Sunday, April 30, 2017

Can Science really Prove The Basis of Modern Physics

 photo European-lab-Close-to-finding-God-particle-NAN19NH-x-large.jpg





Realms Beyond

I've demonstrated in other posts,  that transcendent realms were not the origination comcept of suernatural. That is, however, the modern Western concept. Thus, we might as well ask, are there realms beyond our knowing, is this possible? If so, is there any possibility of our investigating them? Scientists have usually tended to assume that metaphysical assumptions about realms beyond are just out of the domain of science and can’t be investigated so they don’t bother to comment. Victor Stenger, however, wants to be able to assert that he’s disproved them so he argues that the magisteria do overlap. “There exists a widespread notion, promulgated at the higher levels of the scientific community itself, that science has nothing to say about God or the supernatural…”[1]
He sights the national academy of sciences and their position that these are non overlapping magisteria, “science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Weather God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”2 Stenger disagrees. He argues that they can study the effects of prayer so that means they can eliminate the supernatural.

Two things are wrong with Stenger’s approach. First, he doesn’t use Lourdes or any other empirical record of miracles. He’s going entirely by double blind studies which can’t control for prayer from outside the control group; that makes such studies virtually worthless. So in effect Stenger is taking the work of people who try to empirically measure what is beyond the empirical, then when it doesn’t work he says “see, there’s nothing beyond the empirical.” That proves nothing more than the fact that we can’t measure that which is beyond measuring. Secondly, he doesn’t deal with the real religious experience studies or the M scale. That means he’s not really dealing with the empirical effects of supernature. I’ve just demonstrated good reason to think that supernature Is working in nature. It’s not an alien realm outside the natural, it’s not a miracle it’s not something that sets its self apart form the daily regular workings of the world. Supernature is of God but nature is of God. God made nature and he works in nature. We can tell the two apart by the results. Now I am going to deal with the other two issues, are there realms beyond the natural? Are there evidences of a form of supernatural in the world that stand apart from the natural such that we can call them “miracles?”

Are there realms beyond the natural? Of course there can be no direct evidence, even a direct look at them would stand apart from our received version of reality and thus be suspect. The plaintive cry of the materialists that “there is no evidence for the supernatural” is fallacious to the core. How can there be evidence when any evidence that might be would automatically be suspect? Moreover, science itself gives us reason to think there might be. Quantum physics is about unseen realms, but they are the world of the extremely tiny. This is the fundamental basis of reality, what’s beneath or behind everything. They talk about “particles” but in reality they are not particles. They are not bits of stuff. They are not solid matter.3 Treating particles as points is also problematic. This is where string theory comes in.
This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than 4.
So where are they then? One idea is that they are right under our noses, but compacted to the quantum scale so that they are imperceptible. "Hang on a minute", you might think,"How can you ever prove the existence of something that, by definition, is impossible to perceive?" It's a fair point, and there are scientists who criticize string theory for its weak predictive power and testability. Leaving that to one side, how can you conceptualize extra dimensions?4
There is no direct evidence of these unseen realms and they may be unprovable. Why are they assumed with such confidence and yet reductionsts make the opposite assumption about spiritual realms? It’s not because the quantum universe realms are tangible or solid or material they are not. Scientists can’t really describe what they are, except that they are mathematical. In fact why can’t they be the same realms?

Then there’s the concept of the multiverse. This is not subatomic in size but beyond our space/time continuum. These would be other universes perhaps like our own, certainly the size of our own, but beyond our realm of space/time. Some scientists accept the idea that the same rules would apply in all of these universes, but some don’t.

