By Kumar David –
“Most theorists working in particle physics are in a state of confusion”
A wonderful thing about science is that the greatest and best take time off to write popular books and articles, conduct seminars, or go on lecture tours to take science to the people, especially school and college kids. Einstein and Edington popularised Relativity from early days. The former’s “Relativity: The Special and General Theory”, was in the words of the author, “intended to give an exact insight into the Theory of Relativity to readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but not conversant with the mathematical apparatus” and was written in December 1916 just 13 months after presenting General Relativity to that historic meeting of the Prussian Academy in Berlin. From 1920 to 1927 Edington wrote five popular books with titles like “Space, Time and Gravitation”, “Stars and Atoms” and his acclaimed “The Theory of Relativity and its Influence on Scientific Thought”.
More recent was a wonderful series of popular essays in the magazine Natural History, later published as books by W.W. Norton Co. and Penguin Books, by palaeontologist and neo-Darwinian evolutionary biologist the late Stephen Jay Gould, who has done so much to captivate readers to an amazing diversity of topics relating to evolutionary biology, fossils, the panda’s thumb, flamingo’s smile and ‘A Dullard Named Darwin’. He will always be remembered as the stoutest defender since bulldog-Huxley of Darwin and his impeccable methodology.
Quantum physics is more difficult to simplify because its results are hidden in the realms of probability (No one can be sure where a particle is, but there is such and such a probability that it may be in such and such a location!). More confusing is the wave-particle duality; an elementary particle can’t make up its mind; it moves like a wave on a lake or a bullet from a gun, it all depends on when, how and how many of them you look at. Such oddities aside, quantum physicists have brought out hundreds of popular books and videos – from the excellent to the mediocre – to explain concepts, sans mathematics, to non-specialists. “Schrodinger’s Cat” by John Gribbin tops my list of popular quantum books while Hawking’s “Brief History of Time”, a best seller, deals with cosmology (Hawking’s “Theory of Everything” is, comparatively, second class).
The point I am making is that whether it is the physical or the life sciences (I have not given examples from medical science and genetics but very readable non-specialist accounts exist) there has been this fruitful sharing between leading scientists and millions of science interested readers.
Has modern physics flummoxed itself?
The last time the term crisis in physics was used was at the end of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century when attempts to gauge the movement of the earth through the ‘celestial aether’ and to measure the speed of light relative to moving bodies confounded everybody. Finally, Hendrik Lorentz got the equations right in the late 1890s, but it was a mathematical gimmick called a Transformation. Einstein in 1905 overthrew the paradigms of classical physics and proposed a new space-time framework (Special Relativity); a new view of space and time which transformed the conceptualisation (meaning) of the Lorentz Transformation. It was a paradigm shift, not a gimmick; a philosophically consistent new physics. The crisis seemed happily resolved.
But soon there were hiccups; the wave-particle duality I mentioned, and quantum uncertainty (Heisenberg says you cannot observe the location and motion of a particle – conjugate quantities – with 100% certainty at the same time; the more precise one measurement, a fundamental law called the Uncertainty Principle says the less certain the other). More recently there has been what I call the subjectivity canard. (I am in good company, Einstein said the same thing; “God does not play dice with the universe”). To put it in extreme solipsist terminology, the canard declares that the material universe exists only if a conscious observer is taking a peek at it; otherwise one can’t be sure it exists at all! Did the dinosaurs exits; does Haley’s comet exist after it goes beyond all possible observation; when did Kepler’s Supernova, first spotted in 1604 but 20,000 light years away, actually explode – only when Kepler looked up? Search me, I don’t know how the solipsists will respond, but it will be eerie and unreal. (If you are a fanatic, ask Gamini Kulatunga; I have but can’t fathom his profundities, or make head or tail of his reference sources). But leave all this to one side; we have managed to get along for some time despite these unresolved conundrums.
