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.[2] 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.
[1] See, e.g.,
“iron spike.”
[2] From A
Brief History of Time (Hawking, 1988):
“A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of
observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary
elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future
observations.” [p. 9].
No comments:
Post a Comment