Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Standing on the Whale, Fishing for Minnows

Explorations in the theory which is known as quantum mechanics
has yielded spectacular successes and insights into the nature of the universe ,
among which is describing properties of atomic structures.


Where relativity deals with the largest objects in the universe,
quantum mechanics deals with understanding the very smallest particles
of which all objects are composed.
Quantum physics has shattered the traditional ideas of the physical universe.
Yet it's elegant equations present us not simply with scientific knowledge,
but also with philosophical challenges regarding its interpretation.
It's implications are
vast, mysterious, revolutionary, and wondrous.
After all,
What is a quantum particle?
The dreams that stuff is made of!


Quantum Mechanics has been described
as the crowning achievement of the 20th Century,
a theory that has been validated with great precision.
The quanta - the idea that at the smallest of scales,
everything is discrete; has devastated classical physics and forced us
to perceive reality in a most unreasonable fashion by conventional standards.
Yet at it's very core, the stuff upon which the physical universe is hung,
is more real than the physical universe itself.
How did we arrive here?

THE ULTRAVIOLET CATASTROPHE
Hop aboard the old "wayback machine"
with Mr.Peabody and Sherman!
(which incidentally, exists courtesy of relativity ...
and/or Jay Ward!
Of course this begs the question,
in a quantum universe,
is Bullwinkle still a moose?)

In the 19th century much of the scientific community was absorbed in the study of heat properties of various objects. An abstract model that was considered was the Black Body, which was an object which absorbs all incidents of radiation and then re-emited the energy again. We can think of the radiating energy as standing waves inside our blackbody cavity. The energy of these radiating waves at a given frequency ½, should be proportional to the number of modes at this frequency. Classical physics states that all these modes have the same energy k T (a result derived from classical thermodynamics) and as the number of modes is proportional to ½ 2 :

E \propto \nu^2 kT

We would expect most of the energy at higher frequency, and this energy to diverge with frequency. When we sum the energies at each frequency we find that there is an infinite energy in this system!

This paradox was called the ULTRAVIOLET CATASTROPHE.

Physicist Max Planck resolved this untidy paradox.
He postulated that the energy of the modes
could only come in discrete packets - quanta - of energy:
E = h\nu, 2h\nu, 3h\nu, \ldots \qquad \Delta E = h\nu

Using statistical mechanics Planck found that the modes at higher frequency were less likely excited so the average energy of these modes would decrease with the frequency. The exact expression for the average energy of each mode is given by the Planck distribution:


\langle E \rangle = \frac{h\nu}{\exp(\frac{h\nu}{KT}) - 1}

You can see that if the frequency is low then the average energy tends towards the classical result, and as frequency goes to infinity we get that the average energy goes to zero as expected.

We might say this was the birth of quantum mechanical thinking.

The Clot Thickens...

Atomic Line Spectra
There was a further breakdown in classical physics regarding the observed discrete line spectra specific to each atom.
It was widely accepted that this must be due to transitions between atomic energy levels.
But this presented a considerable problem to classical physics as it predicted that accelerating charges emitted radiation.
It would thus seem that the energy orbital would be unstable as the electron slowly spiraled towards the nuclei as it emitted radiation.
There was absolutely no classical model which could explain a stable electron orbital.
In other words:
How could the electrons orbit the nucleus and not lose energy?
Why was this configuration stable?

Niels Bohr

Bohr was able to crack this puzzle by invoking the idea developed by Planck.
This quantization could not be proven on classical grounds or even justified,
but Bohr showed that when he made these assumptions,
he could predict the spectrum of hydrogen
with unprecedented accuracy.
This magical conjuring act
was able to accurately describe the energy levels
giving the exact energies of the lines actually observed in the atomic spectra.
This is the resultant equation.
E = \frac{2 \pi^2 m e^4}{h^4}-\frac{1}{n^2}

Look here for a brief presentation of the derivation of his theory.

Bohr's success was indisputable.

Unfortunately it only worked on Hydrogen.