But things seem to have gone hugely out of control in the last decade both in particle physics and cosmology. South African born Neil Turok (his parents were white liberation fighter members of the ANC) is a distinguished academic physicist. He has been professor at Princeton and Cambridge, won awards and collaborated with Hawking and Roger Penrose, and is now Director of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo where Canada hopes to match the world’s best physics research. This is what he says.
- Theoretical physics is at a crossroads right now. In a sense we’ve entered a very deep crisis.
- You may have heard of some of these models. There’ve been grand unified models, there’ve been super-symmetric models, super-string models, loop quantum gravity models. Well, nature turns out to be simpler than all of these models.
- If you ask most theorists working on particle physics, they’re in a state of confusion.
- The extensions of the standard model, like grand unified theories, they were supposed to simplify it. But in fact they made it more complicated.
- The number of parameters in the standard model is about 18. The number in grand unified theories is typically 100. In super-symmetric theories, the minimum is 120. And as you may have heard, string theory seems to predict 10 to the power of 1,000 different possible laws of physics. It’s called the multiverse.
- It’s the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all.
- We have to get people to try to find the new principles that will explain the simplicity.
I will not attempt to rephrase, I am not a theoretical physicist, but I will add that a web search threw up opinions sympathetic to Turok’s critique but I could not find a single top ranking scientist rubbishing it. To quote from the May 2014 issue of Scientific American.
“It is not an exaggeration to say that most of the world’s particle physicists believe that supersymmetry must be true—the theory is that compelling. These physicists’ long-term hope has been that the LHC would finally discover these super-partners, providing hard evidence that supersymmetry is a real description of the universe. Indeed, results from the first run of the LHC have ruled out almost all the best-studied versions of supersymmetry. The negative results are beginning to produce if not a full-blown crisis in particle physics, then at least widespread panic”.
Supersymmetry remains experimentally unverified, but physicists hang to it in a desperate attempt to resolve the bewildering confusion of particles and mediate between arrays of incompatible theoretical models. Simply stated the assertion is that a super-partner MUST exist for every known basic particle and force. But the first run of experiments on the $10 billion Large Hardon Collider (LHC) in Geneva, which it was hoped would produce them, drew a blank. No super-partners were found. The physics of the infinitesimally small has been thrown into crisis; physicists panic and hang their heads in confusion.
Trouble at the Big End
Cosmology is the science behind astronomy, the observational side, and considers the really big. Here too advances in recent decades have been spectacular but the deeper they probe the more confusing it gets. Some of it simply flies in the face of stout fellow and good companion of everyday life, common-sense. They tell us that 85% of matter in the universe is Dark Matter which no telescope can see or ordinary bloke like you and I experience. They call it a mysterious form of matter – their words, not mine. But how are they so sure it exists? Well the motion of observable stars and galaxies cannot be fully explained unless something additional, something mysterious, is also pulling. What to do? Hey presto postulate “an ineffable effable, effanineffable, deep and inscrutable singular” matter. The Greeks and the Hindus gave the names of gods to stuff they couldn’t make head of tail of, now physicists call it Dark Matter and Dark Energy; why not lump them together and call it a Dark God?
Dark Matter is inferred from the aforesaid mysterious gravitational effects on visible matter, but it I also inferred from what is known as gravitational lensing. Gravitational lensing is known to laymen as the bending of light by huge masses when it passes by. Light from distant galaxies or pulsars is bent (actually blurred) more than can be accounted for by visible matter on the wayside on the road to here. Something else is doing that extra bit; gravitational lensing is the second piece of evidence to postulate the existence of Dark Matter. It must also be the case that Dark Matter is not uniformly distributed throughout the universe (if so it could have no net effect) but is lumpy, being heaped up in just the places cosmologists need to heaped it up so as to demystify their observations!
