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.
