the origin, to Time Zero. As does the idea of “space” and “time.” Thus, at time zero, can the energy be plugged
into E = mc2, does the speed of light exist? Surely, mass does not exist therefore E = mc2
can not exist, not if the scientific method is followed. The singularity knows no thing about the
Planck clock nonetheless it ticks off the minimum Planck time, the very first
quantum of action, to permit for physicists to then formulate intelligent
statements as to what subsequently happens to energy, expansion, baryogenesis,
matter, antimatter, etc. etc. This also
gets physicists wondering why the physical constants are aligned so precisely
as to permit for life to exist. Yet all
of this “happens” during the first instant of time, today’s physics is for all
practical purposes created in less time (Δt) than it takes for a quantum of action to complete
itself from no reality any physicist can intelligibly describe in his imagination,
let alone if the scientific method’s rigors are applied. How big is this intellectual leap? Is this not the least satisfactory of all
leaps of the imagination? This is not
merely a matter of plugging a few leaks.
It is not even a thousand tsunamis hitting all at once. The leap’s magnitude is the difference
between absolute nothing and all the books ever written on physics. Every article, experiment, peer reviewed
paper, everything. None of it has any
justification, none of it is explicable. Yet it all materializes instantaneously.
“V
[strong force potential] is seen to be much stronger than VCoul at distances of 2 fm or less, but to vanish for
distances of about 4 fm or more. ... The
reason why V falls off so fast beyond 3 or 4 fm is at the root of our
understanding of nuclear forces.” Thusly
the root of understanding is attained:
gravity is cumulative, has no vanishing point, the strong force is not
cumulative, it vanishes “for distances of about 4 fm or more.” The strong force, in fact, does not exist
unless protons fuse in star cores. A
hydrogen atom consists of one proton, there is no strong force potential
present at its nucleus because there is only one unfused proton. The strong force “is seen to be much stronger
than VCoul at distances of
2 fm or less.” At the fusion moment, VCoul (the force potential
which repels like charges) is nullified, permanently overcome, by action of the
strong force “at distances of 2 fm [femtometers] or less.” In the nucleus protons do not repel each
other, they are “fused,” in fact, helium is one of the most stable fused atoms,
a “noble gas.”
Beyond
distances of “4 fm or more” strong force potential, for all practical purposes,
vanishes and VCoul starts
doing its thing, which is to form electron shells around the nucleus enabling
opposites to attract. Electrons are
captured in the shells, each higher shell just a bit weaker due to its distance
from the nucleus. Shell action is
defined with conjugate variables, operators, quantum mechanics. Even at this level uncertainty is
selective. The Pauli principle is
extremely certain, is a bedrock of certainty.
In a similar manner no quantumist has ever observed like charges
attracting each other or opposite charges repelling each other. Quantum mechanics is, of course, not totally
useless, a proton can spontaneously become an antiproton, matter and antimatter
annihilate when they come into contact with each other. But, it seems, the verdict is in: the universe is made of matter, not
antimatter, the two are not evenly distributed as is presumed under a quantum
mechanics probability calculus. This is
why quantumists insist the vacuum "is ... the occupied (but unobservable)
[Dirac] sea of negative energy [anti] electrons.” [emphasis in original]. Just because once in a great while the
universe spits out a positron, antimatter, this is used as “proof” the quantity
of matter and antimatter is equal, even if the antimatter is “unobservable.” What
the quantumists really want is uncertainty everywhere and this is one reason
they are having a devil of a time unifying (quantifying) gravity. The theory stops at gravity’s doorstep. If Dirac correctly predicted the positron,
there is no comparable theory of antigravity, no one has found a proof or
prediction antimatter generates antigravity.
It seems antimatter is identical to matter in terms of propagating a
gravitational field. Observed from a
distance a star is identical to an antistar in terms of the gravitational field
or the pressure caused by the radiation or heat, it is impossible to
distinguish between the two: both would
look like a star. In fact, there is no
“antiphoton,” the photon is its own antiparticle. Hmmm.
