new paradigm for physics update

Here is a preview. Otherwise find it on www.geocities.com/garyforbat
Placed in a fictional setting
Ch1 on micro matter
Ch2 on macro matter

================================================== ================

DIALOGUES ON SPACE AND MATTER


Copyright (C) Gary Forbat 2000 - 2004 all rights reserved,


Chapter 1

Will we, as humans ever be able to know and understand reality, is
that what you are asking?

Yes that is the idea, though I meant the physical reality that we
perceive through our senses, the environment of space and matter we
find ourselves in as human beings.

I must admit it is not the subject I most often think about, but now
you mention it, it looks to me as though we may have to settle for
never understanding it. It seems on normal everyday scales our
perceptive experience gives an accurate enough view for our survival
and living purposes, but on micro scales as well as on grand universal
scales perception based thinking has been discredited and now the only
access we have to probe the nature of matter is through abstract
mathemathics.

That is just what I mean. Does it inspire confidence for the future of
humanity to think there will always be some sort of confusion, amid a
permanent environment of uncertainty, as though groping around,
surrounded by a fog where we are unable to see past our noses? How
about a thousand years from now, or ten thousand?

On current thinking it it is not likely, but I am sure we will learn
to manipulate it to a much greater degree. Right now we are making
rapid progress, and civilisation can and has functioned successfully
without the need for that understanding. So long as we can manipulate
and rearrange it to our advantage it makes little difference what it
is made of.

But there can be huge differences in the degree of clarity between
different ways of conceiving the world. Newton's theory gave us a
certain sense of comfort, though now it turns out to be a
simplification. Since then we have descended into a world of
abstraction and a kind of mental surreality and puzzlement with
conceptual images that make no sense. Think about the big bang and
space expansion, and instantaneous electron jumps, action at a
distance, space warping or curvature, to mention just a few.

Why be so concerned if we cannot change the it? The evidence suggests
that these conceptually untenable effects do actually occur. We have
their meaning through mathemathics and continue to progress more
rapidly than ever despite our limitations. Let the scientists and
theoreticians do their work and we can concentrate on the human
reality, since social and historical developments affect us in our
daily life much more than the physical.

I don't entirely disagree about that, but think about it, if we had a
full explanation of the physical environment and the nature of matter,
would that not make a difference to our way of thinking and doing
things?

I am not sure what you are getting at. As I see it, there is no point
in speculating about it . We are actually in the here and now, and
what happens to be is what we need to consider the most.

I prefer not to speculate on difficult questions either, but I must
tell you that something has intervened to disturb my peace. That is
why I have come at this short notice to seek your advice on an idea
that has influenced me more than I had expected.

My door is always open to an old friend. What kind of idea are we
talking about?

The other day I came across a new theory, a way of looking at space,
matter and the entire reality, which has made me think deeply. I may
not be a scientific genius, but you know I am not entirely without
knowledge. This idea has rocked the foundations of my thinking about
reality and has introduced a mindset which seems to clarify and
resolve a host of previously unfocused issues.

A new idea about space and matter? What kind of idea? .

Where can I start? This new perspective has given me the clearest view
of the physical world, what it is ad how it works. I could never have
imagined that one day there can be a complete explanation, and even
more so, that we ca do it at such an early stage of our civilisation.

That is a big statement to make. A huge statement…It is not like you,
not at all.

I say it after the most serious consideration.

With due respect, now I do think you need my help and I am glad you
came. I'm sure we'll have this sorted in no time. Now tell me some
more about this theory.

Now that you mention it, it is such a huge statement that it leaves me
reeling. I cannot come to terms with having suddenly unlocked the
greatest mystery of all.

There are hundreds of views that make a sort of sense and can impart a
satisfying psychological impression. It is another thing to prove it
in some acceptable terms to convince scientific community and the
intellectual world in general.

As you know well, I am a realist and not into any form of mysticism or
unfounded belief systems. This new theory is not I the clouds. It is
based on the latest accumulation of observational evidence, in fact
reinterpretation of their meaning based on a new framework derived
from that very same evidence. But I must tell you its most striking
feature is that it is all explained with common sense intuitive
concepts and logic

No, that cannot be, now I am sure you have strayed off into error of
some kind.

