20 February, 2018

The Quantum





THE QUANTUM

Is it intrinsic or caused?


The whole basis of the Quantum Revolution in modern Sub Atomic Physics is that the Quantum of electromagnetic energy is intrinsic to the Nature of Reality, so that all theories have to be modified to build this requirement into them.

But, could it be that there is a purely physical explanation for energy being cast into, and thereafter maintained as such descrete forms?

This might seem almost sacrilegious to literally all modern physicists, but a purely theoretical investigation into the effect of a totally undetectable, but both affected-and-affecting Universal Substrate, has questioned that assumption, by finding physical ways that such energy might have a Quantum Nature imposed upon it - especially as the very same nature would, thereafter, in its normal means of propagation, be rigidly maintained.

There was, of course, another good reason for embarking upon such an investigation, which was clearly that this theorist was unhappy with the anomalous results of the New Theory, especially in the whole series of Double Slit Experiments, which had become cornerstones of the Quantum Revolution, and had, in addition, also led to the dumping of Physical Explanations entirely, for a wholly formal mathematical description as being "more reliable", and still allowing prediction and reproducible phenomena.

As far as this physicist was concerned, however, the real heart of Physics was in its explanatory power, rather than its reliable formal predictability, so he embarked upon this exercise to also investigate all possible avenues for such an alternative to be available. And the Double Slit Experiments with their supposed "Wave/Particle Duality" cried out for a substrate-based solution.

But, there was no discernable Substrate! 

Clearly, if one existed, it would have to be totally undetectable, while also effectively functioning as a propagator of Electromagnetic Radiation. Whatever it was composed-of would have to be self-hiding while entirely capable of carrying quanta of electromagnetic energy.

It could only be a joint-particle, of the same basic model as the atom but composed of sub-units - opposite in every possible way, but capable of carrying energy also hidden within it. The obvious theoretical candidate had to be a mutually-orbiting pair consisting of:-

An Electron of ordinary matter and a negative charge

+

A Positron of antimatter and a positive charge.

These, being of the same size, they would share the same orbit, but always occupying the exact opposite positions within it.

Such a joint particle would be invisible, but could carry a quantum of energy by the promotion of its internal orbit!

But, why should that carried energy be only as a Quantum?

The answer to that question is also answered by this new particle, but only revealed in its crucial role as part of a Universal Substrate. So, before we go any further we should establish just how this joint, neutral particle could possibly form an effectible and affecting Substrate.

It doesn't seem possible for such a neutral particle to be capable of forming any kind of "connected-Substrate", but investigation of these particles, in very-close proximity to one snother, has shown, theoretically-at-least, that they can.

For, when very close together, the sub-particles of one such unit will transiently be able to affect those of another. Indeed, as the sub-particles orbit they will cause an oscillating attraction and repulsion affect upon the two involved overall Units. And, the consequence would be that units - getting close enough, would be captured into a loosely-connected form, termed a Paving! And, all participating units would oscillate about mean positions at fixed separations of all the units involved. This would make a bucket-brigade propagation of quanta possible at a fixed speed - the Speed of Light - "C".

Now, for those impatiently awaiting the Creation of the Quanta, we are finally approaching the point where an explanation can ultimately be delivered.

It concerns the various possible modes of the Paving! For, though the form described above will be the default mode of the Substrate Units in quiescent regions, it can very easily be dissociated into its components Units, which in the consequent free-moving form are usually termed Photons.

And, the same material interlopers that precipitated such a dissociation will also tend to drive them into Streams and even Vortices. And though those these modes will be usually temporary, there is one set of circumstances in which that will not be the case.

It is that inside all atoms! For there, the dissociating cause is an orbiting electron, which will constantly return, and re-affect the photons and the caused Vortices in every single orbit. The energy will come from the orbiting electron and into the photons and Vortices, but the orbit will decline somewhat, so that upon a certain orbit, the energy will be FROM the photons and Vortices and BACK into the orbiting electron.

And there will be only a small number of optimum orbits, which display a persisting balance, so become Stable: these are the Quantised Orbits for that atom! 





And hence, all transfers of energy changing these orbits will always be between that atom's stable orbits!

It is only in atoms where the specific quanta of energy are determined!

Issue 57: Natural Philosophy?






“What is Reality? Who is interpreting it? And how are they managing that?”