There are also no “antidistances” in the universe. No one is proposing an instrument capable of
measuring a distance of less than zero.
It is absolutely certain, beyond any or all doubt, no one will measure a
negative distance, ever, for all eternity to come. These types of absolutely certain limits do
not seem to faze quantumist enthusiasm.
One of the more famous, a Dr. Guth, boldly claims “the vacuum,
like any physical system, is subject to ... quantum uncertainties. Roughly speaking, anything can happen in a vacuum.”
[emphasis in original]. So, while
“the π meson carries energy Ea = 0” and therefore “cannot be
physical,” the vacuum, which no one has ever observed because no one has ever
built an instrument to measure zero, is a “physical system.” Is the π meson because it can not be physical
less than the vacuum which is physical?
The carrier of the strong force, binding protons in all nuclei, stronger
than the Coulomb potential, is more virtual, is less physical than the vacuum,
where literally no thing exists, is as close to zero as anything can get, with
the exception, of course, subjecting the vacuum to “uncertainty.” No less a luminary than Dr. Hawking boards
the same gravy train: “Quantum theory
tells us ... what we think of as ‘empty’ space cannot be completely empty because
... the uncertainty principle implies ... in empty space the [gravitational or
electromagnetic] field cannot be fixed at exactly zero, because then it would
have both a precise value (zero) and a precise rate of change (also zero). There must be a certain minimum amount of
uncertainty, or quantum fluctuations, in the value of the field.” In this statement Hawking violates his own
definition of what is a theory. Is Guth’s “quantum theory” statement “roughly
speaking, anything can happen in a
vacuum” an equivalent to a “definite prediction about the results of future
observations?” Why “must” uncertainty
exist (be in force) where no quantum objects are observable? What “future observations” of what will
happen in the vacuum does quantum theory predict on a “definite” basis? What “large class” of any things have been observed in the vacuum? This is the case of the missing theory which
describes how and why quantum theory should be taken beyond the 4 fm distance,
from the nucleus where uncertainty is observed and actually exists, expanded to
empty space, to literally cover the entire universe, where it is unobserved and
“exists” only as bald dictum in
starry eyed, unscientific minds.
Quantumists on a willy nilly basis, for reasons unknown, attribute the
uncertainty principle on the cosmos on the basis of no theory worthy of being
called a theory supporting this expansion of uncertainty’s domain.
Where the
forces by which uncertainty is postulated vanish, in fact do not exist, are
unobservable, there by definition uncertainty can not exist. Here quantum theory can not “tell us”
anything because it is the dependent variable, not the independent
variable. First the force must exist
then uncertainty may or may not exist.
If the vacuum is defined as space where a cubic meter contains, on
average, one hydrogen atom then except for this one hydrogen atom the remainder
of this one cubic meter literally contains no observable thing. Yet this is what Guth, Hawking, et al., allege: this single, lonely hydrogen atom in all
directions and all by itself populates the vacuum with the uncertainty
principle, but not even a bad theory is proposed as to how this happens. There is not even a philosophy or a badly
worded brain fart. No “uncertainty
particle” is proposed as the propagator of uncertainty, of quantum theory, from
the atom to the actually and in reality empty space represented by the cubic
meter. Surely, at a minimum, some type
of “thing” must be proposed which propagates uncertainty from where uncertainty
is found to where there are no objects capable of producing uncertainty. Yes, a few positrons are observed as they
impact instruments on Earth, but, a “sea of negative energy electrons” has
never been observed yet theory insists this “sea” is a reality on a “must”
basis in a cubic meter which contains nothing except one hydrogen atom. “What we think of as ‘empty’ space cannot be
completely empty because ... the uncertainty principle implies ... .” In this Hawkingism the “because” is error, is
a basis for a tautology, is thus, fully unscientific, unreasonable. Why are Ph.D’s making these types of
statements? Why are they leaping to
totally unwarranted conclusions? Is it
possible to fall in love with quantum theory for no other reason than it makes
the person special? Or, is the causality
more pedant? The scientist is, after
all, a human being and, like all human beings, pushes the envelope incessantly,
almost mindlessly, without limits until he gets caught. Tautology can not pose even as bad theory yet
tautologies spawn like weeds everywhere, automatically, unchecked by
science. If famous scientists can not
stop themselves, in fact, if the entire scientific community is in love with
tautology, what chance does the “lay man” have to stop himself? Something is either in the water or tautology
may be genetic, it may be an automatic DNA programmed response to expand the
known to the unknown come hell or high water, for no reason, unwarranted or
unjustified. In no uncertain
terminology, almost triumphantly, Hawking writes: “there must be a certain minimum
amount of uncertainty.” [the emphasis is
supplied]. This is like an “eureka!”