That is what I thought at first, but I have come to the conclusion
that it works. Perhaps I have overlooked something. That is why I am
here

Classical Newtonian theory has been long superceded, I cannot see a
turnaround in that direction.

Call it what you like: classical, intuitive, common sense logic, but
it is definitely not Newtonian. The author of this theory thinks of
Newton's ideas a simplification by limits applied to the naturally
infinite. Newton in the 17th Century had much less evidence to go on.
Had he the evidence about matter available today, he may have come up
with a different conclusions.

Now I'm getting confused. Classical, intuitive, but not Newtonian? Are
you suggesting that with the use of the latest evidence we can
regenerate the intuitive framework in physics?

As far as I am concerned it looks like a fait accompli anyway. It will
lead to rapid advances in our knowledge and understanding of matter.
It also offers a unified framework for physics. From this perspective,
the current ideas about relativity and quantum theory need to be
revised. To explain, do you still remember the Moon made of green
cheese argument?

That was many years ago, …let me think...in an early lecture on
symbolic logic wasn't it?. it demonstrated how a false foundation
premises can lead to a range of ridiculous, though as far as logic is
concerned, perfectly valid conclusions. One could then imagine ‘Moon
rock' eaten with coffee after dinner, and the quarantine regulations
that may be necessary to prevent mice overruning and devouring the
Moon in an extasy of cheese orgy.

That is just the point. Current theories are not built on pre-existing
foundations. Their foundations are projected from the state of the
structure itself. It is like the problem with the Leaning Tower of
Pisa. The Instead of building from a sound set of foundations based on
soil analysis, the tower was constructed with a serious flaw. Now, in
modern times we have the science to have built it correctly, but now
face a different problem. To rescue the Tower a new set of foundations
had to be projected based on the current state of the structure. That
will patch up the problem but clearly it is not the true foundations
that the Tower should have had. Our author thinks we are in somewhat
similar situation with physics.

I see what you mean, but that is how science evolved over time. The
historical reality unfolds differently from the ideals we may project.
Now tell me, where can I find this new theory, in which journal, in
what book, and of course, who by? If this theory is so good, I cannot
believe I have missed hearing about it.

You may think it strange but I heard about it at a dinner party.

A dinner party?..heh, in the 21st century discussing the nature of
matter and reality at a dinner party.

I know it's not dinner party conversation, but in this case the entire
company became so intrigued with it all that we ended up going into it
at length.

Yes, I can just see it, some dinner party that must have been -
discussing life and the meaning existence, the nature of matter,
relativity and quantum physics,, heh heh,, That would have been
interesting, with discussion of complex mathemathical issues and
whatever else.

There was no mathemathics, nothing requiring a specialist. It is based
on concepts derived from general features of all scientific evidence.
The ideas have complex logical structures which are then subject to
analysis.

I suppose it is only at a dinner you could come across something so
different and unlikely: probably some underground theory, shunned by
the establishment in fear of creating waves or even ripples in the
intellectual environment, or at least, that is how it's made out to
be. It is in fact probably full of holes, at best a case of clever
sophism with confusing nuances I the language. How can it not be,
given what you claim it can do.