The story doesn’t end there; hold your breath! Fully 95% of the mass+energy content of the universe is Dark Stuff; 85% Dark Matter and the other 10% a bloke called Dark Energy. You would have heard of the expanding universe; it’s getting bigger all the time. In the 1990s cosmologists got another shock (they seem to be getting shocks every few decades starting from what Galileo did to the Church) when they discovered that it was expanding faster and faster (accelerating expansion). The way to juggle the equations to get round this distemper was another piece of Black Magic. If a mysterious form of energy with appropriate properties could be conjured up, it could be made to take the blame for the acceleration. Eureka, thus was born Dark Energy! (Cosmologists dispute details; some say the ratio is 68% Dark Matter to 27% Dark Energy. Whatever, they are determined to keep us in the dark).
It gets weirder and weirder; Stephen Hawking has from the grotesque wisdom of his equations now proposed a multiverse; an infinity of parallel universes of which ours is just one. Stout fellow common-sense will scoff, and I ask, at what point does counter intuitiveness demand that we mistrust theoretical extravagances? True, we can’t see electromagnetic waves but every one of us puts a mobile phone to an ear blissfully unschooled in Maxwell’s Equations. True, Pasteur was laughed at for the germ theory; “Whoever saw a germ crawling up the wall!” But still, there are limits aren’t there? Nice topic for a chat over two fingers of single malt.
Jim softy / June 7, 2015
Is it a crisis of Physics or
Is it the crisis in human thinking patterns ?
When one writes equations to explain every thing one assumes the material or energy nature of every thing ?. They assume that every thing should be comprehensible to the day to day human mind.
If there is a nature that can not be described with equations how can we handle that ?
Scientist / June 7, 2015
David says Steven J Gould defended “Darwin and his impeccable methodology.”
Darwin “tested” the hearing power of earth worms by playing a record ad “observing” the reaction of the earthworm!
This is thesort of methodology Darwin used. The man did not have a background in science or a degree and he was a Theologian, for heaven’s sake. He was digging up fosils looking for Noah’s Ark when he came out with the cock and bull hypothesis with many holes.
The man was a confused jew. He nevr expected the level of administration his cock and bull is receiving from people who do not know the “philosophy of science” or the first thing about the scientific method.
David has showed, once again, ignorance can be bliss, despite a PhD or two.
Jango / June 8, 2015
Scientist – for a guy you say was “a confused Jew” (why bring ethnicity into this???) and who “did not have a background in science or a degree and (and) was a Theologian”, one must admit his brilliance for his theory of Evolution to have stood the test of time being acknowledged by thousands of ‘scientists’ renowned in their respective fields.
Also, Darwin’s study of earthworms lasted for 40 years and consisted of much more than “playing a record and observing…”.
And that was a rather snide put-down (“ignorance is bliss”) of David – totally undeserved, in my view.
Chip on the shoulder????
ramona therese fernando / June 8, 2015
Darwin got his theories from the beliefs of the local people of the Galapagos.
Amarasiri / June 7, 2015
Prof. Kumar David
RE: Another Crisis In Physics! Another Crisis In the Land of Native (Veddah) Aethho!
Now that the Higgs Boson, the “Goddamn Particle” or “God Particle” has been found, and Nobel Prizes distributed, can we find some Goddamn Liars, Crooks, Robbers and Criminals, in Lanka, The Land of Native (Veddah) Aethho? Thet seen to at large and delocalised.
1. “Quantum physics is more difficult to simplify because its results are hidden in the realms of probability (No one can be sure where a particle is, but there is such and such a probability that it may be in such and such a location!). “
But anyone can be sure where Medamulana Mahinda Rajapaksa is, and there is such and such a probability that MR will be in such and such a Temple location!. Mahinda Rajapaksa uses Wimal Modawansa Mechanics, 2/2=0, to calculate where MR is. He then organises Shill meetings with the gang of four, and when the meeting is held at the estimated location, MR is missing.