moment. At this point the great man can
put his pen down, he has achieved the ultimate truth. Uncertainty must be certain. Undoubtedly this is a Freudian moment, a
tautological slip of the tongue. The
need for certainty is subliminal, unconscious, and even in a great mind this
means it is automatic, anything, even uncertainty, can be used to satisfy it. As all “great” minds, Hawking can not stop
himself from pontificating, dogmatizing because in his own mind he must have
certainty, he has no ability to apply uncertainty to himself, in fact, instead,
he is “certain” a “minimum amount of uncertainty” must be applied to the entire
cosmos by nothing but his unbridled force of will, his dazzling logic, his
tautological intelligence.
In mind there is a point where physicality ends
completely. For lack of a better phrase
this point is the bright line separating one absolute world from another
absolute world. Inside physicality all
items are relative to each other but none can reach across the bright line into
the absolute world of nonphysicality.
Mind has access to both absolutes which can not intermix, must be
separated perfectly. This is one reason
Physics must propose, and in fact believe in, “uncertainty.” From its perspective a not physical
phenomenon is uncertain, is beyond the bright line, is in a limbo not
accessible to the laws of physics and thus not subject to description by a
physics vocabulary. Because “the
Einstein mass-energy-momentum relationship dictates ... Eq = (q2c2+m2c4)1/2
for a real pion” and because “the π meson carries energy Ea = 0 and
momentum q ≠ 0 from a to b” therefore “this meson cannot be
physical.” Only the boundaries are
defined, it is not possible to peek.
“The energy of the exchanged (or ‘virtual’) meson, being 0, is at least
mπc2 = 140 MeV too low.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, ΔEΔt~h, permits such energy
discrepancies ΔE, but only for a sufficiently short time ∆t.” In reality it makes no sense for the strong
force to equal to zero but physics is not about “making sense,” it is about
sticking to the law as observed. The
myth of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is invoked which “permits” the
discrepancy. In essence, from the
perspective of physical laws anything which “cannot be physical” is “illegal,”
is declared to be “virtual.” This type
of mental action is best exemplified by the notion of putting the cart before
the horse. At one end is Einstein who
“dictates” the “mass-energy-momentum relationship” and at the other end is
Heisenberg who “permits” an exception to this “dictum” within certain very
narrow limits “ΔEΔt~h.” Due to the
limits of observation physicists cannot look inside these limits and thus the
“stuff” presumed to exist inside the limits is defined as a meson which “cannot
be physical,” which is “virtual.” The idea of “unlimited accuracy” must thus be
examined.
Clearly, this is an analog
idea, it can not be a digital idea. Yet
physics says this idea can not exist physically, it is only a virtual
idea. To obtain data about a physical
event “a photon must be reflected from it.”
