Null Physics anyone?

[Schneibster]

Perhaps. But you can't prove it wrong, either.

That may be the punch line.

 

[Schneibster]

Mmmmm. I think your universe got more complicated, quarky. You've got something other than the particle now.

Spacetime.

 

[quarky]

what is space-time made out of?

 

[Paul]

what is space-time made out of?

Nothing, it's a concept not a thing.

 

[quarky]

not incompatible with single quark hypothesis

 

[Schneibster]

Nothing, it's a concept not a thing.

That may not be true. Remember Newton's Bucket, and Mach's Hypothesis.

I'll use the same variation on Newton's Bucket that Brian Greene uses in The Fabric of the Cosmos.

Let's say you take a pair of rocks and tie them together with a rope. You're in space, so there's no gravity (yes, yes, I know, technically there's a gravity field that has a value of zero, just stay with me here). If you spin the thing like a bolo, then the rocks keep the rope taut as they spin. The question is, what makes it do that? From each rock's point of view, the whole universe is spinning around it; it's motionless. The other rock and the rope are spinning around it, too, at a different rate, and so it's the other rock that is pulling the rope taut.

Now, the simplistic answer is, momentum- Newton's First Law, an object in motion tends to remain in motion, along a geodesic (<- slight update for relativity there) and an object at rest tends to remain at rest. But the question here is, what makes momentum- and more properly, how does the rock know it's moving? It's easy to dismiss it in the case of linear motion, you can just say the rock doesn't know; it's the observer who defines how the rock is moving. But in the case of the rocks and rope, it's more difficult. What are the rocks and rope spinning with respect to?

Well, you might say, if you were sitting on one of the rocks, you'd see the stars (or galaxies, if you were out in intergalactic space) spinning around you. They mark the spacetime in the universe. But Mach asked a question about that, which is, what if there was nothing in the universe but the rocks and the rope (and you to observe them). What would they be spinning with respect to, and how would you know they were spinning? Unlike the case with linear motion, where you (the observer) can just speed up and say, well, they're not moving so they don't have any momentum, in this case, there's a definite phenomenon that doesn't go away- the rope is taut. And if you spin to match the motion of the rocks, it's still taut. If you suppose that you couldn't tell whether you were spinning or not, then there would be a "mystery force" pushing the rocks apart. So without stars or galaxies to refer to, how do they know they're spinning?

Now, there's an assumption here: we're assuming that if we had a completely empty universe, with nothing but the rocks and rope, if they were spinning, they would pull the rope taut. We don't know that, because we don't have any empty universes to test it in. But if we believe (assume) it, the implication is, there's something other than the stars and galaxies that motion is defined with respect to. And if it's a totally empty universe, there's only one thing left: spacetime. So now it looks like spacetime really isn't just a nothing; it's a something. It's not just a concept; its existence has a real physical consequence: the rope is taut.

When Mach first thought this little conundrum up, his opinion (Mach's Hypothesis) was that if you had a totally empty universe, there'd be no way to make the rope taut. You wouldn't be able to tell; motion would be meaningless, except linear motion of the two rocks to one another. The implication being, spacetime is just a concept, as Paul has said. It's just the distance between events. And initially Einstein agreed with him, after he'd formulated Special Relativity. But the longer he thought about it, the less Einstein agreed with Mach. And in the end, he disagreed with him; Einstein believed that spacetime was a real existent physical entity, with properties that could be defined and measured.

Not only that, but if you've thought about it, you'll realize that if you eliminate the rope, and just have two motionless rocks, or better yet, one motionless rock and another pair that are spinning, then you CAN define rotation; and the rope becomes taut. Certainly it can't just be that third rock that changes everything and makes the rope taut. That's ridiculous; the force of gravity isn't strong enough to do that. So there's an implicit contradiction in Mach's Hypothesis.

