The Problems in Modern Theoretical Physics

Copyright 2014, John Manimas Medeiros


Twentieth Century physics and astrophysics brought us quantum theory, the mysterious unknown "unified field theory," the concept of an expanding universe and the Big Bang Theory (Bazinga), and the world of particle physics, and string theory, and plasma theory, and chaos theory, and others I may have omitted and I apologize for those I have omitted and I propose to apologize for all of them, including the ones listed here, because they are in my viewpoint seriously problematic and present the general public with religious doctrines rather than physical science.


First, there are many physicists who say that Quantum Theory is hard to understand, and perhaps there are many scientists who do not get it.  Also, Relativity Theory is not understood by all scientists, and whether Relativity is understood or not there are many scientists who do not support it.  There are many scientists who do not support the Big Bang theory, often on the grounds, reasonable grounds, that there are other possible explanations for the "background radiation" detected in the universe.


I wish to address three serious problems:

1)  Particle physics has not defined a particle in a scientific manner.  (see also "Particle Shmarticle" on this website).

2)  The Big Bang Theory is advocated by astrophysicists who make statements about dark energy and dark matter that are the linguistic equivalent of a medieval priest stating that there are ghosts in the graveyard.

3)  Our concept of the universe, as a matter of history, has always been based upon what our instruments detect.  Over the course of history, what we have detected has always been more, and therefore what we describe as the universe is always more, but never complete, because no physicist has the audacity, and self-destructive impulse, to argue that we have found the outside boundary of the universe and the other side of that boundary is either heaven or a giant glob of ice cream.    


Let me add a little detail. 

1)  Physicists ask for and get billions of dollars to build cyclotrons to observe particles collide under conditions that rarely occur, if ever, under natural conditions, and then they announce that they have discovered a BOZO or a MOO-ON or the God Particle, or maybe just a Saint Particle, or an Archangel Particle, which has a duration of less than a nano-second.  That is a problem, because these research projects appear to me, a reasonable person, to be treating events, flashes of energy or something like energy, as particles, and no physicists has suggested that a thing has to have a specific life span in order to qualify as a particle.  Think about runners in a race, or leaves on a tree.  If a runners moves from the starting block for less than a nano-second, are they a runner?  If a leaf buds out on a tree branch for less than a nano-second, is it really a leaf?  In case you did not know this, if a light image strikes your eye for less than 1/50 th of a second, you will not see (detect) it.  For your brain, it does not exist.  If a bell sounds a tone for less than 1/50th of a second, you will not detect it.  No sound, no tone, no bell.  My proposition:  All of those "particles" are not particles.  They are events.  You can hand me a dish of iron, or calcium or sulfur.  You cannot hand me a dish of electrons, or neutrons, or anyons, because the atom is the smallest possible particle of physical matter.  The alleged sub-atomic particles should have another name that denotes the physical qualities or traits that distinguishes them from atoms.  The use of the phrase, "sub-atomic particle" is awkward, like saying "sub-atomic atom."



2)  The Big Bang Theory is blatantly incomplete.  If the universe is expanding like the residual action of an ancient explosion, it is obvious that the theory needs to tell us what happens next.  Does the universe expand forever, with greater and greater distances growing between celestial bodies?  Does the universe generate new matter that appears and fills in the growing spaces?  Does the universe reach a point of maximum expansion and then begin a collapse back toward a "center."  Please note, that if the expansion stops and shrinking begins, there has to be a point where everything is shrinking to.  It can't all shrink in many directions because that is a kind of movement but it is not the movement denoted by "shrinking."  The same scientists who defend the Big Bang Theory say that about 27% of the material in a galaxy is "dark matter" which means matter that we do not detect directly.  We do not see it because it does not emit light waves that we can see.  We do not know exactly what it is, or how it came to be.  All we know is that it seems like it must be present because if it were not there the galaxy would fly apart instead of twirling indefinitely like a carousel with almost eternal life.  It is also stated that there is a lot of "dark energy" in the universe, about 68%, that plays a role in keeping things operating normally.  If one studies linguistics, you will hear the central concept of thought structure or the structure of a statement.  Most of the meaning of a statement is in the structure rather than in the words themselves.  For example:  "Dogs can fly" is essentially the same statement as "Birds can fly" except that one is true and the other is not true.  The statement that there is dark energy holding together a galaxy is linguistically the equivalent of saying "Your living body is held together by an invisible soul."  The statement about the soul may be considered true by many people, but that statement does not meet the requirements of a scientific statement.  Thus, the scientists, who get very upset when religionists invade their territory, want us to tolerate their freedom to make statements that are religious in nature and treat such statements as "science" because they are making the statements.  Not fair.  When you say that a galaxy is held together by "dark matter" you have left the laboratory and knocking on the church door.