This is more or less the principle behind radar: electromagnetic radiation is emitted from a
device toward a target and then the radiation is reflected back to the source
and detected. For one, thus, the notion
of “unlimited accuracy” is hampered by the limit of the speed of light, the
farther the object the longer it takes for the radiation to reach it and the
greater is the margin of error as the radiation bounces back to its source. If the radiation acted instantaneously then,
obviously, there would be no ∆t involved, the object would be observed in real
time since no time would pass. As the ∆t
gets smaller and smaller so accuracy increases until accuracy is defined to be
“unlimited” when the ∆t is zero. This is
no more than very basic calculus. But
does this very basic limitation “point to some deeper principle?” Just because the ∆t or the ΔE can not be
reduced, for purposes of observation, to zero, does it mean the Universe does
not know what it is doing, and, in fact, the cosmos steps out of the realm of
physicality just to permit hyperbolics to Heisenberg? A bright line exists inside physics: beyond a certain finite limit digitally
definable accuracy ends and only an analog definable accuracy remains. The ∆t and the ΔE are the physical
manifestations of the digital limit, not of the analog limit which in reality
has no limit. The limit of man made
instruments is digital, the photon when used as a measuring stick produces a
physical “impact” on whatever is measured, the object is physically dislodged
from where it was and, thus, the limits of measurement are discovered. But it can not be said the object itself
“therefore” or “categorically” does not know with infinite precision what it is
doing, or where it is going. The thing
which makes the object “uncertain” is the measurement, the object without the
measurement obviously exists, only in an unmeasured state. To say otherwise is the same as saying the
object is created by the measurement.
The high priests of quantum mechanics have it backward, put the cart
before the horse. It is not the
classical or analog which vanishes, it is the quantum which vanishes beyond a
certain, finite limit. Unlimited
accuracy is a classical concept and it exists everywhere in the universe at all
times, except when by definition finite instruments intrude and digitize analog
data. As the number of decimal places
increases beyond the bright line, beyond the limit imposed by uncertainty, so a
rounding error must be introduced, but, in reality of course, the Universe does
not do this, only the physicists do this for their convenience. Otherwise, obviously, “calculations required
to find out whether or not there were any infinities left uncanceled were so
long and difficult ... no one was prepared to undertake them. Even with a computer, it was reckoned it
would take at least four years.” To get
to within a certain finite limit of very precise accuracy requires rudimentary
calculus, let’s say the limit is 99.9999%.
To proceed and calculate the remaining 0.0001% requires not “four years”
but, most likely, and eternity.
Correctly, physics admits it can go no further, but it is hyperbole to
then allege “particles as having not substance but [only] mathematical form.” Physicality does not stop at the bright line
just because Heisenberg said so, in fact, even what is alleged can not be
performed, not even the “mathematical form,” without substance’s interference,
can be calculated as “no one is prepared to undertake” the lengthy, difficult
calculations. Physics stops at the
bright line, not physicality, but physicists believe the opposite: they believe physicality stops with physics,
things exist which are virtual, which “cannot be physical,” even as Guth
alleges vacuum is a “physical system” because the uncertainties are
superimposed on the vacuum.
“Suddenly I
realised ... I was no longer driving the car consciously. I was kind of driving by instinct, only I was
in a different dimension. I was way over
the limit, but still I was able to find even more. It frightened me because I realised I was
well beyond my conscious understanding.”