Einstein gave us a definition of spacetime, and showed not only that it exists, but that it has a shape. Near a massive object, like a planet or a star, spacetime is warped; far away from massive objects, it's flat. The warp in spacetime near massive objects is the cause of the force we call gravity. And that's General Relativity, in a nutshell. So we see that if we agree with GR, then we have to accept that spacetime is a something, not just a concept. And in a completely empty universe, there would still be something for the rocks and rope to rotate relative to: spacetime. And the existence of the force of gravity is evidence to support that view.

In modern formulations of relativity, the physical existence of the spacetime continuum is a formal postulate of Special Relativity. So from our point of view, there's not much question about it.

But never forget that Einstein initially didn't believe it was real. And you can't really prove it; like I said, we don't have any empty universes to do tests in. But these days, most physicists believe that spacetime has real physical existence; and in fact, the most important conservation laws are believed to arise from symmetries of that spacetime. The conservation of momentum, for example, arises from the symmetry of physical law over position; wherever you are, you'll get the same laws of physics, and that implies that one of those laws is conservation of momentum. The conservation of energy arises from the symmetry of physical law over time; that is, if you check physical laws today, and check them again tomorrow, they'll be the same. And, most important to this discussion, the symmetry of physical law over rotation implies the conservation of angular momentum; that is, if you check physical laws while you're looking that way, and check them again looking this way, then they'll be the same.

So I must therefore respectfully disagree with Paul; spacetime has real physical existence, and measurable characteristics; it's a something, not just a concept. At least it is if you believe relativity.

 

[Paul]

So I must therefore respectfully disagree with Paul; spacetime has real physical existence

Thanks for that, I'm quite happy to be corrected.

I'm not a physicist so my understanding of these things depends on the explanations I read, and those often use words in ways which cause the layman to make assumptions; I was going with the concept, construct and model explanations in too literal a way.

It's also interesting that your explanation is simpler than all of the beginners' information I found on the net.


Anyway, it certainly does seem to complicate, even more, the single quark hypothesis.

 

[Schneibster]

I strive for understandable explanations; I'm not a physicist either, but I'm a very curious engineer, and know enough math to get myself into serious trouble.

As far as an answer to quarky's question, I'd have to answer that spacetime isn't "made out of" anything, as far as current theories go. It's a basic constituent of the universe, just as quarks, leptons, gluons, weak bosons, and photons are. I left gravitons out because we're still working on that part of physics.

 

[Broes]

Schneibster, you rock... You are my quantum hero.
I sincerly enjoy reading you explanations, very educational!

 

[roSSman]

My first post

I agree that Schneibster rocks, in terms of his knowledge and ability to explain. I happened upon this thread by Googling 'null physics' after seeing Witt's ad in Popular Science. I read the entire thread, and feel significantly more informed. I hadn't ever happened upon JREF before, though I am a long-time fan of Mr. Randi. I joined, specifically, to ad my comments.

In the first place, Witt is obviously intelligent, articulate, polite and even witty. It's evident he's sincere, and motivated by a genuine desire to contribute. It also appears undeniable that he's been unabashed when it comes to making a considerable investment in the effort. His apparent knowledge of arcane details in physics (and ability to manipulate math) is impressive (to me at least).

Secondly, I am somewhat swayed by arguments averring that the standard model stinks. Yes, I understand it's facilitated a litany of predictions with accuracy out to many decimal places -- and that's awesome. But conceptually, it's awful. It fails (almost completely) to give us any kind of satisfying mental picture that makes its dynamics mechanically comprehensible -- in the way, say, that heliocentricity made comprehensible all those odd movements of planets.

I'm well aware that maybe that's just the way our subatomic world is: inalterably strange in a way that will make it forever resist allowing the kind of "aha" comprehension that Copernicus and Galileo gave us in respect to planetary movements. But maybe not. At this point, we don't truly know.

Though I'm sure I'm not the first to make this comparison, it's my understanding that, with their equants, deferants and epicycles (don't ask me if I'm spelling those right), Ptolemaic scholars had learned to predict planetary movements with a high degree of accuracy (at least as applicable within their own lifetimes). In fact (and if remember reading the history correctly), I believe the heliocentric model was initially less accurate by comparison, until certain adjustments were introduced (one, I believe, was the realization that orbits are elliptical rather than circular).