This series of papers by philosopher Jim Schofield takes a fresh epistemological look at modern science and offers a strong critique of contemporary theory and practice, from a staunchly materialist standing.

It does so both through a dialectical examination of the discipline’s assumed premises and their historical origins in early philosophy, and through close criticism of a series of lectures by prominent theoretical physicist Nima Arkani-Hamed.


19 February, 2018

The Photon




The Photon


Pure Energy Quantum or Undetectable Container?
Purely Formal Description or Material Explanation?


Clearly, such paradoxes, as appear in the subtitles of this paper, reflect the now universally-accepted, paradoxical properties of this crucial entity. For, current theories, based upon the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory insist upon such paradoxes as being absolutely-essential to the real nature of this entity, and of Sub Atomic Physics in general.

Perhaps the most incongruous of these ideas are the related phenomena of Pair Production and Pair Annihilation! For, in Pair Production, a high-energy Photon suddenly converts from being a Quantum of Pure Energy into TWO material particles - an ordinary matter Electron with a negative charge, and an antimatter Positron with a positive charge.

Clearly, an example of matter being created out of Pure Energy - initially in some non-material, yet finite and localised form, which, then, all by itself, converts into two material particles of "incompatible" matter-types, moving off in exactly opposite directions...

Wow!

So, perhaps the opposite process of Pair Annihilation will help our understanding?

For, in Pair Annihilation, the encounter of an Electron and a Positron, immediately causes the destruction of these two well-defined material entities, in which their physically-based properties, are converted into a Quantum - as a finite, localised concentration of Pure Energy - somehow retaining something of its previous incarnation, but converted into "the possibility" of Electromagnetic Energy, which is traditionally described in terms of two interwoven, varying vectors - one electric and the other magnetic.

"Magic?"

Now, if the reader finds all this somewhat confusing - join the club! For, it was precisely such inexplicable paradoxes which led to the abandonment of the prior Explanatory Physics, to be totally replaced by a purely Descriptive, Mathematical alternative.

For, the new non-explanatory form could still be effectively used! It could predict, in a new way, with remarkable accuracy - and with the still major persistence of Pragmatism, as a long-relied-upon means of getting-around contradictions, physicists found that the prior requirement of also coherently-and-physically explaining phenomena, could be jettisoned for a pure mathematical consistency instead, which, henceforth, replaced Explanation as a sufficient "Theory"!

But, two immediate questions present themselves:-

1. Is such a change philosophically sound?
2. Is there a different physical explanation?

Now, there is an immediate answer to Question 1, which also explains a great deal more than we are considering here. To carry it through with sufficient philosophical rigor would be a significant undertaking. So, the briefest answer will have to suffice here (though a full treatment is available from this theorist elsewhere).

Ever since the breakthroughs of the Ancient Greeks, Mankind has had to manage with an incompatible amalgam of basically contradictory philosophic stances. Indeed, the prior major intellectual stance of Pragmatism was retained, but overlain, first, with Idealism and Plurality (from their invention of Mathematics), and then with Materialism from early observational Science. There was no avoiding inevitable contradictions, and a powerful blinkering to restrict study to exclusively actual or man-made Stabilities, and ignoring qualitative change as being solely due to mere quantitative accumulation. Finally, their development of Formal Logic was also damaged by the very same premise-extractions from Mathematics.

Such a basis was always, and still is, inadequate to the tasks presented to scientists by Development, Evolution and the emerging Nature of Reality at the Sub Atomic Level. The unavoidable contradictions proved just too much, and without a real philosophical solution, they just dropped the "culprit" of Physical Explanation completely.

Now, as to question 2!

There is, in fact, an alternative Physical Explanation, which certainly explains both Pair Production and Pair Annihilation, which I will touch on here. And, when extended beyond these phenomena and involving different components, seems to offer a full refutation to Copenhagen in general.

It involves the combination of an Electron and a Positron into a stable joint particle! 





This is usually discounted due to the universally accepted tenet that matter and antimatter mutually annihilate one another on contact to deliver Pure Energy: but what if they mutually orbit one another instead?

We know it can happen because of the Positronium - a mutually-orbiting pair of precisely these two entities, as was observed in the Tevatron at Fermilab, but in that accelerator, what was produced never survived for long!

The alternative is a sufficiently stable version of that joint particle, which I have re-named the Neutritron.