This account should not be discounted and, in fact, it may be an
instance when a mind stepped across the bright line, transcending digital or
quantum understanding into a strictly analog understanding where only the
physicality is visible. Arguably, at
this point, for a few minutes, Senna was doing the impossible
calculations, the many years of training permitted him to discard
uncertainty: “I was able to find even
more.” Senna’s digitally based body soon
exited the state of strict analog physicality:
“It frightened me because I realised I was well beyond my conscious
[digital] understanding.” On one side of
the bright line are the objects physics can manipulate, the “canonically conjugate
variables, or operators,” and on the other side only smooth seamless
uninterruptible dynamics exist, only a wave function without items or particles
exists. Senna’s mind saw, for a few
moments, only the information as an uninterrupted wave, no longer saw the
information carrying digits or the particle aspect of photons. This was not “mathematical form,” this was
physicality, substance, Senna’s account of how or why, however inarticulate,
should not be discounted, the proof is the lap times, as is the physicality of
the clock, the car’s motion on the track, the driver. Substance, physicality was not, as Heisenberg
would have it, reduced to mathematical form, to the contrary, only the digital
uncertainty created by the quantum operators vanished. “I was in a different dimension” permitting
the driver to be “way over the limit” and “able to find even more” speed around
the track. Arguably, something happened which permitted
Senna to be more accurate (faster) around the track than his previous experiences,
at least in theory, this something, if carried to infinite precision, may contain the potential to achieve unlimited accuracy. The
irrefutable indicator is the lap time around the track. Clearly, the physicality of the track did not
change one millimeter, neither did the clock’s.
What changed was the driver’s perception of the physical possibilities
available to him, placing him “way over the limit.” These new possibilities he described as a
being “in a different dimension,” as being in a place hitherto unexperienced as
a driver driving for many years of racing at the limit. The
limits he knew up to this time were broken, obliterated, he found a new limit,
a new dimension of what is possible in terms of speed around the track, and
then was able to “find even more,” meaning even more physical, more
substantial, more in tune with what was possible, not less. The bright line is between the 99.9999% and
the 0.0001%, and it seems Senna during these few laps entered the 0.0001%,
traversed from a place where precision is limited by canonical quantum
operators (particles with fixed, finite decimal points) across the bright line
to a singularly “certain” place where particles with fixed, finite decimal
points are excluded, where the real physicality of the Universe exists and is
continually computed to an infinite number of decimal points, to unlimited
accuracy.
To live some amount of abstraction must be
accepted. Arguendo, DNA is natural abstraction, is the language of
nature. What is the causal connection,
if any, between nature’s language (DNA) and the languages emanating from human
brains? Some connection must be alleged
since no other species are permitted by their DNA to speak, read or write. But there is more. As language DNA is as minimally abstract as
possible while human brains invent fully abstract languages containing no
physicality, substance or contact with anything tangible or concrete. Homo
Sapiens DNA not only permits language in the human brain, it permits
languageness, i.e., anything which
acts as a language whether it has any connection to physical reality or
not. The ability to say literally
anything is seemingly a natural ability encoded into the human brain. This is the reason Guth can write “roughly
speaking, anything [physical] can
happen in a vacuum [because vacuum is a “physical system” which obeys quantum
uncertainties], although the probability for a digital watch to materialize is
absurdly small.” Guth is a serious
scientist, he would not write this unless he had some basis in fact, even if
ultimately the fact is proved to not exist.
This statement is as extreme as it gets with physicality at least
minimally involved. Guth can be given
the benefit of the doubt even if no one has ever seen a digital watch
materialize, some version of mathematics is on Guth’s side even if he can not
for real compute how small is the probability.
A step beyond this tenuously physical statement is a category of
statements which by their own admission have zero ties to physicality. Notably, Guth did not say Santa Claus would
materialize, or an amoeba would materialize, or an analog turntable playing the Ninth
Symphony would materialize. He could not
go as far as to aver a digital watch connected to a telephone network, ready to
use, would materialize. By definition
physicality can not penetrate the quantum of action, a more precise physicality
is an impossibility. Any computation of
probability must incorporate the physical limits imposed by the quantum of
action, if it does not then arguably the probability estimate is beyond physics,
is metaphysical, is an abstraction devoid of any substance, meaning it is an
abstraction “by itself.” This type of
action is automatic for the human brain, it is normal and presents no
problems. Language puts no limits on the
human brain’s ability to say anything
making this ability exhibit 1 in demonstrating the human brain is causally
disconnected from physicality. Santa
Claus lives at the North Pole (why not the South Pole?), has thousands of elves
working for him and on a single night Santa Claus climbs down literally
millions of chimneys to deliver gifts to deserving children whose letters he
has “checked twice.” This story has made
it to the national news networks where serious commentators attempted to
compute the actual miles Santa Claus must travel in about a 6-8 hour
period. Any tenuous tie to physicality
granted to Dr. Guth’s brain farts vanishes with this story. There is a class or category of events which
can never happen, for which the probability is zero, but, of course, not inside
the human brain where literally anything can “happen.” In the vernacular used here, this class of
events is devoid of any materiality or substance yet the human brain can fully
understand, comprehend them as if they were reality. The Santa Claus story is not unintelligible,
to the contrary, any child can understand it.