2. “More confusing is the wave-particle duality; an elementary particle can’t make up its mind; it moves like a wave on a lake or a bullet from a gun, it all depends on when, how and how many of them you look at. “
More confusing is the President-Prime Minister duality; an elementary Mahinda Rajapaksa can’t make up his mind; He moves like a wave on a lake or a bullet from a gun, it all depends on when, how and how many of them you look at Mahinda Rajapaksa, and he is not there when there are waves of Modayas, Mootals and Fools.
To Correct the duality, Dayan Jayatillaka reads or rants along with the gang of four.
3. “to non-specialists. “Schrodinger’s Cat” by “
to non-specialists. “Mahinda Rajapaksa Dogs” , they are not subject to the Country’s Laws and to the Rules of the Bribery commission.
Amarasiri / June 7, 2015
Prof. Kumar David
RE:“Most theorists working in particle physics are in a state of confusion”
Most Political Analysts working in the Sri Lanka Political Landscape are in a state of confusion.
Can you user the last Election results to accurately estimate the Average IQ of the people who voted for Maitiripla Sirisena and Mahinda Rajapaksa?
You can use the Standard Model, Quantum Mechanics or even Wimal Modawansa Mechanics,(2/2 =0) as long as you are accurate.
NB. The Average IQ of Sri Lankans is 79. Threw are 93 MPs in Parliament who have NOT passed the G C E O L Exam.
Thre is one MP, Anal Rajapaksa, who heated in the Law Exam.
JULAMPITIYE AMARAYA / June 7, 2015
Thanks to Dr Kumar David.
I am getting Nervous and Dizzy.
because I canot understand What it is?.
As I am not so educated.
Even though It is Science and Truth,
I know only the Newton’s gravitational theory and
Lord Buddha’s Preaching, “Nothing is permanent In this universe”.
So I am not going to read AGAIN This essay of Prof, Mr Kumar David.
Oh Buddha’s Dharma!.
Oh My God!,
Please Help me to Keep my Mind In Peace!!!.
Not in pieces.
PS; We have a group With C T Called Jarapassa Stooges Who Knows Every Thing,
[ Ex; Kas Sumane, Elaya,LSD Modpala, Et al],
who will argue with Prof Kumar David on this.
f=ma / June 7, 2015
Nice to see Sri Lankans invested in Physics.
Gravitation is the missing piece needed to unify Physics, at least to a greater extent according to my beliefs. Classical Mechanics and E&M is complete, Quantum is more or less and Gravity is the missing link to complete the theory of everything. Anyways, why is this on CT! it kind of looks out of place but as a Physics guy myself, I appreciate it.
I have read both Gribbin’s book as well as Hawking’s and highly recommend it to anyone wanting to get a better understanding of Modern Physics.
Amarasiri / June 9, 2015
“Nice to see Sri Lankans invested in Physics”
Yes. Good to know three are many, many with IQ’s well over 65, who can appreciate Quantum Mechanics.
Not everybody accepts Wimal Modamansa Mechanics, 2/2 =0, even thougfh accepted by those who voted for Mahinda Rajapaksa.
Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s Speech on Wimal Weerawansa
f=ma / June 11, 2015
You post the same shit everyday. Don’t you get tired of it? You must have been a girawa in your previous birth.
There are a lot of Sri Lankans interested in Physics. If I can recall, the chair of the Mechanical Eng Dept of MIT was a Sri Lankan and there a handful of other theoretical physicists as well. Unfortunately, they are all/most of the previous generation. Anyways articles like this, although written by a baby boomer shows the candle is still burning.
Your comments are either politically or socially oriented clearly showing your naivety and the ‘goday-ness’. Grow up, we don’t live in the 50’s anymore. Learn some Physics and it will improve your IQ. Anura Kumara did a BS in Physics; see the connection now? My question to you is whether you understand Quantum Mechanics?
According to you, anyone who voted for MR is an imbecile and even though you don’t intend on casting a shadow on the intelligence of Sri Lankans(or do you?), you portray that we are all idiots which is sad and quite frankly, pisses me off!
