Max Planck, the father of quantum physics, once commented, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that are familiar with it."
Later, and by no coincidence, in the early 60's, Thomas Kuhn's book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" came out. In it, he explains that science progresses through paradigm shifts, not linearly. The notion of scientific truth cannot be established by objective criteria, but is defined by the consensus of a scientific community. Competing paradigms are "incommensurable," that is, they have irreconcilable accounts of reality. Not unlike my blog fixation of late, the absolute contradiction between seemingly everything in party platforms of the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S.
As far back as 1961, a dude named Leon Lederman was doing experiments with neutrinos. The neutrino is highly theoretical. No mass, no real properties, no charge, no radius, it almost doesn't exist at all. Highly "elusive." But Lederman's research provided the cornerstone for what became known in the 70's as the standard model for particle physics. Those efforts were recognized 27 years later with a Nobel Prize. What had taken so long? Nothing had changed the science, it was the scientific community that had changed. The paradigm change, not the science, is what won him the Nobel Prize. We'll come back to Lederman.
The Standard Model describes 3 of Nature's 4 forces: electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. In electromagnetism, particles react with photons, which are bits of electromagnetic radiation. Science has long considered electromagnetism to be quite well understood, but back in the days when it was not, there was controversy. My favourite part of this controversy was the Tesla vs. Einstein battle. You see, the general theory of relativity is essential to electromagnetism's neat fit into the Standard Model, which could be viewed as the modern scientific paradigm. It is all explained in the beginning of this article.
What isn't explained, or very well known, was an experiment that is easily replicable, shows that light going against and with the earth's rotation travels at noticeably different rates, seeming to show that the speed of light is absolutely NOT independent of the direction of its source, which was what Einstein's theory posited. There are stories of Tesla demonstrating this experiment to Einstein, even stories of Einstein speaking about the incident and declaring that his theory was in doubt, but neither gets a lot of publicity. Why? They don't fit the popular paradigm.
The explanation, or theory as to why the speeds of light beams differed in speed when travelling in opposite directions, involved the Ether. What was the Ether? Well, read this definition carefully. Remember it. There's a video coming soon that will sound awfully familiar.
Ether, also spelled aether, also called luminiferous ether, in physics, a theoretical universal substance believed during the 19th century to act as the medium for transmission of electromagnetic waves (e.g., light and X-rays), much as sound waves are transmitted by elastic media such as air. The ether was assumed to be weightless, transparent, frictionless, undetectable chemically or physically, and literally permeating all matter and space. The theory met with increasing difficulties as the nature of light and the structure of matter became better understood. It was seriously weakened (1887) by the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was designed specifically to detect the motion of Earth through the ether and which showed that there was no such effect.
The Michelson-Morley experiment didn't measure light going in opposite directions, but perpendicular directions, therefore, the motion of the earth did not come into effect. This supported Einstein's theory of relativity, it supported the Standard Model and it fit into the popular paradigm of the time.
Here's a big however, however, as recently as 2012, the experiment that Tesla had shown Einstein, was replicated by a guy named Doug Marett. Guess what he found. Normally you would have to guess because I dare say nobody has ever heard of Doug Marett. His work received little publicity being outside the popular paradigm. So, although "Nature" magazine is quoted, I'm not giving you an article from any well respected sciency publication, but Forbes Magazine. Here you go. Good thing for Forbes or I probably wouldn't be able to produce any replication of that study.
As pointed out in the article, this may not disprove the special theory of relativity, but I think if we were objective and unbiased, we'd have to agree that this bears further investigation and experimentation. But it won't get it because... you guessed it, it doesn't fit the current paradigm. Back in his day, Tesla was ignored and dismissed by some as a whackjob who wasn't smart enough to understand modern science. But who was smarter than Tesla? Nobody! The difference between him and others in the scientific community that questioned him may have come from the fact he'd only had 2 years of formal university education, which allowed him to think outside the paradigm, or, think creatively at all. His comment in an interview when he was, I think, 79 years old, was poignant.
"The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles, and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysacists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions have been proved."
As mentioned in last post, Tesla believed that if science were to investigate the non-physical, like the Ether, it would advance in a decade further than all the centuries before. But at the very heart of the modern paradigm is the secularization of science, an absolute dismissal, denial, even fear of the abstract, spiritual, infinite, etc. that is associated with faith in a divine or theological entity. As we'll see, a lot of theory that requires identical faith, though not in a god, but in highly theoretical, highly jargonized, highly complex explanations of simple things, is roundly accepted by the current scientific paradigm. Tesla, and I believe this has detracted from science. I mentioned that a couple of posts back as well, but let's get into some forinstances.