So what do we get?

It appears to be a very small, wholly neutral particle with no magnetic dipole moment. It will therefore be undetectable in almost all circumstances, but, nevertheless, it is capable of having its internal orbit promoted by absorbing energy. And, if it is then moving freely it appears to us as a physical Photon!

Also, if too much energy is absorbed, it is clear that such an entity will dissociate into its component units - giving us Pair Production too.

Remarkably, this theorist has also established that in spite of its neutrality it can form a weakly-associated Substrate, termed a Paving, for, in very close proximity to one another, two Neutritrons can experience an oscillating attraction and repulsion, due to the effects of the orbiting sub-particles in one affecting those in the other. Indeed, as this only occurs within a small, fixed distance apart, the Paving seems an ideal medium for the propagation of quanta of Electromagnetic Energy, travelling from unit-to-unit in a bucket-brigade fashion, giving us the fixed Speed-of-Light!

Further, investigations have enabled this Theory to explain ALL of the anomalies of the Double Slit Experiments too.



 

Dissociations of the Paving into free-Moving Neutritrons (Photons) has also allowed driven streams of these units and even Vortices, which when associated with orbiting electrons in atoms, can physically explain Quantised Orbits - without the need for Planck's Constant and the rest of the Copenhagen "theories".

[With thanks to Yves Couder for his earlier Walker Experiments, with his revealing of similarly-caused Quantised orbits at the Macro Level in a "Substrate-only" Experiment]



Yves Couder's experiment shows the potential for a physical substrate to explain quantum phenomena


As a postscript, I cannot omit the extension of this Theory to include both Magneton and Graviton units of such a Universal Substrate, which are fast removing all the anomalies of Fields - which become re-arrangements of the Substrate.

17 February, 2018

Quantum Riddles




Robert Spekkens
Critique of Quantum Theory


Let me start by saying what Spekkens doesn't address, not I must emphasize as a criticism of his findings, which are excellent!

But, via criticisms, which I make, at a much more basic philosophical level, of the general approach in thinking since the Greeks, and in Physics Theory, since the victory of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory at Solvay in 1927.

For, my criticisms are concerning the major flaws in the underlying premises of both Mathematics, and Formal Logic, and what they have been doing, and still do today, to what we call Physics Theory.

These I have dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Nevertheless, Spekkens critique of the means used in Quantum Theory does not run counter to the more basic critique I take. His criticisms are confined to Quantum States and Probability Theory, which he correctly equates to only our incomplete knowledge of what is going on, rather than the Nature of what is actually happening in Reality - they are essentially philosophical questions rather than Physics Theory!

Clearly, for the best delivery of Spekkens findings, I can only strongly recommend the watching of his Perimeter Institute Public Lecture on his version of the means used in Quantum Theory, which he likens to "The Riddle of the Sphinx"




Nevertheless, as my intention is to demolish The Copenhagen Interpretation totally, and also, at the more basic level involved, rescue Human Thinking from the simultaeously applied, contradictory amalgam of philosophical stances - namely those of Materialism, Idealism and Pragmatism, particularly with respect to the mistaken Principle of Plurality - I can only say "Congratulations!" to Spekkens, with the rider, "It is not yet enough!"

09 February, 2018

Hudson and Keen: The New Economics


The works of Michael Hudson and Steve Keen are demonstrating the limitations of only looking backwards to Marx's Das Kapital as the sole means of understanding contemporary Capitalist Economics. For, though Marx's contributions were both brilliant and revealing, they did reflect not only Capitalism as it was then, but also Marx's understanding of it at that time, as well as his approach!

For, though, due to his revolutionary Dialectical Materialist philosophical stance, he was able to see things more clearly than all other economists of his time, Capitalism was not, and is not, a fixed and unchanging system: it certainly developed due to its own internal contradictions and its own significant transforming effects it had upon the World. Indeed, already by later in the 19th century, it had so expanded across the World that Lenin had finally to explain its effects in his book Imperialism, and, of course, further, often devastating changes have been frequently unavoidable since then. Clearly, as with all such systems, the nature of Capitalist Economics isn't fixed, but changes due to its own internal developments, and the responses of active participants to maintain, amplify or even safeguard what they are able to extract from it!