Jango / June 7, 2015
Kumar David – since everything is in flux and subject to ‘change’, wouldn’t it follow that the speed of light is also subject to change? And if so, wouldn’t this put a ‘spoke’ in the wheel of a lot of ‘scientific’ truisms?
Of course Einstein’s Theory of Relativity would enable compensation, wouldn’t it?
das / June 7, 2015
Matter and energy are subject to change. Matter, being composed of atoms or subatomic particles, can be re-arranged. Energy changes from one form to another. Universal constants, like the speed of light in a vacuum or the gravitational constant, are constants.
Expecting the speed of light to change is like expecting 2+2 to equal something other than 4, on the basis that the total can change.
Jango / June 8, 2015
But since ‘Mass’ is the measure of the amount of matter present and since light has 0 Rest Mass it cannot be Matter so it mustn’t it be Energy? Are there any other options? And since you say that “matter and energy are subject to change”, how would you express the conundrum?
Kumar David / June 7, 2015
If the assertion that the speed of light in a vacuum is a fundamental constant of nature is overthrown, it would also amount to an overthrow of Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory. So far, for over 100 years, there has been no experimental reason to doubt that this speed is constant and can never be exceeded by any moving object, radiation or communication.
Just has the greatest scientist of all time Newton’s theories, were superseded after nearly 300 years by the progress of science, it is rational to say that one day science will flow beyond Einstein, but whether it will have to do with the speed of light or some other aspect of Relativity is quite unknowable at the present time.
Jango / June 8, 2015
Kumar (and das) – I wonder if you are aware of this?
“Miles Padgett from the University of Glasgow manipulated the wave structure of some photons and sent them on a path of the same length as unaltered packets of light. The manipulated photons arrived later, indicating they were travelling more slowly.”
Kumar David / June 8, 2015
Yes Jango, this is interesting though it has still not found practical application (as far as I know). Of course it is of no significance for the fundamental law of an UPPER limit on the value of c in vacuuo.
See for example:
from which I quote.
“Goëry Genty, a physicist at the Tampere University of Technology in Finland says that the experiment is interesting because it measures the group velocity of photons. “In that sense, the results are not in contradiction with anything we know from textbooks, and certainly not with special relativity”.
Jango / June 8, 2015
Thanks Kumar. I am a layman but interested in such phenomena.
However, I still have my doubts about the consistency of the speed of light!! And since all is in flux and subject to change and nothing is permanent, the only ‘constant’ in our understanding of the Universe, as I see it, is ‘inconsistency’.
Vibhushana / June 7, 2015
Quantum mechanics challenges the mere notion of reality. Therefore its futile to even consider other branches of physics. Everything one observes is a delusion constructed by ones senses. Therefore the physics of it is also redundant.
Quantum mechanics sits quite well with Buddhists however. The Dhamma says everything perceived by ones senses is not real. The concept of the observer is also unreal – i.e. self.
Its quite profound but one simply cannot ignore the results of the Quantum Mechanics Double-slit experiment that proves this all.
Jim softy / June 7, 2015
The answer to my comment was so-called non-scientific methods.
Even equations that Einstein and all the theoretical physicists used are just mathematics or about probabilities, in other words, wild imagination that can become right or correct.
Kumar David does not want to understand that there were people in the ancient times and they used the mind or the meditation like techniques to understand the universe.
Kumar David as a christian is very much a materialist and he does not know that in the east many have described the universe.The western scientists know even if they build the world’s biggest particle accelerator and crash particles, they won’t be able to prove the truth by scientific methods.
Even Darwin’s theory is very incomplete. Western scientists themselves have proven it. Darwin proved only the material part. There is much more to evolution of beings.
Vibhushana / June 7, 2015
Well. even the East now thinks like the west. So we cannot blame others much.
Silva / June 7, 2015
Is it also the work of Dark Business why still no signs CC does not dissolve parliament?