In a similar way to particles interacting with photons in electromagnetism, weak force describes how W and Z particles interact with electrons, quarks, neutrinos etc. We are told that photons have no mass, whereas W and Z have huge masses. They are some of the most massive particles known. The concept of mass raises inconsistencies with the Standard Model. To address these inconsistencies, physicists postulated that the Standard Model was incomplete.
Let me back up a bit so that I can explain this more bluntly. Elementary particles, such as those listed above, are the building blocks of the world around us. The Standard Model is based on the interactions of these particles, and also fields and symmetries that explain all things. Nicely and neatly. With just one problem: the math behind this model forbids elementary particles from having any mass. "Incomplete" was the scientific euphemism used to explain the situation whereby something the scientific community wanted (desperately needed) to be scientific, had been scientifically proven to be UNscientific. WRONG to the layman. In 1964 some decidedly unscientific science began to happen.
I remember reading an article online about the mathematician who first calculated this equation that was the potential demise of so many years of work for so many scientists. Would people have to give back Nobel Prizes? How could everything their research was based on be wr - wr-wr - wro ...? They couldn't even say it. But math is the king of all science. Math is at the base of the scientific pyramid outlined in Leon Lederman's book about the God Particle. He says it's because all scientists defer to mathematicians. In his words, "physicists defer only to the mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God (though you may be hard pressed to find a mathematician that modest)
I wish I could tell you his name. Or even show you that article. But, the day after I had read it, the article disappeared and I have never been able to find it since. Once again, it doesn't fit into the current scientific paradigm, so it's as elusive as God or the God particle. It mighta been Godel with the two dots over the o, or one of the members of the French Bourbeki group. I'm not sure, but we can be sure that in 1964, because of this disastrous news in the scientific community, some bass ackwards science started becoming a very useful part of the paradigm.
Any experimental scientist worth his weight in primordial sludge could tell you that the most important rule of science, the highest of all considerations is objectivity. Remove bias at all costs. If you start any experimentation with an ultimate goal in mind, you are defeated before you begin. Clear bias is established and objectivity is lost. Start at the beginning, not the end. Well, scientists all over the world had been told about the mathematical doomsday equation and were given personal homework assignments. Not in scientific experimentation, but in creativity. They had to come up with a believable way to explain how something without mass, could have mass. Literally, start at the end and work your way to the beginning. The reverse of good science.
Three groups of physicists almost simultaneously released papers on "spontaneous symmetry breaking." The totally theoretical concept of the "Higgs mechanism." In short, a way for something without mass to gain mass. Yes, they were told to make science where science did not exist, make something from nothing, this was both the assignment and the science. The exact concept they had been rejecting when the concept of God arose, "wrap it in purple clothes, call it science and ram it down the throats of a new generation of scientists until it is no longer questioned."
I believe the scientific community made a huge mistake that will someday be exposed by people more influential than I. That mistake being the recruitment of scientists for a job much better suited to science fiction writers. I feel almost certain that Isaac Asimov and Ray Bradbury could have come up with something infinitely more plausible, and probably more scientific than the eventual winners of the contest, Higgs and Bose. But before we get to them, and how most people know of them, and accept their Nobel Prize winning ideas, (I contend that most wouldn't if they looked a little closer) there are a few scientific Easter Eggs in their work that almost make me think they WANT to be exposed. But first, before you think I'm creating a conspiracy here, I have another article for you.
Here's a dandy by Charlie Wood, fittingly published in Quanta Magazine. "How Mathematical Hocus Pocus Saved Particle Physics." It's an article about something called "renormalization," which is a "hopes and prayers" technique that carefully concealed infinite quantities in order to deal with the change in physics from the study of particles to the study of fields. Richard Feynman called renormalization "a dippy process." "During renormalization, complicated submicroscopic capers tend to just disappear. They may be real, but they don’t affect the big picture. “Simplicity is a virtue,” Fendley said. “There is a god in this.”
If you think back to a couple of posts ago once again, there was a point in the sciency panel conversation at which I said that Neil deGrasse Tyson blundered his way out of submitting to an infinite number of smaller and smaller particles stating that we just don't have the ability to see them or photograph them. That'd be yer renormalization right there. Still being practiced.
Another example is at the atomic level where motion of atoms has been observed, many, including (believe it or not) Darwin have believed in a higher entity that set the universe and its laws into motion. This entity (being the capital letter N you almost always see when he uses the term "Nature" or "Natural Selection" in his "Origin.") saves his term, "Natural Selection" from being an oxymoron, but that has been ignored, suppressed or misunderstood by the majority of science. As for the motion of atoms, well, as Lederman says, "Motion was simply a given." Richard Dawkins once asked where the matter that swirled into the Big Bang came from. For that matter, where did the swirling come from? His response was a dismissive, "We're working on that." This rather than the Ether, or God, or a Prime Mover. An indelicate choice if you ask me. But maybe Higgs and Bose can come to the rescue.