So, after the major slump in the 1930's, by the 1970's the crises within Capitalism were changing, which necessitated a remarkable increase in Debt at all levels to delay an ultimate terminal decline. It was, in one sense a return to the old pre-Capitalist rentier methods of accumulation, and rapidly began to replicate the vast Inequalities of wealth of that prior era, and it is this that Hudson and Keen have increasingly addressed over recent years.

Now, Democracy at Work in their Left Out series of YouTube videos have made available revealing interviews with both of these "new economists", while both Hudson and Keen have also written extensively, and also published via YouTube. Clearly, though this marxist philosopher (Jim Schofield) is making original contributions in Marxist Philosophy, especially with regard to Modern Sub Atomic Physics, he must recommend the current contributions of these economists as absolutely vital in the fight to overthrow Capitalism.



22 January, 2018

Ideality: The Promised Land




...or the World where modern Cosmology dwells


Surveying current Cosmology takes us by a well trodden route into a strangely unreal world!

But, it isn’t new to most physicists, either now, or in the past, because they always very easily slipped-sideways out of Reality, and into the much more conducive Parallel World of Pure Form, in their sincere attempts to formulate eternal, Natural Laws of Reality.

It was an alluring and thrilling move, for, on the very first step inside the portal to the new World, everything which had taken them there reappeared, but here with a veritably scintillating beauty! And, it appeared both understandable, yet also literally infinite: It was truly the Promised Land.

And, the reason for this was the settled-upon-ground that clearly promised answers to all the innumerable questions about The Nature of Reality. This assumed ground was that Everything-in-Reality was due entirely to a set of fixed Natural Laws, which added together in various amounts to deliver absolutely everything possible. This was initially just assumed, but later was encapsulted into The Principle of Plurality.

It hadn’t been found immediately, historically, for studying Reality-as-is had long proved both perplexing and difficult, but things gradually changed with Man’s ever increasing control over investigative situations, until finally the state was reached when Reality’s variabilities were finally under such control that the studied situations suddenly focussed remarkably into extractable relations, and this was the Key!

Beyond this door spread the whole world of Pure Form alone - Ideality, and our explorers crossed the threshold into the World of their dreams! Remarkably, this world had been glimpsed long before that point was reached: for it had occurred in Ancient Greece, when simple shapes were idealised, via drawing them, into perfect forms, which, thereafter, proved to be much more amenable to further study, yet close enough to the real versions to be very useful! Indeed Mathematics, as it came to be called, was the first intellectual discipline for Mankind, and set things up for the much later breakthrough into Experimental Science.

So, when the time came, to peer-through that open door, they already knew what they could do there, and didn’t hesitate to enter.

Yet Reality and Ideality are not the same thing at all!

Indeed, the forms that occur in Reality are caused by real physical and other properties and effects: they are consequences of real concrete causes. And to make things even more difficult, many such causes are always acting simultaneously, and holistically - everything can affect everything else, things can evolve - you cannot assume eternal Natural Laws at all.

So, in Reality, causes must be primary, and Form secondary - a symptom.

Also, each Form can be caused by various different confluxes of many possible causes - so finding-a-Form can never explain a phenomenon, it can only describe its observed ‘Shape’! And, crucially, Forms in Reality are variable: it is a holistic realm. While, all the Forms in Ideality are fixed: it is a pluralistic realm. Things in Reality are real, while those in Ideality are Pure Forms and nothing else.





Purely Formal models, such as Equations, do not reliably pertain in Reality: they are distorted simplistically, idealistically and pluralistically, and each one can relate to many different situations. Forms may be universal, but they are never causal.

So, their use in the real world is limited to stable situations and modified, rigidly-maintained artificial domains (technology): while their use in further theory is doomed to eventually deliver multiple impasses.

In watching a lecture at Oxford University by Nima Arkani Hamed upon “Why the Universe is so Big?”, where he seamlessly slipped from considering Sub Atomic Particles to the Universe as a whole, it was clear that he considered that he was using a basis common to that entire range, despite its unfathomable vastness.

And as he went on to discuss the sizes of major constants in his equations, it was clear that to him, they were not arbitrary fixers to bring purely formal equations into line with a tailored part of Reality, but were Universal Constants of Reality itself.

He is, of course a mathematician, and very much an idealist, rather than a pragmatic one. And, his profound reasoning was NOT about Reality, but a deep, deep journey into Ideality as an uncoordinated whole.