At any rate, my point is there was a very successful model (at least in terms of its near term predictions), but it was lousy conceptually. There was also considerable resistance to a much better one. I don't think it unlikely that we're now in a similar situation in regard to the standard model.

Of course, whether Witt is the new Galileo is a whole other question. Though he may fully be all the nice things I initially described, none of those make him right. Concurring with the prevailing theory on this thread, it's my guess, too, that he's out in left field. At the least, however, he's sure not your regular crackpot. Reading his discussion, I find myself rather liking the guy.

Given the above, I cast my vote for the conclusion that, on a personal level at least (though perhaps not on a merits-of-his-theory level), some of you guys were harder on Witt than the circumstances justified. I also think there may be excessive resistance (even antipathy for) the hope that some heliocentric-like breakthrough will someday arrive on the scene. Wouldn't it be great if it did?

 

[Schneibster]

I agree that Schneibster rocks, in terms of his knowledge and ability to explain. I happened upon this thread by Googling 'null physics' after seeing Witt's ad in Popular Science. I read the entire thread, and feel significantly more informed. I hadn't ever happened upon JREF before, though I am a long-time fan of Mr. Randi. I joined, specifically, to ad my comments.

Thanks for the compliment, and welcome to the JREF forums.

Secondly, I am somewhat swayed by arguments averring that the standard model stinks. Yes, I understand it's facilitated a litany of predictions with accuracy out to many decimal places -- and that's awesome. But conceptually, it's awful. It fails (almost completely) to give us any kind of satisfying mental picture that makes its dynamics mechanically comprehensible -- in the way, say, that heliocentricity made comprehensible all those odd movements of planets.

Here we disagree.

First of all, I get a very satisfying mental picture of how particle physics works from the standard model. It is a very satisfying simplification of a simply enormous amount of data and a huge collection of confusing observations. From four forces, and twelve elementary particles, everything we see around us and much that we must explore very deeply to even discover exists is explained.

The four forces are electromagnetism, the weak force, the color force, and gravity. Each has its own particle(s) by which it interacts: respectively, the photon, W and Z bosons, gluon, and graviton. The elementary particles are six quarks: up, down, strange, charm, top and bottom; and six leptons: electron, muon, and tau, and three neutrinos that correspond to the three massive leptons. The leptons interact by gravity, electromagnetism (except the neutrinos which are uncharged), and the weak force. The six quarks interact by all four forces. The photon and W and Z bosons, and therefore electromagnetism and the weak force, are aspects of a single underlying force, and this force is called "electroweak" and there is an additional boson for it, the Higgs boson, which is an artifact of the electroweak symmetry breaking. The W and Z bosons, the gluons, and the Higgs boson have mass; the remaining bosons (photon and graviton) are massless.

As for parameters to the model, there are the twenty-one particle masses (neutrinos are massless), the masses of the W and Z bosons, a single mass for gluons, and the mass of the Higgs, and the field strengths of the four forces; twenty-nine.

There are two additional wrinkles. First, the underlying dynamics of particles are essentially different from those of the everyday world around us, in a single very simply, but highly counter-intuitive way: there are pairs of properties, such as spin on two axes, or position and momentum, or energy and position in time, that cannot be simultaneously defined with infinite accuracy, and in fact the inaccuracy can approach the size/mass/spin/energy of the particles. This is called Heisenberg uncertainty, and it means that particles, rather than being like familiar objects in the everyday world with precise positions and boundaries are "smeared out" over a range of positions, or over a range of times, or energies, or masses. And it is the presence of this one small difference in the dynamics that makes particle physics seem so difficult and counter-intuitive. Many extremely intelligent people, including Albert Einstein, one of the smartest men who has ever lived, have tried to get around this or show that it was not true, but the best they have been able to do is merely prove that in fact, it MUST be true. This fact has profound implications about the nature of force and matter on the smallest scales, but it does not alter the twenty-four particles and four forces.