Beyond it [our cosmic visual horizon—42 billion light years] could be many—even infinitely many—domains much like the one we see. Each has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate in all. Nearly all cosmologists today (including me) accept this type of multiverse, which Max Tegmark calls “level 1.” Yet some go further. They suggest completely different kinds of universes, with different physics, different histories, maybe different numbers of spatial dimensions. Most will be sterile, although some will be teeming with life. A chief proponent of this “level 2” multiverse is Alexander Vilenkin, who paints a dramatic picture of an infinite set of universes with an infinite number of galaxies, an infinite number of planets and an infinite number of people with your name who are reading this article.5



Well there are two important things to note here. First, that neither string theory nor multiverse may ever be proved empirically. There’s a professor at Columbia named Peter Woit who writes the blog “Not Even Wrong” dedicated to showing that string theory can’t be proved.6 There is no proof for it or against it. It can’t be disproved so it can’t be proved either.7 That means the idea will be around for a long time because without disproving it they can’t get rid of it. Yet without any means of disproving it, it can’t be deemed a scientific fact. Remember it’s not about proving things it’s about disproving them. Yet science is willing to consider their possibility and takes them quite seriously. There is no empirical evidence of these things. They posit the dimensions purely as a mathematical solution so the equations work not because they have any real evidence.8

We could make the argument that we have several possibilities for other worlds and those possibilities suggest more: we have the idea of being “outside time.” There’s no proof that this is place one can actually go to, but the idea of it suggests the possibility, there’s the world of anti-matter, there are worlds in string membranes, and there are other dimensions tucked away and folded into our own. In terms of the multiverse scientists might argue that they conceive of these as “naturalistic.” They would be like our world with physical laws and hard material substances and physical things. As we have seen there are those who go further and postulate the “rules change” idea. We probably should assume the rules work the same way because its all we know. We do assume this in making God arguments such as the cosmological argument. Yet the possibility exists that there could be other realms that are not physical and not “natural” as we know that concept. The probability of that increases when we realize that these realms are beyond our space/time thus they are beyond the domain of our cause and effect, and we know as “natural.” It really all goes back to the philosophical and ideological assumption about rules. There is no way to prove it either way. Ruling out the possibility of a spiritual realm based upon the fact that we don’t live in it would be stupid. The idea that “we never see any proof of it” is basically the same thing as saying “we don’t live it so it must not exist.” Of course this field is going to be suspect, and who can blame the critics? Anyone with a penchant for the unknown can set up shop and speculate about what might be “out there.” Yet science itself offers the possibility in the form of modern physics, the only rationale for closing that off is the distaste for religion.

All that is solid melts into air



This line by Marx deals with society, social and political institutions, but in thinking about the topic of SN it suggests a very different issue. The reductionst/materialists and phsyicalists assume and often argue that there is no proof of anything not material and not ‘physical” (energy is a form of matter).  The hard tangible nature of the physical is taken as the standard for reality while the notion of something beyond our ability to dietetic is seen in a skeptical way, even though the major developments in physics are based upon it. Is the physical world as tangible and solid as we think? Science talks about “particles” and constructs models of atoms made of wooden tubes and little balls this gives us the psychological impression that the world of the very tiny is based upon little solid balls. In reality subatomic particles are not made out of little balls, nor are these ‘particles” tangible or solid. In fact we could make a strong argument that no one even knows what they are made of.

We keep talking about "particles", but this word doesn't adequately sum up the type of matter that particle physicists deal with. In physics, particles aren't usually tiny bits of stuff. When you start talking about fundamental particles like quarks that have a volume of zero, or virtual particles that have no volume and pop in and out of existence just like that, it is stretching the everyday meaning of the word "particle" a bit far. Thinking about particles as points sooner or later leads the equations up a blind alley. Understanding what is happening at the smallest scale of matter needs a new vocabulary, new maths, and very possibly new dimensions.
This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than 4.9
Particles are not solid; they are not very tiny chunks of solid stuff. They have no volume nor do they have the kind of stable existence we do. They “pop” in and out of existence! This is not proof for the supernatural. It might imply that the seeming solidity of “reality” is illusory. There are two kinds of subatomic particles, elementary and composite. Composite are made are made out of smaller particles. Now we hear it said that elementary particles are not made out of other particles. It’s substructure is unknown. They may or may not be made of smaller particles. That means we really don’t know what subatomic particles are made of. That means scientists are willing to believe in things they don’t understand.10 While it is not definite enough to prove anything except that we don’t know the basis of reality, it does prove that and also the possibilities for the ultimate truth of this are still wide open. To rule out “the supernatural” (by the wrong concept) on the assumption that we have no scientific proof of it is utterly arrogance and bombast. For all we know what we take to be solid unshakable reality might be nothing more than God’s day dream. Granted, there is end to the spinning of moon beams and we can talk all day about what ‘might be,’ so we need evidence and arguments to warrant the placing of confidence in propositions. We have confidence placing evidence; it doesn’t have to be scientific although some of it is. That will come in the next chapter. The point here is that there is no basis for the snide dismissal of concepts such as supernatural and supernature.