EDWIN RODRIGO / June 7, 2015
It is good to read something entirely different from what we get in CT.
My favorite author is Theorteical Physcist, Dr. Richard Feynemann of Feynemann Diagram fame. In a certain popular lecture series, he derives many complex properties of light with NO Mathemtics at all. It is beautiful to read.
K.A Sumanasekera / June 7, 2015
Wonder whether Mr Poorten has something to say here.
The Synchrotron in Australia is now more focused on increasing crop yields and finding better drugs. .
They have to convince the Aussies that they are trying to do something for the A$ 5 Billion which the taxpayers forked out.
This may help Poorten to produce bigger and better Durians for Baththudee’s Wahabis to eat during Nombi season.
And best quality Latex for Ansell condoms.
No wonder our Lord Buddha said not to worry about trying to find out who
created the Universe unless one wants to die wondering…
And it was 2600 years ago….Right
JULAMPITIYE AMARAYA / June 7, 2015
To ask somebody to use Theoretical physics for latex production,
is it the, What happened to your Ansell Condom, when using with a Pxxxxxxxe on bed ????//.
K.A Sumanasekera / June 8, 2015
Just stick to your mud slinging at Mudumulalana..
You wouldn’t know where to put, it even if you get a free Ansell from an NGO…
Seeker / June 7, 2015
Prof. Kumar David
Good of you to stimulate the interest in Physics. I noted the typo in ” Fully 95% of the mass+energy content of the universe is Dark Stuff; 85% Dark Matter and the other 10% a bloke called Dark Energy” it is actually
based on the Planck spacecraft observations (2013 ) of the CMB gave a more accurate estimate of 68.3% of dark energy, 26.8% of dark matter and 4.9% of ordinary matter
EDWIN RODRIGO / June 7, 2015
Regarding Amarasiri’s comments, his IQ data confirms one of the theories I had formulated some time back.
Approximately 50% of the Sri Lankan voters are humans who eat grass and the other 50% are cows that eat rice.
That is why MR still haunts us. He has learned this theory long ago and hopes to come back to power through the same. Give them grass and rice and he will not face the dilemma that Marie Antoinette faced, giving them cake instead of bread.
Now I beieve in the supernatural. MR is a Kumbhandaya who refuses to leave without his Dols Pideni, which happens to be the PM ship.
What collective grave sins have Sri Lankans comitted to deserve this apparition? We are so fortunate to have a man of the calibre and character of MS to lead us but at the same we have the grave misfortune of having this Kumbhandaya being a spoil sport.
Boom Boom / June 7, 2015
Addin Rodrigo has a theory?
He belogs to the grass eating 50% obviously.
So Addin, what is your theory?
ramona therese fernando / June 8, 2015
Homage to the Buddha
Thus indeed, is the Blessed One: He is the worthy One,
Fully enlightened, endowed with clear vision and virtuous conduct
Sublime, THE KNOWER OF THE WORLDS,
The incomparable trainer of persons to be tamed, the teacher of gods and humans, enlightened and blessed.
‘Infinite is the sky, infinite is the number of beings,
Infinite are the worlds in the vast universe,
Infinite in wisdom the Buddha teaches these,
Infinite are the virtues of Him who teaches these.’ – (Sri Ramachandra)
Sengodan. M / June 8, 2015
The great Tamil poet Avvaiyar said ” if what we KNOW is a fistful of sand, what we do not know is comparable to the Earth”. This is true for all time.
In terms of Hindu philosophy, Nature is a manifestation of God. Also, no one can fully comprehend God. Is it a surprise, if Nature is also the same?
Muniyandy / June 9, 2015
I have a Large Hardon (sic) Collider too!
EW Golding / June 10, 2015
I picked it up as well!