Second, all of the activities of these twenty-four particles and four forces occur on a stage set by four dimensions, and the description of these dimensions and the ways that the particles can behave in them is called Special Relativity.

As a result of the facts of uncertainty and relativity, there are two theories for each force, and a synthesis for each force of those two. Those two theories are a field theory and a quantum theory, and the synthesis is a quantum-field theory. We know the entire details of the quantum-field theory of the electromagnetic force. We have quantum theories for the electroweak and color forces. We have a field theory for gravity. To the extent that we do not have both theories for all four forces, the model is incomplete. Research to fill in the missing pieces of the quantum-field theories I have indicated is underway. That's what the LHC is for, and it's why it was such a tragedy that the superconducting supercollider was not built fifteen years ago.

From this theory of twenty-four particles and four forces emerges a picture of our universe from the smallest scales, far below those of the atomic nucleus, to the largest scales, of superclusters of galaxies; from the beginning of the universe in a quantum fluctuation followed by inflation and the hot Big Bang, symmetry breakings of each force, nucleosynthesis, recombination, transparency, and the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, and life, to eventual entropy death after trillions of years. Literally scores of different composite particles, mesons, protons, neutrons, and all the hyperons, are described in terms of this theory; the existence and characteristics of atoms is completely described; and this leads in turn to a complete description of the interaction of all the matter and all the energy in our universe, for all the time of its existence.

And that's all there is. It's an incredible achievement. We stand on the threshold of a complete understanding of the correct way to describe every single event that has ever occurred and ever will occur in our universe; only a few remaining details stand between us and that: the remaining field theories of the weak and color forces, and the quantum theory of gravity. And that's it.

So when you compare the standard model with epicycles, understand that both epicycles and heliocentrism explain only a very small number of phenomena; the standard model explains EVERYTHING, with the three exceptions I have noted. Its accuracy and precision are so far beyond the predictive capabilities of any other theory ever proposed that it stands head and shoulders above everything that has gone before, as humanity's greatest achievement in science. And when I see you state as if it were a fact that it does not provide a "simple" explanation, I have to question whether you are truly aware of the vast range and incredible detail and complexity of the universe. Compared to that, the standard model is extremely simple, and if its dynamics seem counter-intuitive, sorry, that's just how it IS. There will not be a theory that will eliminate either uncertainty or relativity. They are basic facts of how things are. There will never be a simple mechanistic description of particle physics, because of these two facts about our universe.

I'm well aware that maybe that's just the way our subatomic world is: inalterably strange in a way that will make it forever resist allowing the kind of "aha" comprehension that Copernicus and Galileo gave us in respect to planetary movements. But maybe not. At this point, we don't truly know.

Yes, we do. We know that our universe is relativistic, and we know that quantum mechanics must incorporate uncertainty. Both of these have been proven not merely by extensive and detailed experimentation, but also because they are the only possible explanation for a vast range of phenomena. Given those two facts, there will never be the kind of intuitive simplicity that is possible for the motions of planets.

At any rate, my point is there was a very successful model (at least in terms of its near term predictions), but it was lousy conceptually. There was also considerable resistance to a much better one. I don't think it unlikely that we're now in a similar situation in regard to the standard model.

I think it is highly unlikely, if you mean that there will ever be a simple mechanistic explanation of quantum mechanics. In fact, given what we have observed already, I think it is impossible, due to uncertainty and relativity. On the other hand, theoretical physicists are exploring a mathematical theory called "string theory" that just might explain all of the twenty-four particles, and all of the quantum theories of the four forces, as the movements of a single, simple underlying entity. We would then be left with that entity, and the dimensionality of the universe, and nothing else. If this turns out to be true, it will be a simplification as great as the atomic hypothesis of Dalton. However, it will not supplant the standard model; it will merely explain it.