Let's start with Bose. Not Jaydish Chandra Bose, whose face is featured on the 50 pound note of England and who was besides a large contributor to the scientific community in India, a WRITER of science fiction. Hence, I think he would have been a better choice, along with Asimov and Bradbury. But, no, not him.
Satyendra Nath Bose worked with Einstein in studying a class of particles that obey certain statistics. They were named after him. Bosons. What statistics did they obey you ask? Well the most interesting is probably "spin." Spin, doesn't mean spin as we might understand it. I'd like to say here that the more modern definition of spin applies, as in politics when one knowingly provides a biased interpretation of something, but I don't want to colour your reading with my opinion. Oh dear me! Look what I've done! I've been all scientific and already done that! Tsk tsk tsk. Here's a video that won't make the meaning of "spin" in the boson sense, much clearer at all:
Sooooo... if you didn't watch the vid, brace yourself. Spin is what makes particles act like magnets. Relativity, standard method, and science demands its existence, but we don't know what the hell it is. That's right, that's what the conclusion of this video was. The young narrator goes on to say, "Maybe there are some properties of physics that we can never understand and maybe spin is one of them." Note that in the beginning of the video, the young narrator says she will explain how we KNOW spin exists, but we can't explain it. She didn't explain how we know it exists at all but I think that's one thing (maybe the only thing) about spin I understand. Let me refer you back to the quotes at the very beginning of this blog post. She's the younger generation who has been told something that will eventually be accepted not because it's known, but because its challengers are all dead.
Another of the characteristics of the boson is that, unlike a fermion, there is no limit to the number of bosons that can occupy the same quantum state or place in space. This, I believe to be, the most literary characteristic of it. And a good addition to its story. Obviously, if it has no mass, an infinite amount of these particles could fill an infinitely small amount of space. A lot of the oft avoided infinity talk in this one tiny particle...
For this little bit of science fiction, the wrong Nobel Prize was awarded to be sure. It's not science, it's literature and I'm sure many could do better than its authors. He got the Nobel Prize because his boson fit the prevailing paradigm, in fact was absolutely necessary for it. So I'm sure Bose won't be returning his Nobel Prize or the million bucks it came with. And his was the less important LESS theoretical of the two-part explanation as to how something with no mass can have mass. Let's move on to our second savior of the scientific community in 1964, Pete Higgs.
Like the boson, symmetry breaking is a process we "know" exists, but we can't explain. An auspicious place to start! Electro Weak Symmetry Breaking, EWSB, is considered proven and believed responsible for the mass of fundamental particles, but ask even Peter Higgs to explain it and you'll get analogies and story telling. Not quite as good as Lederman's alien soccer, but we'll get to that at the climax. Here's another video to explain the Higgs Field. Think back to that description of the Ether I gave you, maybe re-read it before you watch.
Oh look at that! Another scientific CONTEST. Explain the Higgs field. Anybody else picturing a couple of tailors trying to sell us a suit of highly fashionable invisible clothes here? If we don't believe these non-explanations, why, we're just not up on our physics. Possibly not smart enough. Tell me how smart this sounds: The Higgs field is everywhere. It's infinite! What the hell, bro? Weren't we just trying to avoid infinity a few seconds ago? Yeah I know but you just have to trust me on this, it's infinite. So what happens, see, is the boson has no mass, it doesn't exist, but it's moving through space and as it passes through the Higgs field it pops into existence, gains mass for about 9 one hundred thousandths of a second, then pops out of existence again. But it leaves residual matter that we can't identify, but assume is remnants of the Higgs field that was the result of the explosion created by smashing two theoretical particles together at high speed.
Now do you see why we needed Asimov and Bradbury? Or maybe just the other Bose. First of all, how do you know the boson is there if it has no mass? It exists but it doesn't exist. Trust me. Okay, how do you know it's moving? Same answer. Trust me. Okay, how did it start moving? Motion is a given. Trust me. Okay, if the Higgs field is infinite and everywhere, how can it be passed through? Uh, we're certain of that because of the boson popping into existence? You don't sound too sure. Okay, uh, it's a lattice. Okay, one more question - but in several parts: 1. A particle has no mass, and no energy - without motion, it would not exist, correct? So while you're somehow measuring the motion of a non-existent God particle (and remember, no measure of a non-existent God has ever been allowed by science) is it the passing into existence or the passing back out of existence that you feel will necessarily, even though you have a highly theoretical particle and a highly theoretical field, leave a telltale remnant that can be assumed to be evidence of the Higgs field? Part two: How do you not know that the new particle you assumed to be evidence of the Higgs field is not actually a new stage in the infinitely reducible nature of all particles. Part three: Isn't the smashing of a particle into other particles more likely to result in a smaller particle and not evidence of some infinite field that that particle must inhabit constantly? And since God doesn't exist scientifically because of His lack of mass, how can you be certain that the new particle you have discovered isn't evidence of the mass of God, or, indeed, God Himself, something you desperately don't want? Why is it assumed to be the evidence of the Higgs field, something you desperately NEED?