And sadly, there is no reason why Ideality should deliver a consistant-and-comprehensive pattern for everything within it. For, as a competant mathematician myself, I am well aware of its formal extensions - into negative numbers, graphical representations, operators, complex numbers and even Quantum Loop Gravity, String Theory and the Multiverse!





So, whilever the investigator can continue to pick out of his bottomless bag of formulae, the right one for a given situation, the lack of unity in the scheme as a whole can be ignored, But, it clearly isn’t, as inferred, the sole basis of everything. How can it be: it is only abstracted Form?

So, Cosmology is not what it purports to be: based upon formal Mathematics, it deals only in concretely- unsubstantiated Form, and cannot be corrected by experiment. And, with a steadfast Pluralist Stance, and fixed-for-ever Natural Laws, it can never address the true holistic richness of Reality.

Indeed, the whole approach is totally ill-equipped to ever address Qualitative Change and Creative Development: it worships Stability, for that is all it can possibly see - the rest falls outside its domains of applicability. As all truly significant developments only occur in relatively brief Emergent Interludes, the engines of change are completely unobservable within each and every prevailing Stability.

Stability is taken as the only reliable situation we can study - things must be still, or we must hold them still. The approach views Reality via a series of ‘stills’, like photographs, any variation is via purely quantitative change only, and delivering no hint of anything other than a mere continuation of the same.

It is locked into a pre-Hegelian, idealistic mode, philosophically, and convinces itself of innovation due to its sophisticated, ever-developing Mathematics and increasingly complex technological applications.

But, from an explanatory view, it is as dead as a duck! We are at a dead end scientifically.


This paper has just been published in the latest Special Issue of SHAPE Journal on The Philosophy of Physics:


Special Issue 56

New Special Issue: The Philosophy of Physics


Lee Smolin and the Philosophy of Physics
Special Issue 56 - The Philosophy of Physics




I’ll get the first controversial statement out of the way: There is no Philosophy of Physics!

At least, not any longer.

Having committed myself to the study of Physics some 60 years ago, I chose it as my specialism at University entirely because, historically, the discipline had always tried to both understand and fully explain reality - I was then presented with a worldwide major retreat from such essential objectives, established mainly by the triumph of Bohr and Heisenberg at Solvay some years before, and the gradual acceptance of their Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, literally everywhere.

It was, of course inevitable, though I couldn’t see it at the time.

The seeds had been set long ago, with our generally pragmatic approach to investigating the physical world, which was only further complicated by the inclusion of Idealism from Mathematics, and of a Plurality underlying all attempts at explaining phenomena.

From its very outset Physics was actually a strange amalgam of Materialism, Idealism and Pragmatism, a distorted reflection of the world which could only prosper while its discoveries could be profitably used. And, the methods of carefully cultivating experimental situations (to make them easier to study), and idealistically mapping pure ideal forms onto studied situations, began to wrest the subject from its explanatory role, from ‘Natural Philosophy’, and into that of mere technological implementation.

In the end, the old explanations began to fail, and were abandoned for the seeking of equations. Attempts to truly understand reality were jettisoned, and what had been Physics greatest asset was lost.

I am convinced that quantum mechanics is not a final theory. I believe this because I have never encountered an interpretation of the present formulation of quantum mechanics that makes sense to me. I have studied most of them in depth and thought hard about them, and in the end I still can’t make real sense of quantum theory as it stands

Lee Smolin, 2005

19 January, 2018

Time Reborn by Lee Smolin


A very interesting look at the crisis in physics by Smolin


I've been reading a great book by Lee Smolin entitled Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe. In it Smolin seems to reject the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and contemporary physics generally, for very similar philosophical reasons to myself.

This quote from a book review by The Guardian seems to sum his position up rather neatly:

the reason physicists have come to reject the reality of time is that they have been bewitched by the beauty and success of the mathematical models they use into mistaking those models for reality. For timelessness, though not really a feature of our world, is a feature of mathematics...
and

To think like this, Smolin claims, is to forget, or to deny, that the objects of mathematics – numbers, curves etc – do not exist, whereas physics concerns itself with what does exist, and, in reality, in the domain of things that do exist, time is inescapable.

Very interesting stuff. More to follow on this soon...



03 January, 2018

2018! Where Next?




What must be next?