Of course, whether Witt is the new Galileo is a whole other question. Though he may fully be all the nice things I initially described, none of those make him right. Concurring with the prevailing theory on this thread, it's my guess, too, that he's out in left field. At the least, however, he's sure not your regular crackpot. Reading his discussion, I find myself rather liking the guy.

Given the above, I cast my vote for the conclusion that, on a personal level at least (though perhaps not on a merits-of-his-theory level), some of you guys were harder on Witt than the circumstances justified. I also think there may be excessive resistance (even antipathy for) the hope that some heliocentric-like breakthrough will someday arrive on the scene. Wouldn't it be great if it did?

There is no antipathy to such; if it were possible in such a simplistic manner, however, it would already exist. It is common when discussing the standard model of particle physics to see it as complicated. It is not; it is incredibly simple. Twenty-four particles, four forces, uncertainty, and relativity. Nothing more. Two field theories and a single quantum theory stand between us and complete understanding of the universe. Work proceeds on all three of those fronts; they are the remaining puzzles.

Of course, a great deal of work remains in filling in the details; there are the angles of the CKM matrix, there are the almost infinite possible combinations of the quarks into mesons and baryons, there is the question of whether spacetime itself might be quantized. There are no less than three competing quantum gravity theories, none of which is far enough along to provide testable predictions. There is the question of the origin of the twenty-nine parameters. Judging by what we have seen so far, the answers to these remaining questions may open vast new vistas of physics to us. What we are certain they will not do is deny relativity or uncertainty; and given those two facts, the standard model is as simple as it can be.

Relax and enjoy it. And understand what you're looking at: the most incredible intellectual achievement in the history of the human race.

 

[ben m]

In the first place, Witt is obviously intelligent, articulate, polite and even witty. It's evident he's sincere, and motivated by a genuine desire to contribute. It also appears undeniable that he's been unabashed when it comes to making a considerable investment in the effort. His apparent knowledge of arcane details in physics (and ability to manipulate math) is impressive (to me at least).

Hi roSSman,

Perhaps you're not familiar with the sheer number of people who have done exactly the same thing as Witt:

• 
  [#]Decide they don't like modern physics
  [#]Spend years in isolation writing up their own theory
  [#]Make the theory qualitatively agree with reality in a few thought-experiments
  [#]Submit these early sketches to physics journals, and get rejected
  [#]Become very facile at claiming "agreement" with real experiments---by describing, in words ("well, the nucleus recoils leftwards, then stops, and the braking-radiation must be what you mistook in your detector") without actually making concrete predictions.
  [#]Self-publish a book or web page and start advertising it.

I've never seen an ad campaign as expensive as Witt's, but the content is totally typical. Oh, by the way, these theories are all totally different---it isn't that thousands of people are stumbling across the same solution, like Newton and Leibnitz both discovering calculus. They're all making stuff up. A few that have come my way: Autodynamics, Common Sense Science, Gyron Aether Theory, Dan Visser's "Complex Cosmos", Filter Mechanics ... go to http://www.crank.net/physics.html to find lots, lots more. It's a whole bizarre underground that professional physicists deal with all the time, but most people have never heard of.

All this is contingent, of course, on my statement that these people are "just like Witt", and that Witt is just as wrong as they are. Some of the science earlier in this thread ought to convince you of that. It's not a matter of Witt needing a few years to fine-tune: his theory is well-developed enough to make a few inescapable predictions (like microwave/optical ratio in starlight) and those predictions are horribly wrong.

 

[ben m]

Sorry, duplicate post.

 

[Dilb]

All this is contingent, of course, on my statement that these people are "just like Witt", and that Witt is just as wrong as they are. Some of the science earlier in this thread ought to convince you of that. It's not a matter of Witt needing a few years to fine-tune: his theory is well-developed enough to make a few inescapable predictions (like microwave/optical ratio in starlight) and those predictions are horribly wrong.