I didn't make any of that up. Yet people will try to tell you with a straight face that the Higgs Boson has been discovered. They'll take offense when you call it the God particle, but shouldn't because it is just as, or more, highly elusive to prove. They'll tell you it was discovered in 2012, but it wasn't. They'll tell you it was confirmed in March of 2013, but it wasn't. Not the way science is supposed to confirm things anyway. But this is the new science. The current paradigm chooses theories that they wish to express as facts and then just goes ahead and does so without rigorous testing or evidence. Then they create stories for the public to convince us. Perhaps the best of which was Leon Lederman's alien soccer game. I think the Higgs boson will eventually fall out of fashion by the method outlined in Lederman's book. He wrote, "A new particle is predicted when a synthesis of existing data by a perceptive theorist SEEMS to demand its existence. More often than not, it doesn't exist, and that particular theory suffers. Whether it succumbs or not depends on the resilience of the theorist."
The resilience of the God particle theorists is admirable. Thomas Huxley once said that "The great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by and ugly fact." The God particle theorists have kept those ugly facts from surfacing and have placated the masses with "proof" of its existence like the following:
Imagine an intelligent race of being from the planet Twilo. They're basically like us except for one thing: they are unable to see black or white. A contingent of Twiloans comes to Earth on a goodwill mission and are taken to the most popular social even on Earth, a World Cup Soccer match. They watch with polite, but confused looks on their faces. They can't see the ball so they are perplexed by the motions of the players, referee, and fans. They study the players and their motions, make charts, graphs, and rules. They deduce symmetry in that there are mirror players for each player on a team. Then one Twiloan postulates the existence of an invisible ball. His postulation was formed upon noticing a hemispherical bulge in the net moments before the referee declared each new score. The supposition of a ball fits with all of their observations, rules and theories. They conclude there MUST be a ball.
If you consider all of the observations, rules and theories of science and nature, I think this is a gym dandy analogy for God! For something so highly theoretical as the Higgs boson, not so much. But I certainly wouldn't consider it PROOF or declare that the soccer ball or God was discovered absent any concrete data. And that, for both, I am fairly certain we don't have. What's more, I doubt we ever will. But I'm okay with that. I don't need to believe that I understand everything.
I find it fascinating and endlessly entertaining conversation to philosophize and theorize about this sort of thing, as well as other folks' theories about this sort of thing! Why, for instance, is it so easy for people to accept the Higgs field hypothesis, for which there is virtually no experimental data, awarding it prizes, honours and money, yet reject the earlier hypothesis of the Ether and give it no credence even though there is at least one legitimate experiment that makes it seem more plausible than the Higgs field?
I won't even mention the concept of strong bonds, the 3rd part of the standard model we didn't get into. But I know someone, a guy who is an incredibly productive writer for the science department of Forbes Magazine, Ethan Siegel, who will! It's about string theory, something a little more current. Read this article if it's the only one on this post you read. The first paragraph tells you that it requires a lot of assumptions that are not supported by one iota of scientific evidence. Again, don't trust me if you think (and you'd be right if you did) that I'm a conspiracy theorist, trust people who know more about this stuff than I ever will.
The good old Yang-Mills Theory! I recall getting into it, perhaps on this blog, many moons ago. I didn't support it then when it was en vogue, and I don't support it now. Super symmetry. Again, it sounds more like science fiction than science. Each particle has a similar, but more super, superpartner particle? Please! Am I at all surprised that exactly zero have been discovered?
Compactification seems to be another "hand-waving" idea that compels scientists to ignore certain difficult parts of science, much like renormalization.
Why is string theory so attractive? Do I need to say it again? It is the perfect fit for the current paradigm.
So for any of you who read my post a couple posts ago in which I talked about a drunken conversation with a co-worker after both losing our jobs, I got into this a little bit. But, as always, I felt it behooved me to elabourate on the scant details. This'll give even the most intellectual of my readers food for thought. I can't see how this current paradigm can survive much longer. It seems to be losing support, and conversely, a more spiritual, non-physical paradigm might be evolving. We can only hope. I think it would be great for the world!
Updating my scientific view of the world and including some of the info I've availed myself of over the year, is something I tend to do around this time. One other thing I tend to do is talk about the World Jr. Hockey Championships, mostly because it is a decidedly lighter topic than the heavily intellectual science and philosophy you see in this post, and it's more fun. That'll likely be my next post. See you then!
No comments:
Post a Comment