Where exactly is this understanding?
Even if it is tied to some physicality in the brain this physicality
must be shown to be the cause of the understanding. Thus, while the physical brain may deliver
the story to understanding it can not be shown the physical brain acts as a
gatekeeper to keep out of the brain the class of deliverables the probability
of which existing as physicalities is zero.
Clearly, no argument can be made to prove the understanding itself is a
gatekeeper. The human brain is DNA
programmed to naturally understand any language based story no matter how
“absurdly small” its probability. To
live some amount of abstraction must be accepted, the human brain could not
exist otherwise, and the brain is built in such a way as to have the ability to, in
essence, “go all the way,” to take a partially abstract event and distil it to
a level of 100% purity, removing from it all physicality all the while never
losing any understanding or comprehension of what it is doing. Somewhere in the brain this is “happening”
and it is a ubiquitous skill all brains perform automatically, even given a
modest vocabulary. The ability to take a
set of facts and make a pure, 100% abstract allegory out of them seems to be
hard wired into every human brain. A
possibility exists: the part of DNA
enabling this skill may itself have evolved beyond any physicality, may be 100%
abstract and is thus inexorably and automatically delivering to humans a 100%
abstract mentality wholly separated from physicality, leaving it 100% up to
the freedom of choice to utilize it or not.
By the time something becomes processable
information it must by definition contain at least a tiny bit of
abstraction. Abstraction creation, thus,
is elementary to understanding the moment when substance attains some modicum
of form. Without form there is no information,
there is only pure substance.
Informationalization is the process by which form is attached to
substance. Why does form exist at
all? Arguably, this sentence is
true: two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen
atom combine to form a water molecule, but this is formation, not
information. The atomic combination is a
process but it generates no information because the process is purely
substantive, it contains no abstraction.
The question, thus, must be modified:
why does abstraction exist at all?
Arguably, DNA is the “mother” of all abstractions. The codon’s only job is to be a
representative for an amino acid and as such the codon is not only a
substantive molecular configuration, it is also a source of information, it
informs, it does double duty but, of course, only inside a special context,
nowhere else. The inanimate cosmos knows the codon only as substance, as a configuration of atoms, it does not know one codon from the next in terms of the information is carries. Only inside the cell does the
codon take on a dual role, and, in fact, its primary role is to be informative. Only inside the cell do processes exist by
which the information coded on the codon is detected and utilized. For a reason yet to be fully understood the
twenty amino acids are assemblable into a virtual infinite variety of proteins
giving rise to an almost infinite variety of cell types. Clearly, the cell has many biological
functions and one of the most important ones is to be a protein building
factory. There can be little
argument: life is impossible without
protein, it makes sense, thus, for there to be a language of protein assembly,
especially since only twenty amino acids need to be informationally identified. The four letters, A C G T,
can be formed into sixty-four three letter words or codons. This may be the most efficient
arrangement. The number of letters must
be even, not odd, with two letters the words would have to be five characters
long to cover the number twenty, while with six letters the words would only
have to be two letters long. But,
perhaps, the number of letters must be a multiple of four, not merely an even
number, it may have something to do with the carbon atom being central to all
life. A red blood cell has no DNA, no
nucleus containing genetic information, presumably because during its 90 day service
life it has no need to build proteins and because it does not duplicate itself. A neuron, even as it normally does not
duplicate itself, contains a nucleus because during its potentially 100 year service life it builds
proteins. The point: no cell is “immortal.” Every cell has only two choices: do the cell cycle or perform apoptosis, i.e., controlled cell death. A mother cell either splits into two daughter
cells or it dies, stops being a cell, and the information contained in it
vanishes with it, the abstraction ceases to exist. Only when an organism accesses the data,
information, abstraction coded onto its DNA molecule, only then is the action
not purely substantive. The DNA data is
moved to the assembly area, the protein is built and released into general
use. At this point abstraction ends,
only pure substance remains, no other parts of a cell know they are dealing
with a protein built on the basis of abstraction, the protein itself is not
abstract, is not a “code” or “information.”