Where are the Revolutionaries?


So, within the British Labour Party there has been a major swing to the Left, energised by the Youth, and led by committed Socialists. Good - it was essential!

But, this has happened before. I know because I was part of it in the 1960s, we also appealed to the Youth. We played a major role in getting a Labour victory in 1964. But, within months we, who led that surge, were all expelled!

Why?

It was because we were revolutionaries, and we wanted the End of Capitalism! The old Left did not demur: they didn't want to be expelled too. And other left groups did the very same. But what will the present influx do after a Labour Victory? It mustn't be allowed to happen again...

Watered down slogans on marches are wrong! The Revolutionary Left has to say what has to be done.

Look at what these tories are doing. Do you really think that a Labour Government, without touching the Wealth and Power of the Capitalist Class will suffice? IT WON'T! It never has.

The heroic Labour Government of 1945 Nationalised the Heights of the Economy, but left the Wealth and Power STILL in the enemy's hands: and even paid many millions in compensation to the ex-owners. BUT that was not only insufficient, it actually equipped the enemy to respond. It took only a handful of years for the Tories to win again.

Not a Penny in Compensation!

No State Capitalism! 

The real Revolutionaries must make their Essential Programme clear. Hand-in-Hand we will strive as comrades with all Left tendencies. BUT NOT at the cost of watering down what we know to be necessary!

Those who insist that we must dilute what we demand, are not for the necessary Revolution, but for a version of the status quo - inequality and exploitation! It is true that the People, getting only the lies of the Media and the Tories will not immediately agree with what we say is necessary. But, they will!

Time, a continuing fight, and the best Transitional Demands will do it!

Forward to the End of Capitalism in a Socialist Revolution!

Left Out: David Harvey



21 December, 2017

Issue 56: Substrate






For some time now this theorist has postulated that some hidden medium must permeate all space - but this is no aether theory reboot. In this collection of papers Schofield develops these ideas further, demonstrating that many of the mysteries and anomalies in the quantum world can be explained simpy using physics, dialectics and the sub atomic particles we have been aware of since the 1930s.

This issue places a particular focus on fields in space: magnetic, electrical and even gravitational - and how a Universal Substrate might finally offer a material explanation for action-at-a-distance.








20 December, 2017

Krishnamurti and Science II






The Self

In the second of the series of debates between Krishnamurti and three eminent scientists, he goes on by again dealing with what was becoming clear in the first part of this debate, which was Krishnamurti's own philosophy, which seemed to be a seeking of what is "common" and "essential" both in, and certainly for, all Mankind as its true nature - warts and all, which somehow must be "realised" for what it is.

Indeed, without this approach, he explains that all the problems of Mankind are irresolvable, and lead to the increasing isolation of every individual, and the seeking of false "stabilities and security", thus leading to all the ever-present ills of our species, including even War!

Clearly, such a stance greatly upset our scientists, who, each in his own way, and chosen means of understanding Reality - his particular Science, sought to play a role in the salvation of Humanity. Yet Krishnamurti discounts such beliefs as misleading myths, and insists upon the individual's internal problem (in our mind's self-image) being paramount - above all else! So, the scientists, on one level, argue for their own approach, but on a more personal level, wonder if Krishnamurti has a valid point.

Now, the reader will already expect my first criticism of Krishnamurti's stance - namely the total absence of any mention of Society, and the ways in which it is organised, particularly with respect to Power and Control, and to the consequent divisions of the human beings within a particular form of Society into Social Classes. And, indeed, I will be energetically pursuing such a line!

But, perhaps my second, and even more telling criticism resides in his evident idea of The Self, and its development via self-awareness. Two aspects of this become immediately evident:-

First: it is self-contradictory

and

Second: it is treated as totally independent of History

Now, the first point is something I was already aware of in the teachings of Buddhism, particularly with respect to the idea of the necessary suppression of the ego, for by his often implicit and sometimes even overt stance, Krishnamurti displays a very self-centred position - namely his own philosophical stance was the only valid one.




And, the second of these objections puts Krishnamurti's stance outside of the developments in Mankind's Prehistory and History. His position is independent of all that: he puts it upon an always-present level in Human's self-awareness!

Clearly, so far at least, the dedication of these three eminent scientists to their Sciences had not even yet been given any objective role in Krishnamurti's conception of what is to be done. Indeed, the salvation of Humanity was entirely dependant upon the purposes and methods that Krishnamurti was espousing.

Human Society could only be changed one person at a time.

For, only then would the quantitative summation of individuals deliver the solution for all.


19 December, 2017

The God of the Gaps




The Electric Universe's God of the Gaps


With a significant presence online, and many anomalies to present, The Electric Universe tendency (and other similar individuals) easily get a receptive hearing!

BUT clearly, a mere identification-of-anomalies can only be the first step. So, serious critics of the current consensus in Physics and Cosmology tend to come across these people as potential allies, or at least fellow critics of mainstream thought, and therefore seek out their criticisms in the search for more evidence towards a possible alternative stance.


"The story of the cosmos that you see in the media now is virtual reality" - Wallace Thornhill


As a qualified physicist, myself, with a long opposition to the currently dominant Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and a lifetime of theoretical work in establishing an essential, alternative stance, and finding very few people with the same objectives, have viewed a whole series of YouTube contributions from that tendency, where they too seem to have alighted upon the same anomalies that I also have considered to be crucial flaws in the current stance. And, in many, there has been a valuable revelation of anomalies that really do need addressing theoretically.

But, there is also a profound similarity between The Electric Universe, their scientific approach and method, and the scientists of both the pre-Copenhagen, so-called Classical period, AND, perhaps surprisingly, the Copenhageners too! For, philosophically, they all have an identical acceptance of the Scientific Method, the role of mathematical equations in encapsulating what had been revealed, and most importantly of all - incorporating an entirely Pluralist stance.

And, such a tradition can never go on to tackle the most important questions in Science, namely, "WHY does a particular phenomenon behave in the way that it does: what are the real causes involved?"

Let us see why this was inadequate in the past, is now inadequate with the Copenhagenists, and was even continued, thereafter, with the Bohm/De Broglie critics, and finally is also true of these latest opponents of current conformity. They believe that Reality behaves as it does in total conformity to separate and eternal Natural Laws, which can be completely encapsulated in purely mathematical Equations. They, therefore, conform absolutely to the Principle of Plurality, which demands precisely that. But, it isn't true!

If anything, the exact opposite Principle of Holism is far closer to the truth - by stating that "Everything affects everything else!" and hence makes all laws determined by both their history and their current-context, so that they inevitably vary and even evolve over time.

Indeed Plurality only rules in totally stable situations, either natural or organised-for, so it never informs situations involving Qualitative Change! The History and Development of Reality is totally beyond it, as are all current Interludes of Change at all levels. Indeed, the incorrect assumption of Plurality always did profoundly affect not only Science, but also Mathematics, and even Formal Logic. And this, when subscribed to, along with the oldest-and-most-persisting stance of Pragmatism - "If it works, it is right!", has enabled amalgams of wholly contradictory stances, such as Idealism and Materialism, to both be used "in their relevant compartments", in what has been claimed to be the agreed stance of Science for many centuries.

Indeed, the recognition of "Change" was almost simultaneous with the basic gains of the ancient Greeks, but ignored, and though also significantly addressed by Hegel 200 years ago, it has never conquered Science.

So, I could follow that tradition to the present day developments Philosophy (and I have done so elsewhere), but here something far-more-basic is involved, which torpedoes the discussion immediately!

It is the look to Religion for the Causes of Reality's Nature.




Let us see how our new critics of consensus Science manage to achieve this.

But, to make any sort of sense of these people, you really have to be aware of what role they have usually played within Science-as-it-currently-is!

Within Science, there has arisen, historically, a series of divisions-of-labour, precipitated by the unavoidable contradictions in the consensus stance.

Two areas, dominated by Pragmatism separated-out very quickly: they were the Experimentalists and the Implementers of productive outcomes - the technicians or Engineers! For, their justification was delivering what they had set out to achieve - either a do-able experiment with results, or a working consequent product.

In both cases, an explanation of why things behaved as they did, was not considered as important as what was in fact delivered! And, the key things achieved by one, and used by the other, were the formal Equations or fixed Laws that could be passed directly from the former group to the latter. And, in addition, their employed skills were very similar - to deliver the required conditions for those laws. Pragmatism was king in both areas!

There always was, of course, another group within Science, who did attempt to explain why things behaved as they did - they were the Theorists, but they always had several major problems. If they delivered materialist explanations, they would, invariably, come up against the Religious world view and explanations - [Galileo is a particular example]. And, to deal with their colleagues, the pragmatic experimenters and engineers, they too had to deal in Equations - a wholly Idealist stance, so they were in difficulties there too!

Indeed, towards the end of the 19th century the contradictions were already proliferating, and it was long before Bohr and Heisenberg campaigned for the total jettisoning of materialism in Physics, and at the 1927 Solvay Conference they challenged Einstein and Schrödinger and won! The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory was their stance, and it soon swept across the whole of Sub Atomic Physics.


Idealism dominates...

Now, as will be obvious from this paper, I have a very different objective from either the consensus group in physics, or their opponents in the God-of-the-Gaps camp!

So, that latter group have shot themselves in the foot in the oldest way possible.

It is, therefore, not surprising where they position their "researches": they don't do Sub Atomic Physics or any other area of Physics - they stick to Electrical Engineering, and interpreting other scientists results, particularly in Cosmology - an area that is impossible to deal with in the established earthbound ways. It is mostly speculation then, re-casting descriptions rather than explaining published cosmological observations, and laboratory experiments supposed to reveal direct knowledge of what goes on in the Sun.

It is a secure realm!

Though Modern Physics is already drastically limited in its current state, this group have found the ideal area for them to indulge their even more limited set of questions, not only for them to speculate about profusely, but also where they are unlikely to be countered by the rest of Modern Physics, who themselves are in their deepest crisis ever!


11 December, 2017

Rise of the Oligarchs




How Nationalised Services Became Private Empires


A trajectory which is never explained is "how could a Socialist State, with Nationalised property relations and State-owned Industries and Public Services. turn back into a Capitalist State once more, with most industries back in the hands of private owners?

Theoretically, there should have been nobody left within such a State, with enough prodigious wealth to ever buy these back! So, how was it achieved?

It wasn't an armed Counter-Revolution, so it must have been organised by a new, democratically-elected Government, with such as its "winning policy", promised in an election! But, why did they win, and what forces within Society were strongly in favour of such a radical change?

It wouldn't be the workers, unless, of course, they had been lied-to - for example, by promising, "More Freedom", "More Democracy" and "Less Corruption"!

But then, what section of Society would make such promises, while also wanting industry to remain in their hands, but, now primarily, for their own profit? It could only be one already privileged group - The Bureaucracy! They had been running the Nationalised Industries, ostensibly "for the people", and had got a taste for the even better life they could lead, if they got much-increased rewards for what they already were doing, but no longer as "privileged servants", but instead as owners! 






But, how could this possibly be organised?

Simply giving everything back to the pre-revolutionary Capitalists was not likely to be popular, so, could they be sold at a "knock down" price to "the best" of those who had been running things for the people for so long? Who else could it be? The prior state media would have been extolling the virtues of particular Public Servants, and the People would, most certainly, "have their favourites": no-one else would even be nationally known, at least politically.

NOTE: It is interesting how certain entertainers can also "fit the bill", in such situations, and head up "new parties" too! But who, among these well-known figures, were the known perpetrators of Corruption, and who could be trusted to continue to serve the people?

That was easy!

All those who were known to have actually extorted the backhanders, were the "baddies". While those "never-evidently-involved", and were now condemning such things, and from the higher echelons of the Bureaucracy; were they the "goodies"? So, in the rising political tumult, the easily-identified baddies would be out, while those they had actually been working for, and who had amassed the money needed to buy - they would be in!

The new government of ex-bureaucrats sold the Nationalised Industries at knock down prices to those with the money, and used that money to finance various projects that "proved which side they were on!" How else could the State owned industries have been sold-off?

And, how else could the billionaire Oligarchs have arisen so very quickly? It just had to be "Privatisation-on-steroids" - no wonder the new powers-that-be considered drugs-for-athletes a legitimate way forward! 




So, this analysis doesn't only fit the Failed Socialist States such as Russia and its Empire, but even Modern China - ostensibly still Socialist!

So what is all this anti-Russian, anti-China and even anti-Iran propaganda promoted by western politicians all about?! For their "dreaded enemies" are no longer threatening the End of Capitalism, but are energetically subscribing to it!

It is clearly the new inter-Capitalist rivalries. Remember, such rivalries caused both World War I and World War II!