1 Victor Stenger, God and The Folly of FaithThe Incompatibility of Science and Religion. Amherst: New
York: Prometheus Books, 2012. 225.

Stenger, ibid, quoting National Academy of Sciences, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington DC: National Academies Press, 1998, 58.

3STFC “are there other dimensions,” Large Hadron Collider. Website. Science and Facilities Council, 2012 URL: http://www.lhc.ac.uk/The%20Particle%20Detectives/Take%205/13686.aspx

ibid

George F.R. Ellis. “Does the Miltiverse Really Exist [preview]” Scientific American (July 19, 2011) On line version URL: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-multiverse-really-exist
George F.R. Ellis is Professor Emeritus in Mathematics at University of Cape Town. He’s been professor of Cosmic Physics at SISSA (Trieste)

Peter Woit, Not Even Wrong, Posted on September 18, 2012 by woi blog, URL: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

ibid, “Welcome to the Multiverse,” Posted on May 21, 2012 by woit

Mohsen Kermanshahi. Universal Theory. “String Theory.” Website URL:http://www.universaltheory.org/html/others/stringtheory5.htm

9 STFC ibid, op cit.

10  Giorgio Giacomelli; Maurizio Spurio Particles and Fundamental Interactions: An Introduction to Particle Physics (2nd ed.). Italy: Springer-Verlag, science and Business media, 2009, pp. 1–3.










9 comments:

im-skeptical said...

I'm glad to see that you are gradually discovering more about physical science. I see that you have now changed your stance on elementary particles. As I recall, not so long ago you were insisting that ALL particles are composed of other particles, because you thought that's what some scientist said. We progress in small steps.

Now you castigate materialists for supposedly believing all the same myths that you believed until you started to learn a little more about physical reality, such as the notion that things are "solid" (whatever that means). It's like hearing Donald Trump saying "Nobody knew!".

However, there is still much for you to learn. One thing that I'm afraid may always be elusive to you is a true scientific basis foe belief. Could there be realms of existence beyond what we can see? I don't see most physicists dismiss that notion out of hand, as you want to claim. In fact, many of them actually think there must be. But what they don't think is that there must be a God or some intelligent power hiding in there somewhere. They don't think there has to be a heaven where people go to enjoy eternal bliss. Why? Their beliefs are based on empirical observation and reason - not on a book of myths - and not on superstition.

Joe Hinman said...

I'm glad to see that you are gradually discovering more about physical science. I see that you have now changed your stance on elementary particles. As I recall, not so long ago you were insisting that ALL particles are composed of other particles, because you thought that's what some scientist said. We progress in small steps.

I said no one can say what particles are made of except to name other particles.That is true you can't deny it if you think about it, atoms have electrons and electrons are particles,they are made of quacks and bozons those are particles, it can only descend into an ICR of new particles. Easy disproof, name what they are made of without naming another particle.

Now you castigate materialists for supposedly believing all the same myths that you believed until you started to learn a little more about physical reality, such as the notion that things are "solid" (whatever that means). It's like hearing Donald Trump saying "Nobody knew!".

I knew the stuff in this essay in 1978. I am 60 years old been to college I worked on a Ph,D. you are still brain washed to think all Christians are stupid all christian know less than you do,any given Christian is stupid compared to you even Alan Sandage, It's so important to you to feel like the vi cheese knows more than the Christian,

However, there is still much for you to learn. One thing that I'm afraid may always be elusive to you is a true scientific basis foe belief. Could there be realms of existence beyond what we can see?

ahahahahah Yes Jethroe you are so wise but you haunt really got the hang it, you are not dealing with the ideas in the essay you are trying tome up for the realization of yore ignorance, you are confusing acceptance of the brain washing with being smart,you think because don';t ans questions that means you know stuff, it really just means you are brain washed


I don't see most physicists dismiss that notion out of hand, as you want to claim. In fact, many of them actually think there must be. But what they don't think is that there must be a God or some intelligent power hiding in there somewhere. They don't think there has to be a heaven where people go to enjoy eternal bliss. Why? Their beliefs are based on empirical observation and reason - not on a book of myths - and not on superstition.

all saidis I know, I know more than you do about science that makes me smart becasue I don't;question what they tell me, being scientific means accept what scientists say.

you are arguing like rump because you don';t analyze or deal with issues you deal in big general statmentes of arroance desknged to humilite the other,

Joe Hinman said...