3)  Physicists and astronomers have a right to speculate, but they want their speculations to rise automatically to the level of scientific fact because they have the "authority" of the scientific method on their side.  However the scientific method is only as scientific as the person who is performing the operation.  Even instruments can detect something other than what the user thinks is being detected.  If precision and honesty are highly valued, then descriptions of the universe should always be presented as what is the most recent evidence detected, and an interpretation of the evidence that might be wrong. 


I hold that the universe is simpler than we make it.  I believe, based on a lifetime of studying how people learn and perceive and formulate reality that our brains have a flaw that leads us in the direction that makes the real, physical world appear far more intricate and complex than it is.  For example, chaos theory demonstrates that what we have perceived as chaotic and disordered is in fact the application of orderly action that can be detected, measured and described as a pattern.  Add to this the phenomenon of the Hiram Key and Natural Extraction and we have the possibility, which should be ruled out only by serious study and experimentation, that the physical universe is based entirely on the shapes of matter, on proportion.  This would be consistent with taking the statement "Proportion is everything" as fundamental science, and not just a casual or philosophical observation about ratios.   As amazing as it may sound, I propose that proportion, evolutionary proportion, and proportional evolution, is the sufficient cause of the self-assembly or self-organization of matter.  And, this view should not be ruled out just because it seems too simple.  It is not simple, and it is consistent with Occam's Razor and the concept of the economy of Nature.  If proportion is sufficient for Nature to measure and move and assemble molecules, then nothing further would be invented.  Also of extreme importance is the corollary that proportion is what exists in Nature, or what Nature is, and mathematics is not what Nature is or what Nature uses, but instead mathematics is our detection of proportion, in a manner similar to the reality that the electromagnetic spectrum is Nature and vision is our detection of light.  Human vision is how we detect light; human mathematics is how we detect proportion.  Mathematics is a cultural artifact of human civilization, instigated and developed because of the evolutionary advantage that humans have if they can count and measure and make a "good trade."  The evolution of mathematics was driven by commerce, not by flaking spearheads or building houses.  We have always have artists and crafts persons who are "self-taught."  Those primitive humans who could make an advantageous trade, get three hunting dogs for three fish, had a better chance to survive and thrive, and pass on their genes to their offspring.  Look at human history and human behavior to this day.  What do we use mathematics for?  For commerce and industry, for trading and making things that we can sell (trade).  The advantage of technological skills comes later, as a natural outgrowth of the genes that drive us to produce something better so that we will get a better trade (or make more money).  The ancient human had no use for an airplane or a typewriter, but could put a large net to use to capture a mastodon.  The mental skills required to transform fibers into rope and then a net of useful size are the most likely beginnings of mathematics.  It looks like an improvement in technology, like a highly cerebral exercise, but there was no benefit in making a better net until the tribe traded a ton of mastodon for three women, a dozen knives, and a winter of peace.  The ability to produce value is the origin and end of human mathematics.  Math is the primary technology.  We must count and measure before we make anything.  Try to even build a birdhouse, or talk about building a birdhouse, without counting and measuring.  If your make an artistic birdhouse, one that looks like a Victorian mansion, the birds might not even like it, but the customers will, and you can make a better trade because you know how to measure and cut wood to make it look like a Victorian mansion.  Military science is the foundation of economic security.  War is an economic activity.  The high technology of warcraft has no intrinsic survival advantage.  How could killing people be the best way to insure human survival?  The purpose of war is to protect trade and maintain economic advantages.  We do not have mathematical skills because they enable us to make better weapons.  We have mathematical skills because they enable us to sell better weapons.      


Link back to: (Journey List) or (Welcome) page links or (Mindstream) of J. Manimas or (JM Magazine 2014).