HeisenbergThe Uncertainty Principle

"The more precisely
the
POSITION is determined,
the
less precisely the MOMENTUM is known"
This seemingly harmless sounding statement
of the "uncertainty relation" between the position
and the momentum (mass times velocity) of a subatomic particle,
such as an electron sent reverberations
through the hallowed halls of science and philosophy.
The implications are unfathomably infinite.
This relationship has profound effects
on such fundamental notions as causality
and the determination of the future behavior of an atomic particle.
But as we discussed in Anarchs Of The New Paradigm,
the implications in Art, Music, Philosophy,
and essentially all man's endeavors are fundamentally of equal significance.

Consider a particle,
say an electron, moving through space.
We describe the electron's motion in terms
of its position and momentum.
Classically speaking,
we can measure both quantities to infinite precision.
However in Quantum Mechanics,
we can never know both quantities absolutely precisely.
This is because by taking a measurement
we inadvertently have disturbed the system.

"I believe that the existence of the classical 'path'
can be pregnantly formulated as follows:

The "path" comes into existence only when we observe it.
"
--Heisenberg, in the uncertainty principle paper

If every concept has a meaning only in terms of the experiments used to measure it, we must agree that things that cannot be measured really have no meaning in physics. So for instance, the path of a particle has no meaning beyond the precision with which it is observed. But a basic assumption of physics since Newton has been that a "real world" exists independently of us, regardless of whether or not we observe it. (This assumption did not go unchallenged, however, by some alchemists and philosophers.)
Heisenberg now argued that such concepts as orbits of electrons do not exist in nature unless and until we observe them.
Does this perhaps suggest that all knowledge is unknowable?
There simply are no certainties.
Only probabilities.
Tumblin' Dice...
Quantum theory...
"If we know the present exactly, we can calculate the future"
-it is not the conclusion that is wrong but the premise."
--Heisenberg, in the uncertainty principle paper

Heisenburg

So we can not be certain Bullwinkle is a moose,
in fact, merely making the inquiry
affects whether Bullwinkle is a moose or not.

Light can be both wave and particle
Some experiments show that light is a particle:
Einstein's Nobel Prize was actually for the photoelectric effect, where he showed that light carries energy in discrete amounts, a certain amount per particle. Yet other experiments also show that light is definitely a wave:
It exhibits interference patterns, which is something that only waves do.
There is however, no experiment which can show both results.
Whether light is a wave or a particle depends on how you're looking with it.
This may seem odd, but there are many examples of this sort of duality, even outside of physics. The same person could be perceived as a father, son, brother, nephew, or uncle, depending on who's perception we are dealing with.

Bullwinkle is a moose and squirrel.


Matter (us and everything else) is of a dual nature.
As discussed in the explanation of the nature of light.
The idea of duality is rooted in the debates over the nature of light and matter dating back to the 1600s, when competing theories of light were proposed by Christiaan Huygens and Isaac Newton. Through the work of Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, and many others, current scientific theory holds that all particles also have a wave nature. This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules. In fact, wave–particle duality applies to all objects, even macroscopic ones.

We exist as both particles and wave functions.
The wave function of an object represents the probability of finding it in a particular location or with a particular physical property (ie. it's reality) - when the probability of finding an object in a particular location or with a particular property goes to 100%, the wave function collapses and the object assumes physical properties. At this point it becomes "real".



Objects do not have any physical properties until they are observed.
Quantum physics contradicts the belief in an objective world existing independent of observation.
Our observations influence reality by collapsing the wave function of an object.
The point at which the wave collapses is consciousness itself.
An astounding yet mathematically supported reality.
Renee Descartes walks into a bar,
the bartender says 'sir can I get you a martini
'Descartes says
'I don't think...'
and he disappears.