Even wronger that his physics claims are at least a couple of his math statements. For example, this part has been bugging me:

A unique aspect of this geometry is that an infinite space of N dimensions has a finite size in N+1 dimensions. An infinite line, for instance, has a finite area. Think of it as cutting a line into an infinite number of segments and stacking them on top of each other at infinite density. The result is not an infinite area, as that is a plane; it is not infinitely small, as that is a line segment. The result is finite. In fact, if we consider the width of a line as 0, then in accordance with the poles of the Riemann sphere, (0*infinity) = 1.

This is just 'plane' wrong. If you could cut up a line and build a square, then you could go to any single point on square by giving it one number, the distance along the line. It's a basic fact that to describe two dimensions, you need two numbers, there simply isn't enough information if you only have one number.

Alternatively, a line has zero width. Cutting it up into segments and adding it together gives you
0+0+0+0+0+0+.....
which is zero.

A final thing to consider is that a finite plane is equivalent to an infinite plane. Say you have a square, from -Pi to Pi in the x direction, and -Pi to Pi on the y direction. To find any point from -infinity to infinity, just take the tan() (tangent function) of your x and y coordinate. You get to anywhere on the infinite plane just by using the numbers on the finite square.

 

[roSSman]

Wow!

I have never seen such a beautiful and concise distillation of the whole area of concern, as provided by Schneibster.

He rocks indeed. His description is a gift, a thing of beauty.

Thank you. I almost feel like I can wrap my head around what was formerly (to me) an unintelligible zoo of particle descriptions. I plan to re-read that distilation several times, hoping to fully absorb everything. I'll likely keep a copy for occasional reference, as well.

For clarification, I have (for a long time) had what to me is a reasonably comfortable grasp of three out of four forces (the weak force being the exception), and of relativity as well. It’s that underlying particle zoo that’s always made my eyes glaze over.

To the extent Schneibster rebuffed my comments, I want to clarify that in criticizing the standard model and expressing hope for major conceptual improvement, I did not mean to imply even the slightest suspicion anything would ever supplant it -- any more than quantum dynamics and relativity supplanted Newton (which, obviously, they did not). I also did not (and do not) have any hope anything will ever undo uncertainty and/or relativity. I am at least educated enough to be very convinced those are immutably real (and in their own sense very beautiful) aspects of our universe.

It also is not “simplicity,” exactly, that I’ve hoped for. It's a level of "aha"-type comprehension (whether done via string theory or otherwise) that would prevent a guy like our beloved Richard Feynman from feeling any impetus to write something like “[W]e have no satisfactory mechanism to explain even the simplest of phenomena.”

It's a kind of comprehension that would allow a guy like Schneibster to eloquently explain why, given a (hopefully small) set of underlying fundamentals, we must, inevitably, end up with the four fundamental forces, the many particles by which they interact, and even uncertainty itself.

Am I wrong to hope for something like that?

Going back to the Ptolemaic comparison, heliocentricity told us why, given deeper fundamentals than had been imagined, we must see the very kind of movements that were formerly explained by equants, deferants and epicycles. It made the observation of such movements both inevitable and explainable in a way prior cosmology could not begin to match.

Of course, like any comparison, even if this Ptolemaic one has some merit, it’s applicability is limited – particularly in the sense that Ptolemaic cosmology was just plain wrong (crystal spheres, and all that). In contrast, I’m betting all contributors here will agree it would be stupid to suspect a time will ever come where the same can sensibly be concluded about today’s physics. Certainly, I concur in believing modern hubris, to both that extent and related ones, is well justified.

By the way, my vote for a likely GUT (spectacularly unqualified though I am to cast it) is for one based on the relativity side of today’s apparent impasse. More precisely, while the bulk of effort seems to be focused on quantizing gravity, I wonder if opposite movement would not be more productive.

