For an excellent summary of Kuhn's place in the postmodern debacle, see Raman’s excellent article at http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/10673/Default.aspx.
I use Kuhn’s book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” as an example of the "cyclic theory" of history. History, of course, is actually spiralic, with progressive advances followed by regressive retreats, followed by even more progressive advances. Kuhn and the postmodernists are very much a part of the regression characteristic of the physics of the 20th century, as I explain in detail in "The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein."
This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.
20081203
Massless Particles
From a reader:
“I understand from reading TSW that there is no such thing as a massless particle. However, the recent announcement "proving" E=mc2 confuses me.
Resolving Einstein's equation seems to rest on the interaction of quarks and gluons. Gluons, the article says, have "zero" mass.
Is this just a case of our inability to measure?
How does this "corroboration" affect the IUT?
I am ever so grateful for your insight.”
“I understand from reading TSW that there is no such thing as a massless particle. However, the recent announcement "proving" E=mc2 confuses me.
Resolving Einstein's equation seems to rest on the interaction of quarks and gluons. Gluons, the article says, have "zero" mass.
Is this just a case of our inability to measure?
How does this "corroboration" affect the IUT?
I am ever so grateful for your insight.”
Frederic:
Thanks for the perceptive question. First, let me state unequivocally that I believe that E=mc2 is correct. I simply object to the indeterministic interpretation that generally is laid upon it. Second, you are correct that the assumption of INFINITY (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) implies that there can be no massless or partless particles. From time to time indeterminists will claim that they have found a massless particle. That, of course, is an oxymoron: a thing that is not a thing. It illustrates once again that mathematics never can be the final arbiter of reality. When I was working on the first draft of TSW (before 1984), neutrinos were considered to be massless. INFINITY convinced me this would be impossible. Today, of course, neutrinos are considered to have mass. Similarly, I predict that gluons, if they exist at all, also will be found to have mass. When this happens, INFINITY will be “corroborated” once again along with the IUT (Infinite Universe Theory). But don’t hold your breath. There always will be yet another particle claimed by some to be massless. I kept the quote marks around “corroborated” so as not to forget that complete and final corroboration is an oxymoron in an infinite universe. As you know, this is where I depart from Newton by using the consupponible assumption of UNCERTAINTY (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything).
This problem also can be resolved by using the assumption of INSEPARABILITY (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). In the case you mention, gluons are being considered as matterless motion, which, as you know, is a favorite of indeterminists everywhere. Lacking an ether filled with particles capable of transmitting electromagnetic motion, the conventional interpretation of E=mc2 implies that matter can be converted into matterless motion. At the quantum level, it is claimed, matter can be converted either into waves or into a “cloud of probability.” The chapter on neomechanics pretty much covers what I have to say on the conversion of one kind of matter in motion to other kinds of matter in motion. E=mc2 simply describes this conversion at the atomic level. The motion of the submicrocosms within the microcosm of the atom is transmitted to submicrocosms in the macrocosm. The equation would not work if the macrocosm consisted of pure empty space. Recent work proving that there is an ether, as well as the conventional speculations on “dark matter” fall into line with this view. With your encouragement, I might have to write my paper on “The Physical Meaning of E=mc2” sooner than I thought.
20081126
Letter to a Teacher of Evolution
Lee:
I understand and sympathize with your conundrum with regard to teaching evolution. You are on the forefront of the battle between science and religion. As a scientist and former fundamentalist, I don't envy your position one bit. Absolutely everything in the universe evolves, so evolution is absolutely critical for scientific thinking. Nothing in the universe is the same as it was seconds ago. My own conversion occurred slowly (at age 22), as I was exposed to more and more scientific facts along with their logical connections. I agree that you have to be gentle with especially young students who have been heavily indoctrinated by the time they appear in your class (if they are allowed to appear at all). Others will be more accepting--those are the ones you want to spend the most time with. The unconvinced nevertheless will be there, in the background, taking it "under advisement," just like I once did. Remember, evolution involves the motion of every single portion of the universe throughout every microsecond. You are part of the grand process on this particular planet. Don't give up. Thanks so much for your valuable service to science.
20081119
Keep Imaginary Friends Out of The Scientific Worldview
Letter to Salon on “God Enough,” an interview with Stuart Kauffman (“Reinventing the Sacred”) who uses traditional systems philosophy to claim that “self-organization” is a manifestation of consciousness in the universe (sort of a sophisticated intelligent design idea):
http://www.salon.com/env/atoms_eden/2008/11/19/stuart_kauffman/index.html
The scientific worldview is the polar opposite of the religious worldview (see “The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein”). Kauffmann's mix and match may be worthy of a Templeton Prize, but not of scientific philosophy. In an infinite universe having an infinite number of causes for any effect, reductionism always is necessary for understanding; so is “expansionism,” its opposite. Newton's reduction of all things to matter in motion is the premier achievement of intellectual thought. It is simple yet profound: Reality consists of things and what things do. As pointed out by your readers, this has been supremely successful in making scientific predictions for centuries. The theoretical error in Newtonian reductionism, however, is its insistence that causality is finite (a la Laplace’s Demon) and could lead to perfect predictions. But as David Bohm showed in his “Causality and Chance in Modern Physics,” there is no single case of a perfect prediction. This is because the universe is infinite microcosmically as well as macrocosmically. All mathematical equations that we use for prediction in science necessarily have a finite number of terms. Predictions can be improved by including additional causal factors via what I call expansionism. But with an infinite number of terms being possible, even an expansion can be nothing more than an approximation of the truth. This is why all measurements of the real world include a plus or minus. There always is an uncertainty that includes the infinite number of relatively insignificant causes that we find impractical to measure. It also is why real relationships are never perfectly linear. In an infinite universe, there is always something else. We don’t need to hypothesize an imaginary friend to fill that gap.