The Tragic End Of Schrödinger's Cat
After a stint in the physics limelight, Schrödinger's cat fell on hard times.
The constant stress of never knowing from one moment to the next whether he was alive or dead took its toll on the cat's psyche. Schrödinger's cat began to drink, and drink heavily!
Often drinking himself into a catatonic stupor. Alcohol abuse began to affect his work.
This was especially evident in his last paper published shortly before his death, "Der Maus Eigenfunctionen im Unendlich-dimensional Hilbertraum", in which he published the following rather cryptic equation for analyzing the momentum of electrically-charged particles:

p[[p[p[p = <~~fafafaf | 35eeeeeeeeee >

It has been speculated that if properly understood, this strange-looking equation may have profound implications for our understanding of the interactions of particles in an electromagnetic field. Unfortunately, the original manuscript was covered with coughed up fur balls and a green-colored stain that resembled cat vomit.
One by one, Due to his drinking, his sources of funding dried up.
Soon, he found that he was no longer being invited to give seminars.
His scientific colleagues and students expressed uncertainty about whether or not he would even show up at his lectures. Some people even debated whether he was even still alive!
His last work was in telecommunications.
His invention of Cat-5 cable at Bell Laboratories laid the foundations for the Internet.
In his last days he also spent more and more of his time playing with string theory.

R.I.P. Schrödinger's cat


Physical reality is not "real"
It is the minnow we seek to catch
while standing on the whale

The title of this article is a Polynesian saying.
I first encountered it while reading a book by Joseph Campbell
Joseph Campell suggested that man's mythology was a powerful tool.
That perhaps we need a modern mythology to help us make sense of the universe
as we experience it in this time.
He postulated that the story of "Star Wars"
could actually be used to this effect in his celebrated interviews with Bill Moyers.
Though he could not not literally subscribe to any particular brand of mythology,
he recognized the importance and indeed the beauty of the stories.
And in his book, "the Hero With A Thousand Faces";
he observed that man's various mythologies were essentially all the same story.


Duct tape is metaphysical.
Duct tape is a metaphor for "the Force".
It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.


But what is it ultimately that one seeks?
Campbell suggested "People say that what we're all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think that what we're seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances within our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive. That's what it's all finally about, and that's what these clues help us to find within ourselves."

. Evidence from man's research into subatomic physics
informs us that there is actually no such thing as physical matter.
That literally everything is energy.
Our greatest physicists
have told us that energy is controlled by consciousness.
What consciousness is, where it is,
and how it functions is the question.
(Please see Anarchs Of The New Paradigm for details.)

Universal consciousness
(the source of everything? God? Zappa's "crux of the biscuit?)
is the holy grail of the human quest for meaning.
Now of course we sentient human beings
each have consciousness,
of one sort or another ,
but how does human consciousness relate to cosmic consciousness?
Obviously,
this is a matter of speculation, conjecture, and controversy.
There is certainly a degree of scientific physical evidence
and indeed plenty of religio-philisophic writing that reflects on just this.
That perhaps what we allude to as "God" is not some hairy thunderer
but rather the sum of consciousness.
That each of us is a piece of God
or the cosmic consciousness.
The Hindu truth
that "I am the mystery of the Universe " comes to mind.
In the New Testament the author known as "John"
says that Jesus claimed " I am in the God, and God is in me"
paraphrased numerous times.
How about in Psalms "the kingdom of God is within you"?
Or the phrase "What you do onto the least of your brothers, you do onto me."
Lao Tzu said "at the center of your being you have the answer"
(what is at the center of your being other than consciousness itself?
The point of the wave collapse?)
Lao Tzu also said “Music in the soul can be heard by the universe.”
Might this all imply an attempt
at cosmic awareness of the nature of the universe
rather than some dogmatic mumbo jumbo
completely misinterpreted, mistranslated,
or misrepresented for centuries?
Man's quest for meaning did not begin in the 20th century.

Is it at least possible
that true seekers may have glimpsed the implications
of the quantum universe without actually doing the math?
Is there more than 1 path to ultimate knowledge?
And is man, with his hat on, taller than a taxi cab?



The physical universe is a function of "something"
in the non-physical part of reality.
(A something or a no-thing that we call consciousness.)
The source of creation
is in the non-physical consciousness.
The physical experience is the result.




No electrons were harmed in the creation of this article. In an alternate universe, Bullwinkle is the governor of Alaska and has the disembodied head of Sarah Palin hanging on his mantel.









Friday, January 11, 2008

Debunking Creationist Claims

Painted in 1925 by Charles R. Knight under the direction of paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn,
this mural in the American Museum of Natural History rebuts antievolutionists' charge
that science was undermining human dignity.


"Evolutionary philosophy and evolutionary spirituality are based upon
the recognition that we are part of a miraculous process that has existed
and been developing for billions of years.
It reveals to us that our own personal experience of that process
in all its many dimensions—inner and outer, gross and subtle
—is only a very small part of an infinite unfolding.
Thoughts and feelings that arise in individual consciousness
reflect emotional and psychological structures,
or habits, that have slowly developed over tens of thousands of years."

- Andrew Cohen

Science and spirituality are not necessarily exclusive of each other,
evolution occurs in an environment composed of time, space and form,
where spirit if it does indeed exist, must be of a primordial nature, timeless and formless.
The realm of spirituality is outside of time and space and unless you too
are outside of time and space, you know no more about it than anyone else.

I suggest that anyone whose ideas about spirituality hinge upon the literal "truth"
of stories told and retold in numerous tongues (many long dead) since the advent of language has no concept of spirituality whatsoever. Evolution is cosmic, biological and human.

Galaxies, planets, life, human consciousness and culture evolve
regardless of ones belief or disbelief in the process.
When someone feels connected to this ultimate reality,
and knows themselves to be a part of it, existence becomes harmonious
with integrity, with love and compassion for the whole.
If your personal interpretation of religious philosophy can not encompass this,
I suggest you may be in need of some "evolution" in that area.
Both legitimate science and legitimate spiritual inquiry seek the truth of matters.
If truth becomes your enemy, what are you defending?


Intelligent design is unintelligent.
A charade attempting to cloak one's personal religious dogma in scientific threads.
The claims of creationism as a science are rotund and pregnant with disingenuousness.
The creationist's claim that many scientists reject evolution and support creationism
but are somehow thwarted by liberals and atheists who control science
from behind soundstage curtains like the Wizard of Oz is deceptive nonsense.

Among the scientists and engineers in the US, merely 5% are creationists,
according to 3 surveys (1991 Gallup poll Robinson 1995, Witham 1997).
But this figure includes those in fields not related to life sciences
(like computer programmers, civil engineers, etc.).
If we were to take into account only those working in the relevant fields
of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists,
yet only 700 or so consider creationism a valid theory (Robinson poll 1995).
This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists
believe in creation theories. And that is just in the United States,
which has far more creationists than even the most forsaken
backwater 3rd world locale on the planet, let alone among industrial nations .
In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence is so overwhelming
that they have issued public statements to that effect.
The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations,
devotes a Web site to the topic . A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates,
seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations
created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court
(Edwards v. Aguillard ). This report clarified what makes science different
from religion and why creationism is not science.

We also should examine not just how many scientists and professors believe something,
but what their conviction is based on.
Most of those who reject evolution do so because
of personal religious convictions, not because of evidence.
Evidence supports evolution.
And ultimately evidence, not someone's personal opinion
(even if they are an authority) is what objective conclusions are based on in science.

Quite often, the claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism
are hyperbolized or outright fraudulent. All good scientists are skeptical.
Evolution (and literally everything else) must be open to the possibility, however remote,
that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists seize such expressions
of healthy scientific skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable
in the halls of science. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution
has withstood many years of such questioning
really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

"God is not averse to deceit in a holy cause"
- Aeschylus (525 - 456 BC) Source: Fragment 162

Another opium pipe dream espoused by the creationist is that evolution is not falsifiable and is not a proper scientific theory. This is absurd. There are numerous lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
  • a static fossil record;
  • true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together.
  • a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
  • observations of organisms being created.
Now this particular argument is made even more absurd because creationism is nothing but unsubstantiated claims.

GOD OF THE GAPS
"It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally.
Therefore, it must have been created. "
This argument, is known as the argument from ignorance or "god of the gaps,".
It is behind a plethora of different creationist arguments.
In particular, it is behind all arguments against abiogenesis
and any and all claims of "intelligent design".
Obviously no one knows everything, so it is completely unreasonable
to conclude that something is impossible because you do not know it.
someone may find a natural explanation; in many cases, they already have.

Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning,
for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses,
for mental illnesses until we found biochemical causes for them.
The fundamentalist's God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking. Perhaps that is why they seek to deny science and reason.



An intelligent and reasonable person who may also believe in a God creator
perceives the observations of Darwin as a glimpse at the handiwork
and mechanism of that Creator.
The deniers must not believe their God is capable of such a feat.
Since these folks are by far predominantly fundamentalists who insist
their particular take on the Bible is literally true,
how do they reconcile their anti-evolution stance with
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass,
the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree." -- Genesis 1:11?
Why that smacks of evolution!
After all "the earth brings forth" suggests a natural process does it not?

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."
-- Genesis 1:24 also suggests that perhaps ancients did not mean
that a hairy thunderer in the sky went "poof" and life appeared in an instant.
Rather again, it suggests that the Earth brought it forth .

So where did this idea that evolution was not compatible with religion originate?
It seems Luther and Calvin's take on these things is the the source.

Calvin warns those who, by taking another view than his own,
"basely insult the Creator, to expect a judge who will annihilate them."
He insists that all species of animals were created in six days,
each made up of an evening and a morning, and that no new species has ever appeared since.
He dwells on the production of birds from the water as resting upon
certain warrant of Scripture, but adds, "If the question is to be argued on physical grounds,
we know that water is more akin to air than the earth is.
As to difficulties in the scriptural account of creation,
he tells us that God "wished by these to give proofs of his power
which should fill us with astonishment."
Why was Calvin the authority?
Because he said so.

Not much of a premise to base a vehemently adhered to dogma on.

Then of course Luther at the Reformation insisted on the literal acceptance
of Scripture as the main source of natural science.
He utterly rejected the allegorical and mystical interpretations of the earlier theologians .

"Why," he asks, "should Moses use allegory when he is not speaking of allegorical creatures or of an allegorical world, but of real creatures and of a visible world, which can be seen, felt, and grasped? Moses calls things by their right names, as we ought to do....I hold that the animals took their being at once upon the word of God, as did also the fishes in the sea."
Why?
Cause I said so!
Again not much to hang your hat on there folks.

It seems the premise of fundamentalism is a belief in Calvin, Luther,
or someone else's opinion about the intentions of writers many centuries ago,
in favor of what was actually written.


Perhaps we are witnessing evolution at work.
Perhaps there has been a split in the human race.
Most of us are moving forward intellectually, culturally, and spiritually.
The trajectory is towards inclusion, complexity, facilitation, and amelioration.
While some either simply can not or will not evolve.
Instead they seek to go the other way on the chart,
in the direction of Cro-Magnon man.
Choosing ignorance over knowledge, hate over love, war over peace,
autocracy over freedom, hegemony over cooperation, ideology over ideals,
egregiousness over egalitarianism, superstition over science,
encomberment over encouragement, fallacy over fact, entombment over enlightenment.
In our journey through human cultural evolution,
we see greater and greater spheres of cooperation,
of complexity and interdependence on an ever-widening scale.
At first we cooperated with family and clan; then at the level of tribe;
then, later on, at the level of the kingdom; and now, at a planetary level.
Our list of enemies keeps shrinking,
and the people with whom we have cooperation and compassion
like our universe keeps expanding.
On the other hand the contingent who are de-evolving
have smaller and smaller spheres of cooperation, narrowing vision,
distrust and fear on a wider and wider scale. Their list of enemies keeps growing.
And contrary to the trajectory of the rest of us their cooperation and compassion keeps diminishing.

Who among us would let a 14th-century dentist fix their or their children's teeth?
Yet every day some let 14th century theologians fill their and their children's brains.
Evolution is observable and sound science.
Creationism is not.
There is no reason to expect to have science classrooms turned into pulpits
for the de-evolving crowd.
At some point if their trajectory is not altered they will become paramecium!

Click this picture