Mr S. Mahalingam / June 9, 2015
My dear Prof. Kumar David,
Your article is welcome relief from daily politics – CT does not live by politics alone! However, it is too detailed and localised for most CT readers to fully appreciate. What is sorely lacking in cosmology is a fully comprehensive (albeit tentative) hypothesis in simple-enough language about the birth, life and likely death of the universe, based on the vast amount of information already available in cosmology.
In order to fill the above need I had submitted an easily readable article two years ago to CT entitled ‘A comprehensive hypothesis about the Universe’. It was scientifically argued, yet easily readable, but it remains unpublished, perhaps because it is too radical, and I am only an old civil engineer, not a professor.
The beauty of my hypothesis is that at one fell swoop it explains all of the unexplained features of the universe. Having read your article I now find that my hypothesis can also explain why the LHC experiments have failed to detect the SUSY particles which cosmologists are convinced were created in the universe. According to my hypothesis each particle in our universe has a SUSY partner in the antimatter-half of the universe, but the latter is a ‘deathbed’ for anyone or anything made from matter particles – although not for photons of light.
To give you a taste of my article – and for your initial comments if any – I reproduce the opening and the concluding paragraphs, which read as follows:
Opening paragraph: “Despite the numerous discoveries in cosmology there is still no comprehensive hypothesis capable of explaining all of the Universe’s observable features or answering many questions about its true origin and its ultimate fate. All we have is the Big Bang Theory which proclaims that a pre-existing ‘dot’ of extremely hot, dense energy (called ‘singularity’) multiplied I tself all of a sudden–spontaneously–to become unimaginably vast. However, it doesn’t explain how the singularity came to exist; how it became so hot and dense; who set up the gravity bank, said to be the source of the vast amount of additional energy introduced by the big bang; what’ll happen to the universe finally; whether other universes exist; how laws of physics were formulated; and why there’s something rather than nothing – and many more.”
Closing paragraph: “The above hypothesis is comprehensive – and compelling, because it clears all doubts. But one big question remains: why’s there something rather than nothing? Answer: if not for the instinctive urge for energy to create/recreate itself and survive there’ll be no universe – only eternal nothingness. This is the evolutionary philosophy of the lives of our universe: a vibrant, living entity seemingly guided by nature, but actually guided by an inherent urge for self-preservation, enhancement and propagation/renewal. It’s this same instinct that drives the evolution of living entities in our universe, as discovered by Charles Darwin.”
I haven’t given up hope that CT will agree to publish my two-year-old article sooner than later! My thanks to them for having promptly published my companion article entitled: “Afterlife: True or False?”
———————————- Mr S. Mahalingam
ramona therese fernando / June 10, 2015
The next big step into the study of Physics is for scientists to look for equations inside the brains of insects(now that the human capacity to think further seems to have exhausted itself, and god never told us anything except for us to trust in him…..and Buddha,….well, Buddha gave the model for Western scientists to keep looking along in that conceptual direction…..and so we will have to keep looking in the Buddha inspired direction…e.g. arising and cessation of matter and evolution of life in between….).
As per that pinpoint of concentrated energy……..that is one of the unfortunate, delusional functions of Nothingness.
Adrian / June 14, 2015
As a layman, what I observe is a bit different to your observation. I don’t see any kind of matter in existence. It is pockets of energy that at different quantitative levels forms orbital character within pockets generating different physical properties causing the confusion of existence of matter. The pockets appear to form at different orderly quantities of energy. There does not seem any particles in existence but only pockets of such energy everywhere. Take for example how fire takes place. My observation is that fire is sudden expansion of energy coming out from breaking of bonds.The bonds are formed when storing solar energy. It is same action in forming so called particles.
I may be wrong, but shared my observation due to my interest in science. Tks.
Gunn / September 7, 2016
No need models – the fundamental theoretical physics is a part of classical probability theory (the part that considers the probability of dot events in the 3 + 1 space-time).
Quznetsov G 2013 Logical foundation of fundamental theoretical physics (Lambert Academic Publ.)