I’d love to know, in this regard, is there anything that would violate present understanding if it were supposed that all those particles and forces, at their most basic level, are simply interaction between different parts of spacetime itself, places that involve varying kinds of ripples and dimples (if you will) within its own fabric? Putting it differently, the theme would be that spacetime (and a menagerie of particular kinds of curves, peeks, canyons, slopes and vortices within) is everything. It seems to me that, if workable, that might be rather a unifying concept. I've wondered if any work has been done in that direction. I’ve done a bit of Googling and such, but failed to find anything that seems (really) to be quite on point (please don't clobber me too hard if it's out there and I just haven't found it; my search time is tightly limited).

Just to clarify, I do understand that typical conceptions of spacetime deformation involve gravity alone (even within black holes, if I understand correctly). I am ignorant, however, of any reason why that necessarily means spacetime could not deform (though in very different ways) at atomic and subatomic scales – perhaps sufficiently to account, on the basis of its own fabric, for the actors there.

I also understand that even to think that maybe I've had an idea of possible significance (in my stance of comparative ignorance), and though I don't suspect it's even novel to me (indeed, I'd hope its not), puts me, personally, on the crackpot road. Dang! I hate that.

Anyway, that's my stupid wondering. Am I completely out in left field, or is my suggestion at least not altogether implausible? You guys seem to have the knowledge to answer far more competently than my own analysis allows.

In response to BenM, thanks for kindly leading me along. I was aware of what you're describing in general, but your description adds significantly to the clarity. I had already personally concluded that in all likelihood Witt's role ultimately fits there (i.e., in crackpotdom), but I still wanted to give him credit for the fact he seems of a lot higher quality (whether wrong or not) than most in the role.

In response to Dilb, I like your call. That argument of Witt's ("An infinite line . . . has a finite area . . .") got to me as well. Even I know a line has zero area. Last I knew, finite and zero don't exactly mean the same thing. Some of Witt's writing reminds me of the phrase "confusing obscurity with profundity." No doubt, that in itself is a hallmark of someone in the crackpot (or is the word "woo"?) mode. Stop me. I want to be nice to the guy.

 

[Schneibster]

You REALLY need to find out about string theory. Your idea about interactions between different parts of spacetime is sort of a part of it. Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe is probably as good a non-technical explanation of it as any.

Just don't get so hooked on it you forget it might be wrong. Have fun.

 

[roSSman]

Thank you, Schneibster, for the reference. I've already ordered the book, and plan to dive right in when it arrives.

 

[TriangleMan]

I'm glad to see a thread here on this 'null physics'. I saw the full-page ad in Discover and it screamed 'crank' but I was surprised that someone had the funds for such an ad campaign. This thread highlighted the problems with Witt's work without me worrying about paying any money for the book - not that I was planning to buy it anyway.

 

[lenny]

hi Schneibster,

thanks for the very nice post (the fact that i respond to the questionable bits does not imply that i disagree with the wonderfully well communicated majority of bits).

We know that our universe is relativistic, and we know that quantum mechanics must incorporate uncertainty. Both of these have been proven not merely by extensive and detailed experimentation, but also because they are the only possible explanation for a vast range of phenomena.

we know that our universe is not Newtonian, and the fact that QM must incorporate uncertainty is a statement about the theory, not the unverse.

how would a skeptic ever support the statement "the only possible explanation for a vast range of phenomena"?

 

[lenny]

there are pairs of properties, such as spin on two axes, or position and momentum, or energy and position in time, that cannot be simultaneously defined with infinite accuracy, and in fact the inaccuracy can approach the size/mass/spin/energy of the particles. This is called Heisenberg uncertainty, and it means that particles, rather than being like familiar objects in the everyday world with precise positions and boundaries are "smeared out".

i am curious why you prefer "uncertainty" here to "indeterminacy".

do you distinguish "cannot be defined" from "are not defined"? if something is uncertain we can still hope to put a probability distribution on it, while if some "thing" is not defined the probability calculus has no role to play.

(i believe) the use of the word uncertainty leads many astray, confusing what is "unknown" with what is "undefined", and then on down a path of mental images Heisenberg himself warned us against...