STFC says "So where are they then? One idea is that they are right under our noses, but compacted to the quantum scale so that they are imperceptible. "Hang on a minute", you might think,"How can you ever prove the existence of something that, by definition, is impossible to perceive?" It's a fair point, and there are scientists who criticize string theory for its weak predictive power and testability. Leaving that to one side, how can you conceptualize extra dimensions?4"

authoritative science Skepie says that, does Skepie deal with it? no, all knowing as he is he says nothing about it,the issue there is that all these news physics is can't be proven, unproven is not an issue for skpeie because he just accepts what they tell him, that's called "free thinker"

Joe Hinman said...

Nice the essay ends with the thing about what are particles he saysI;velenared my lessen becasueIdon;tsayitnow,I dnot onklysayiut butIquote sicentific sourcessayingit,so his poor readingskills doit to hinagain,Hedidn;t readnorethana coupleofv lines vso he doesnotkinow whatIsaid,

here is another quote from the same source:

"We keep talking about "particles", but this word doesn't adequately sum up the type of matter that particle physicists deal with. In physics, particles aren't usually tiny bits of stuff. When you start talking about fundamental particles like quarks that have a volume of zero, or virtual particles that have no volume and pop in and out of existence just like that, it is stretching the everyday meaning of the word "particle" a bit far. Thinking about particles as points sooner or later leads the equations up a blind alley. Understanding what is happening at the smallest scale of matter needs a new vocabulary, new maths, and very possibly new dimensions.
This is where string theory comes in. In string theory fundamental particles aren't treated as zero-dimensional points. Instead they are one-dimensional vibrating strings or loops. The maths is hair-raising, and the direct evidence non-existent, but it does provide a way out of the current theoretical cul-de-sac. It even provides a route to unifying gravity with the other three fundamental forces - a problem which has baffled the best brains for decades. The problem is, you need to invoke extra dimensions to make the equations work in string-theory and its variants: 10 spacetime dimensions to be precise. Or 11 (M-theory). Or maybe 26. In any case, loads more dimensions than 4.9"

that is science source saying what Skepie says I'm wrong and ignorant for saying and hed did not deal with it,he even says I've learned better then there it is at the bottom where heoes not read,

im-skeptical said...

Joe, it's really hard to discuss anything with you. You're so busy trying to dispute my every word that you don't bother to think about what they mean. That quote you gave doesn't argue against ANYTHING I have said. None of this is new to me. But as far as I can tell, it is to you, and you just assume that I wasn't aware of this. It's like hearing Donald Trump saying "Nobody knew!".

The thing is, you still don't take a scientific perspective of all this. Again and again, you keep coming back to the notion of scientific proof. What you don't seem to understand is that the demand for "proof" is fundamentally unscientific.

Joe Hinman said...

It doesn't argue against what you said because you did not say anything about my essay, all you talked about was how much more you know about holy sacred science.


I don't take a scientific perspective take a philosophical perspective, you are really just saying "you are not in the in crowd because you are not not talking like us brainwashed guys and praising science,:I do not worship science sorry.

you do not sound very scientific either,you said like a religious person who feels his god is under assault,

Joe Hinman said...

What you don't seem to understand is that the demand for "proof" is fundamentally unscientific.

atheists are the one's making the demand, they always say there's no proof for your god

Ryan M said...

A lot of atheists ask for "Proof" of God, but they probably do not mean "Proof" in the sense that a mathematician or logician would. "Proof", in ordinary discourse, usually means "evidence" that makes a hypothesis more probable than not.

Joe Hinman said...

I agree and I think I have that