An exception exists. A body made
of trillions of cells has a need to coordinate cell action and, thus, in addition
to the information coded on DNA, cells “talk” or send information to each
other. Cell A must wait, not do its
thing until it receives a signal from cell B to go ahead. The limbic system is thought to be a body
wide signal distribution system. Another
is a neural system by which the brain is able to command voluntary muscles to
run, to vocalize, to move the eyes, etc.
A human being may be able to hold his breath until he passes out at
which time he resumes breathing due to the action of a neural system
controlling the involuntary muscles. On
the other hand, human beings do not have an ability to stop the heartbeat in a
similar manner. In the same way, once
the food is voluntarily eaten, the internal organs do their job involuntarily,
without “will” from the brain. An
athlete who works out on a daily basis controls protein expression, indirectly directing the body to go faster or be stronger. Will controls training and training forces
cells to adapt, to build more robust expressions of muscle proteins. Will also has access to the realm of infinite
abstractions, one of which is the world record in the 100m dash. If the abstraction is taught at an early enough
age and if the will is “willing,” the young athlete may have sufficient time to
train hard enough to set a new record.
To set the distance at 100m is pure form, perfectly substanceless. By definition, any number could have been
used, thus, the decision to use 100m is purely arbitrary and, thus, purely
abstract. Will has access to pure form,
to pure abstraction, to perfectly arbitrary action. The realm of infinite abstractions, pure
forms is devoid of any substance and will has access to it. How is this possible? By what acts is from pure substance a world
of pure form constructed? Planck proved
mathematically the smallest act is the quantum of action. Will’s access to abstractions must be smaller
still. Pure form occupies no space and
no time, it is less than infinitesimal, otherwise it would not be pure form, it
would be an amalgam of form and substance, and substance must occupy at least
space, if not time. When a photon penetrates
a black hole’s event horizon and this increases its radius by a minimal Planck
amount it means a photon occupies space, but does the photon occupy time since it is
thought to be timeless, thought not to experience time? The will’s unstoppability, thus, is placed
under scrutiny. If the will does not
have pure access to the realm of infinite abstractions, if there are any limits
to access, then the will is not substanceless, is stoppable and is not
absolutely free to find, access any abstraction, is not free to be perfectly
arbitrary. Then, of course, the will
must occupy some amount of measurable space, it must not be less than the
minimum quantum of action, it then must not only be a quality, it must also be
quantifiable. Then there must be a
“place” where will “resides,” and if it moves then it must move from place to
place, measurably, observably, it no longer can be the ghost in the machine,
occupying everything and nothing at the same time. The “I” then becomes as corporeal as a cell is
or as a water molecule is, its uniqueness no longer possible as it must be a
duplicate of some other, previous “I.”
The symbiosis evidenced by cogito
ergo sum vanishes as a reality, pure form is no longer a possibility
because the realm of infinite abstractions is no longer accessible by a perfect, pure substanceless will. A form can no longer be arbitrarily assigned
by a perfectly free will to a phenomenon or a substance. The act of symbol assignment is at least partially controlled by
something other than the will housed in an absolutely free mind.