I was as sceptical as you when I first heard about it. It was supposed
to be just a bit of dinner party entertainment. When I arrived, the
hosts informed me that the author of a theory of reality had been
invited that night and I was asked to encourage discussion on his
ideas. It appears they had heard about it from a friend and aroused
their curiosity. As a good guest I obliged and began my approach by
sowing the seeds during dinner. As things arranged themselves I
happened to be placed alongside our author, so I opened with a light
mention that someone here must be impressed with his ideas as they had
mentioned it to me. "Impressed or amused?" was his reply. "I can't
really be sure until you tell me a little about it" I said. "Maybe
another time" replied the author. "it isn't suitable for dinner party
conversation" he added. The moment had passed and we resumed a light
sociable air over dinner. Later that night, over coffee, the
opportunity arose again when the hosts announced the visiting
"thinker, scientist, philosopher" and asked him to say a few words
about his latest theory. The author showed the same reluctance,
claiming the topic too complex to cover in a night's casual
discussion. "it will only lead to confusion rather than clarity" he
said. We insisted and then he added that he had been for a time
devising a method of explaining the idea to the general public, but he
did not think it perfected yet. It was as if we all saw the
opportunity at once, we all at once insisted he try his method this
night. "Let us be your guinea pigs" we all insisted, begged and
entreated until he finally relented. He then proceeded to tell us the
method he developed was based on a question and answer session
somewhat like a Socratic dialogue. That sounds good said the host as
we could experience an ancient method in a modern setting. At this
point all fell silent. We waited in anticipation, expecting something
spectacular, but the first question turned out to be the simplest of
questions imaginable. Our thinker asked whether we agreed that the
atomic structure was a composite system of parts? From there we went
on a journey of thought and a couple of hours later we all stood in a
daze of amazement and in the morning I had a clearer vision than
before. The haziness brought about by the alcohol had lifted and I
could feel the idea settling over me. I could not believe it could be
so simple. So simple, yet so complex at the same time. I kept going
over and over it since then to get a better vision, or at least to
find some faults in the argument. In my early confusion my moods would
swing. It was all too much to absorb in such a short time. I worked at
it and at first I was only getting glimpses of the reality, then as I
developed it I could hold the concept for seconds, then minutes, until
it opened up in its full glory and I saw its huge number of
ramifications. Mystified and stunned by everything I never expected,
at times I tried to shake it out of my mind. I could not dislodge it.
The old world I knew had been swept away and familiarity gave way to
unfamiliarity. Despite its inconsistencies, paradoxes and its
mysteries the old world was the ‘furniture of life' I grew up with and
offered psychological comforts which I would now be deprived. I felt
like a foreigner in a strange land. On the other hand, I found comfort
with the new clarity and wanted to explore its possibilities.

That is all well, but now you have me curious enough to ask that you
explain this theory to me now. I don't expect surprises. My curiosity
is to see how you may have fallen into an error of thinking. I don't
for a moment entertain that the theory could ever impress me as it has
you and your friends over dinner.

Perhaps you are right. I certainly ask for no favours, no sympathy. If
I had fallen into error I would certainly want to be the first to know
about it. On the other hand, you may get a surprise as well.

It would be refreshing but I don't contemplate it. But do tell me
about this theory.................
...........
...

continue on www.geocities.com/garyforbat

That's not original - it's just
Chapter 4 of "Finnegan's Wake."

That's not original - it's just
Chapter 4 of "Finnegan's Wake."

radical reptile wrote:
That's not original - it's just
Chapter 4 of "Finnegan's Wake."

It most certainly is not. (Besides, Finnegans Wake is spelled without
the apostrophe.) It is obviously part of a recently rediscovered writing
of Plato, covering an imagined dialogue between Socrates and Milkcrates.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

radical reptile wrote:
That's not original - it's just
Chapter 4 of "Finnegan's Wake."

It most certainly is not. (Besides, Finnegans Wake is spelled without
the apostrophe.) It is obviously part of a recently rediscovered writing
of Plato, covering an imagined dialogue between Socrates and Milkcrates.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

HAL I assume?


Brian Tung wrote:

radical reptile wrote:
That's not original - it's just
Chapter 4 of "Finnegan's Wake."

It most certainly is not. (Besides, Finnegans Wake is spelled without
the apostrophe.) It is obviously part of a recently rediscovered writing
of Plato, covering an imagined dialogue between Socrates and Milkcrates.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

HAL I assume?


Brian Tung wrote:

radical reptile wrote:
That's not original - it's just
Chapter 4 of "Finnegan's Wake."

It most certainly is not. (Besides, Finnegans Wake is spelled without
the apostrophe.) It is obviously part of a recently rediscovered writing
of Plato, covering an imagined dialogue between Socrates and Milkcrates.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt