20170322

Infinite Divisibility of Matter and Space

PSI Blog 20170322 Infinite Divisibility of Matter and Space

Readers will remember that the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) is one of the guiding lights of all our work at PSI. Ever since Aristotle introduced it, microcosmic infinity has given thinkers as much trouble as Newton’s macrocosmic kind. Here is my response to our old friend Bill Westmiller who, like Captain Bligh of matterless motion fame, likes to cherry pick among “The Ten Assumptions of Science.” The Captain doesn’t like the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion)—not “sophisticated” enough for him. In addition to infinity, Bill doesn’t like the Ninth Assumption of Science, relativism (All things have characteristics that make them similar to all other things as well as characteristics that make them dissimilar to all other things).

His comments illustrate some of the hurdles we have to overcome to develop progressive physics and Infinite Universe Theory:


BW: Of course, I have no problem distinguishing matter from the motion of matter. Our disagreement persists on the issue of "perfect" matter, which we've discussed extensively in the past.


>... Like all idealizations, solid matter and empty space do not and cannot exist. ...


BW: We agree that all known *compositions* of matter consist of physical components in motion. It took a long time to discover that a "perfectly solid" rod of iron is composed of atoms in motion. It took longer to discover that the atoms themselves are not "perfectly solid" objects, but are compositions of smaller physical particles in motion. 


My proposition is that there are even smaller particles of mass that compose those sub-atomic particles. So, it's no surprise to me that you would be skeptical about those particles (Unimids) being "perfectly solid" objects. Even if they are not, I think the Unimid Theory explains a host of problems common in quantum particle theory.


However, our dispute is primarily philosophical. My position is that no matter can be in motion unless there is space where that matter does not exist. If all space is occupied by matter, no motion can occur.

[GB: False! All the space in this room is occupied by matter, and yet, I have no trouble moving about. As an absolutist, you assume that all matter has the same characteristics. That is definitely not true, per relativism. This is in tune with our definition of matter as an abstraction for all things. As with all abstractions, matter per se does not exist—only specific examples of matter exist. As such, each microcosm has different characteristics. Those with the greatest mass (resistance to acceleration) tend to displace those with lesser mass, as I do when I thrust aside the air that blocks my passage through my open doorway.]

BW: There can be no such event as a "collision" or "interaction" among particles, since they would all be in constant contact. The universe would be one infinite solid block of matter, with no motion whatever.

[GB: Again, there are various kinds of matter, with each of them having characteristics approaching solid matter and characteristics approaching empty space. This is from my new book in preparation:

“MATTER-SPACE CONTINUUM. A range or series of microcosms that are slightly different from each other and that exist between what we imagine to be perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space.[i] Like all idealizations, solid matter and empty space do not and cannot exist.

The matter end member:

As mentioned, matter is an abstraction; there is no such thing as matter per se—there are only individual, unique examples of matter.[ii] The idea that solid matter must exist deep down at some level is still just that, an idea, or ideal, which never occurs in nature. The Greek atomists imagined that atoms were true elementary particles filled with solid matter. The things we now call atoms appear to contain mostly empty space. Even so, some absolutists assume that we just have not gone far enough and that the nirvana of perfect solidity is theoretically possible.[iii] At one time, the space between you and I may have been considered empty. Now we know that is not the case, for space is just the stuff that yields to the motion of other stuff. These ideals exist only in our brains—they help us understand the properties of various kinds of matter, but they can have no real existence. We use them to understand the intervening reality. It is good enough for finding a doorway instead of a wall, even though the doorway contains matter in the form of air and the wall contains space. In IUT, what we consider solid matter is simply a portion of the universe that offers more resistance to acceleration than other portions we consider empty space.

The space end member:

The absolutist’s belief in the ideals of perfectly empty space, nothing, and nonexistence comes right out of the cosmogonical handbook whose precursors are the sacred texts of traditional religion.To insist, like the young Einstein and his positivist friends, that space is perfectly empty or immaterial makes one a rank idealist. To insist, as indeterminists are wont to do, that idealities could be or must be realities merely provides another roadblock to the ultimate acceptance of IUT.”

The “block universe” you and others write about is impossible because matter cannot take on the characteristics of either end member of the matter-space continuum. Absolutists of that type tend to think of infinite divisibility as divisibility of the ideal solid matter end of the continuum. Absolutists of another type might tend to think of infinite divisibility as divisibility of the ideal empty space end of the continuum. That would result in an empty universe. In actuality, every subdivision anywhere along the continuum always ends up with both properties: solid matter and empty space.]


[ii] Coyne, George, 2017, Notfinity process (in press): Denver, CO, Outskirts Press.
[iii] AbuBakr, Mohammed, 2007, The End of Pseudo-Science: Essays Refuting False Scientific Theories Taught in Schools, Colleges, and Universities, iUniverse, 86 p.

20170315

Distinguishing Matter from Motion

PSI Blog 20170315 Distinguishing Matter from Motion
Captain Bligh writes:
“How do you explain light from the Sun if photons do not exist? They are a dynamic action in the aether, as is matter. Matter moves does it not? Matter is also a dynamic. It changes constantly since it is a wave motion.”
[GB: Sagnac long ago showed that light was a wave and not a particle. Light from the Sun occurs as waves in the aether in the same way that sound occurs as waves in the atmosphere. Surely, you don’t think we need “soundons” to explain sound?  You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between matter and the motion of matter. Try repeating the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion) several times. Better yet, reread the entire chapter on it, as the book is now in pdf and free to all:  
This from p. 60 is particularly apropos to your problem:

“INSEPARABILITY AND CLEAR THINKING
 Let me restate. The dialectical nature of the world stems from its character as matter in motion. Its unity consists in the INSEPARABILITY of this matter and its motion. Although matter and motion are not physically separable, it is impossible for the mind to conceive of matter and motion as a singular phenomenon. Although we may invent terms for conceiving of matter-motion as a unity, they inevitably fail, taking on the connotations of either matter or motion, not both at once. Clear thinking requires us to be cognizant of INSEPARABILITY.
Consequently, we must guard against four types of errors of logic that violate the assumption of INSEPARABILITY:
1. That matter could exist without motion.
2. That motion could occur without matter.
3. That matter is motion.
4. That motion is matter.
Only by avoiding these indeterministic errors can we achieve a description of the universe that includes both subject and predicate, and is therefore both meaningful and scientific.”

The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview. Free pdf available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275045159_The_ten_assumptions_of_science_Toward_a_new_scientific_worldview [accessed Mar 10, 2017].
You write: “They [photons] are a dynamic action in the aether, as is matter.” False. Photons (even if they were not imaginary) are supposed to be particles, they are not motions. As such, they take up xyz space—motions do not. Matter is an abstraction for “all things in existence.” All things have xyz dimensions, including aether particles.  You write: “It [matter] changes constantly since it is a wave motion.”  False. As seen above, matter is not motion, least of all wave motion. That would be error #3 above. You are correct in stating that matter changes constantly and that it is always in motion, but don’t forget: matter is not motion. Perhaps you got the “matter is wave motion” idea by reading too much regressive physics. Much of quantum mechanics is based on aether denial, in which the waves produced by the ship appear to have been mistaken for the ship itself. (See: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/11/wave-particle-duality-is-really-just.html )

BTW: I have not come across anyone other than religious folks and regressive physicists who have so much trouble understanding this subject. See: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-soul-of-regressive-physics.html
Are you pulling (motion) my leg (matter)? Seems simple to me: There are things that we call matter; when they move, we call that motion—it is the difference between legs and running. Legs exist; running occurs. Legs have xyz dimensions; running does not. Actually, this may not be your problem so much as it may be my problem. I have great difficulty in understanding how folks could have completely opposed assumptions when the correct ones are so logical and so obvious. I try to lay out the logic, repeating salient points where necessary adding real-life examples, etc., but this seldom does any good.
Our friend Bill Westmiller is another example. He is a Finite Particle Theorist (FPT). I have pointed out that the perfectly solid matter needed for the theory is impossible. That is because perfectly solid matter is one ideal end member of the matter-space continuum:
MATTER-SPACE CONTINUUM. A range or series of microcosms that are slightly different from each other and that exist between what we imagine to be perfectly solid matter and perfectly empty space.[1] Like all idealizations, solid matter and empty space do not and cannot exist.

Again, none of this does any good. In Bill’s case I can understand that after working many years on FPT and believing in the necessity of solid matter, one is unlikely to switch views quickly. That would negate everything. It would be like Hawking or the Pope finally confessing that everything they ever said was a complete hoax. I can see the reputational and fiducial reasons for hanging onto beliefs past their expiration dates. So, my good Captain, please try to help me understand what you get out of continuing to have difficulties distinguishing matter and motion. Do you need that confusion in order to maintain belief in wave-particle duality? Does the confusion help you to achieve financial gain or reputation? Will it help in getting published by the mainstream?
I must admit that I once believed in photons too, mostly, I suppose because everyone else did. And that was after I wrote “The Ten Assumptions of Science.” It was not until I looked into the situation with greater detail than the average high school physics teacher that I found the the remedy: I needed to apply the 4th assumption in the strictest sense. Also, what brings you and Bill to the dissident table need not be all of the hundreds of contradictions in regressive physics and cosmogony—just a few will start the journey. In science, we often start a project by looking for contradictions. The project is not finished until the resolution. Now, you have to ask yourself: Why don’t I think that wave-particle duality is a contradiction?



20170308

Time Crystals and Complementarity



PSI Blog 20170308 Time Crystals and Complementarity

Thanks to Ed for this heads up.

Readers familiar with the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things) and the Second Law of Thermodynamics may be interested in a recent break-through dubbed “time crystals.”   

FIONA MACDONALD at Science Alert puts it this way:


Constant motion without energy.






That last bit has been corrected:

Update 31 January 2017: We had previously compared the constant oscillation of the time crystals as being in perpetual motion at ground state, which isn't accurate. We've now corrected this explanation.”



Actually, I was hoping to get some crystallized time so I can get my new book “Infinite Universe Theory” done some time this century. Oh well, at least we don't have to suffer yet another transgression of the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). While energy neither exists nor occurs, it still is a useful calculation. I am also glad that this really is not about motion without energy. I don’t quite know what to make of the claim that this is “one of the first examples of non-equilibrium matter.” What would really be surprising would be to discover an example of “equilibrium matter." With all microcosms in the universe moving with respect to all other microcosms, nothing is truly in equilibrium. All matter is “non-equilibrium matter,” just as all reactions are irreversible.


Any confusion about this study stems from the vagaries of systems philosophy. If one totally ignores the macrocosm (environment) of the particular microcosm being studied, there are bound to be some surprising results. Be reminded that the macrocosm contains a veritable zoo of supermicrocosmic particles. Any time an experiment verges on discovering a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, rest assured that some factor in the macrocosm has been ignored when it should not have been.


Per the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed) no microcosm can exhibit an increase in motion without having received it from somewhere else.

20170301

The Meaning of Life



PSI Blog 20170301 The Meaning of Life

I just received an interesting comment on “The Soul of Regressive Physics” from joogabah, an indeterministic reader who shows signs of advancing to univironmental determinism:

If all that exists is matter in motion, what is "meaning"?

[GB: The universe has no meaning; just like water running downhill has no meaning. That question is most often asked by indeterminists who think they have the answer, and it always involves some religious notion their ancestors dreamed up. Meaning is purely subjective. It is whatever you want it to be. For instance, if I write m = mass, that is the same as saying that m means mass or that m means the resistance to acceleration. Matter would have resistance to acceleration even if I or anyone else never existed.

In this regard, I once arrived at Squaw Valley Ski Resort, meeting a hostess who had a sign: “Questions?”. So I asked her one you might be interested in: “What is the meaning of life?” Like many others, she had no answer, so I had to supply one of my own: “It is skiing at Squaw Valley.” That was pretty simple and apropos to the univironment. The truth is that, if the universe had a meaning, we all would have been born with the memo. Many folks think that the meaning of life is to get out of this miserable temporary one through much sacrifice to arrive at the next one, which will be perfectly beautiful and will last forever. Sorry, the universe can offer an infinite number of possibilities, but that is not one of them.] 

Souls are linguistic.

[GB: I don’t know what that means. If you mean that “linguistic” = “imaginary,” I would agree.]

I am also persuaded by materialism, and yet it cannot explain subjectivity.

[GB: Sorry, but subjectivity is explained by determinism, which assumes that there are material causes for all effects. In science we try to fight subjectivity at every opportunity. That is why we are seen as “objective” and therefore trustworthy and less likely to favor our own personal point of view in making scientific decisions. Those who believe that there can be no natural explanation for any microcosm or the motion of any microcosm in the Infinite Universe are, by definition, indeterminists. They assume that some effects have no material causes, with their most often cited example being “free will.” In opposition, determinists assume that there is no free will. Perhaps what you mean by subjectivity is the “feeling of freedom” that we all have when we make decisions without knowing the infinite number of causes that led up to them. In univironmental analysis that is what we call a “microcosmic mistake”: overemphasis on the microcosm and neglect of the macrocosm. In other words, subjects mistakenly think that they can operate independently of the environment in which they exist. Sorry, but in the Infinite Universe, the environment is always there.]

Something absolutely fundamental is missing, and I don't mean to suggest that it is indeterministic. But this is what must be answered to counter religion.

[GB: There is nothing more fundamental than matter and the motion of matter. What is “beyond physics” is just more physics, as proclaimed in Infinite Universe Theory. Those who seek something more will never find it because it does not exist. Nonetheless, as you imply, there always will be some snake-oil salesman making a pitch for a traditional or “new age” religion that can make up some answers for you. Just don’t give him too much time or money.]

Perception itself cannot be objectified.

[GB: It can, and we have. All the senses have been studied in detail, and all require the collisions of microcosms with microcosms. That is why scientists do not believe in ESP.]

If consciousness is somehow an emergent property of matter in motion, then the natural material universe might also give rise to greater levels of consciousness on a scale that can influence matter to a much greater extent than we can.

[GB: No doubt there are more highly evolved beings on other planets. However, like you and I, they are surrounded by a macrocosm consisting of matter in motion as well. Like us, they don’t get to act “outside of matter,” but are part of a univironment. Their univironmental interactions no doubt are more advanced than ours, but as mentioned in my chapter on the “Myth of Exceptionalism” in "The Scientific Worldview,"[1] they cannot have free will and will behave similarly to us.]

So even materialism leaves open the possibility of humanity's instinctive sense of a higher mental realm, of a greater agency that might have had a hand in initiating life on Earth.

[GB: The origin of life is a well-known natural process. Like the infinity of chemical transformations all around us, it needs no help from anyone. As for a “higher mental realm,” those more highly evolved aliens are sure to be more intelligent than we are. They probably discovered univironmental determinism and Infinite Universe Theory long ago.]

I think it is the denial of this that makes evolution unpalatable to many.

[GB: You are correct. That is why creationists still oppose evolution. They imagine that the universe, as infinitely capable that it is, still would need some help from some outside actor, at least in certain areas. As always, the solution requires more education, particularly that which starts with “The Ten Assumptions of Science.”]

Consciousness is not an illusion, and we are not animals.

[GB: We are animals. Consciousness is not unique to humans—just ask any dog or cat owner. Other animals may not have 80 billion neurons, but consciousness apparently doesn’t need that many to show up as a special kind of motion in the brain.]

We are linguistic constructs riding on animal substrates, much older than the bodies we inhabit, by virtue of language. We are literally spoken into existence. That is the sense in which we are created, and it is to that that religion addresses itself. That is what allows us, unique among animals, to create. We extrapolate that to the entire universe and imagine a macrocosmic, parental consciousness.

[GB: Can’t quite understand that. It is good that we have language, with much of it written as well as spoken, although our cousin primates don’t seem to need it to exist. The “creative” process you write about is brought about by the universal mechanism of evolution, univironmental determinism (What happens to a portion of the universe is determined by the infinite matter within and without). The proper definition of “creation” is the making of something from other things. That is what we do and what other animals do when they build nests, etc. The putting together of things is not unique; it is half of what the Infinite Universe does all the time. That process is described by the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things).[2]You are correct that many have mistaken convergence for a kind of mothering consciousness, but there can be no such activity. The Infinite Universe has no such choice. Microcosms continually come together (e.g., birth) and continually come apart (e.g., death). Indeterminists like to imagine that this activity has meaning or purpose, but the universe does not care one wit about what anyone thinks about it.]


[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].


[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [Free download at http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13320.21761].



20170216

Number of oxymoronic “multiverses” calculated



PSI Blog 20170216 Number of oxymoronic “multiverses” calculated
Sorry that I totally missed this one for the 2010 PSI Award for Pseudoscience:
Without tongue in cheek or facepalm, MIT blessed a cosmogonical mess that is now over seven years old:
Physicists Calculate Number of Universes in the Multiverse
This actually was published in Physical Review:
Linde, Andrei, and Vanchurin, Vitaly, 2010, How many universes are in the multiverse?: Physical Review D, v. 81, no. 8, p. 083525 [http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.083525].
You can get a review copy from arXiv:
Here is the abstract (if you really care):
“We argue that the total number of distinguishable locally Friedmann “universes” generated by eternal inflation is proportional to the exponent of the entropy of inflationary perturbations and is limited by ee3N, where N is the number of e-folds of slow-roll posteternal inflation. For simplest models of chaotic inflation, N is approximately equal to de Sitter entropy at the end of eternal inflation; it can be exponentially large. However, not all of these universes can be observed by a local observer. In the presence of a cosmological constant Λ the number of distinguishable universes is bounded by e|Λ|−3/4. In the context of the string theory landscape, the overall number of different universes is expected to be exponentially greater than the total number of vacua in the landscape. We discuss the possibility that the strongest constraint on the number of distinguishable universes may be related not to the properties of the multiverse but to the properties of observers.”

Egads! Look what you can get published as long as you are a believer in the Big Bang Theory. 
Oh well, at least they are getting closer to accepting that the universe is infinite!