|
Essays on Environment and Health-Related Science Scientific Politics and Misconduct |
THE NATURE OF DEEP REALITY AS DEMONSTRATED BY PHYSICS EXPERIMENTS;
We all think we know what reality is. We "know" the universe exists, that matter exists like tiny pieces of sand, that cause and effect determines most of what happens, that some events happen to occur by chance which are not connected to other events, that time goes by, etc. We believe that all this is true whether or not we or anyone else observes it. Deep level physics actual laboratory experiments are, however, revealing a very different picture of reality than painted by our senses. This is important to understand to a degree because it has deep implications for the truths about reality.
The deepest level of physics is turning out to be more than consistent with (almost compelling) what one would expect if reality and existence are based upon something nonmaterial and essentially spiritual. Quantum mechanics requires an "observation" (an observer) to explain experimental laboratory data and possibly even consciousness! Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics. Quantum mechanics says that while we believe that all this "reality" we experience is not just something thought up in our brains and is in fact a simple material reality, the truth of science experiments in quantum mechanics is painting a different and paradoxical picture. Science certainly cannot even tell us what is special about an observation which seems so deeply embedded in quantum mechanics and deep reality. Quantum Reality Are life and consciousness connected to the funda-mental level of reality? Quantum Reality FAQ The Strange World of Quantum Reality.
"Mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of the universe" - Physicists Freeman Dyson
It gets even less materialistic and more spiritual in terms of science actually providing the most basic answers about reality. Physics experiments at the deepest levels (quantum physics) paint a drastically different picture of reality that what we as individuals "know" about the universe from living in it day to day. The book "The Matter Myth" by Gribbin and Paul Davies (Davies is a noted world class physicist) is easy reading and recommended. On page 13 it says; "Many people have rejected scientific values because they regard materialism as a sterile and bleak philosophy, which reduces human beings to automatons and leaves no room for free will or creativity. These people can take heart: materialism is dead." A New Form of Matter. Alternative particle physics models. The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism. God and the New Physics.
We all have models (ways of relating to reality) in our brains which allow us to have a good idea of how the universe functions in relationship to our actions on a personal and day to day level. For example, we know how to live with gravity (unsupported things including our body will fall.) and we know that our body uses energy (we think we know what energy is and we know that burning gasoline will release energy and that eating food will give our body energy.) All of these things we know and many others like them are, however, operational definitions only (we know how to operate our lives to live with gravity and energy, etc..) Most of us, however do not in fact really know how to explain gravity beyond the fact that the earth attracts our bodies and other objects, but we believe that scientists have more than such an operational understanding of gravity. Science is in fact still working to better understand gravity and resolve paradox associated with it.
Science has a fairly accurate operational explanation of gravity and a fairly good model of gravity from Einstein (General Relativity.) Even General Relativity just tells us how to make calculations and while it talks about space being curved it does not answer the deeper "why" questions such as why the mass of objects curve space. It says that mass curves space and curved space effects the motion and forces of masses but even this is mostly just an operational definition. Science can tell us how much faster a skater will spin when her arms are pulled in tight but cannot tell us why (beyond a simple operational statement of conservation of energy) this should be the case. Physics Experiments Sir Isaac Newton ,Water in a Rotating Bucket. There are even; Possible New Properties of Gravity!
The reality of physics is no where near as absolute nor able to answer "why" questions as is the general perception. Science models are very limited and are also mostly just operational in what they tell us. The truth is that the most basic physics experiments are showing that our understanding of reality is at best a very limited approximation and does not very accurately reflect the deepest behavior of the universe. This is especially true of the very large and the very small.
Science models (even Einstein's general relativity which "explains" gravity) also depend on postulating things which fundamentally cannot be directly experienced. In the case of general relativity the theory assumes the bending of space (the vacuum of space) where space is considered to be a field (fields are themselves only defined operationally in mathematical terms) and space (containing supposedly "nothing") is in itself not directly detectable. (Indirect tests do prove that space is not a total void but in fact is alive with potential matter and a lot of potential energy.)
Another way to look at "matter" and quantum physics is that everything in the universe is just an oscillation in the underlying structure (the "nothing") vacuum of the universe. (It turns out that the vacuum is seething with potential energy. That's right; the "nothing" of the vacuum means no matter but it is not a void.
What this is all saying is that all of reality is a form of energy which has a waveform and a frequency or frequencies associated with it. The very latest physics theory (string theory) views everything as oscillations in extremely small energy strings or membranes (branes.) This is essentially a different geometric way at looking at the reality found by quantum physics. String theory has one goal of trying to unify quantum theory with gravity whereas without string theory, there is a fundamental conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity (which describes gravity.)
Referring again to gravity which is essentially about the forces between objects (and energy) when separated by large distances, the laws describing gravitational behavior are coming into question at galactic scales. Studies of the universe and especially galaxies find 90% of the matter needed to come up with an explanation for observations, is missing. Scientist have had to come up with so called "dark matter" which is supposedly a form of "material" which science cannot detect but which affects the behavior of galaxies and other astronomical objects. Einstein's famous law of General Relativity is off by 90% otherwise! Hubble sheds light on dark matter. Could it be that a new theory of gravity is needed?
The reality is that all scientific theories are just models of reality which are being refined and replaced as more precise models are needed to explain experimental results. Scientific theories are a work in progress.
One example, of a very limited understanding is in science trying to explain what an electron is. Science simply says that an electron is an atomic particle which carries a negative electrical charge. That is just an operational description and raises more questions than it answers. Science is limited as to knowing what an electrical current is, except for the simplistic saying that it is a flow of electrons which obeys certain operational formula. In fact certain science formulas/calculations involving electrons result in infinities (infinite disagreements with reality) which must be canceled out (using a mathematical trick called "renormalization".)
It is not just electrons and matter that are not deeply understood. We strongly recommend the book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene. Mr. Greene is a physicist and his book gives numerous examples of simple physic experiments and findings which prove that reality is nowhere near as simple as even most scientists believe. It turns out that most of what we "know" to be true about reality is being brought into question by fundamentally simple yet profound actual laboratory experiments in physics. Our day to day experiences are only applicable in the narrow range of size, mass, and energies we live in and cannot be accurately extended beyond that. Over very large scales (the cosmos) and very small scales (subatomic particles) reality is far different than the local models of reality we live by. It is not just a matter scaling up or down in size, the behavior of reality changes in addition to scaling!
We certainly know that in our daily lives, the models in our minds are dependable (we live our lives successfully from day to day based on what we "know" about reality); therefore, we believe that our models must be right and accurate. The reality, however, is that our models are only accurate to a first approximation at the scale (size of objects) we interact with and relate to in our lives. On very large scales, physics finds that time is not an absolute and that cause and effect are not absolute either. On very small scales, physics find that even the existence of matter is uncertain and the act of observation (consciousness) affects reality. Science has even shown in the laboratory that everything in the universe is instantaneously entangled/interconnected.
We don't run into these effects on a daily basis. Our models are "right" for day to day operation of our bodies. The accuracy of our models is good enough. The same is even true in the physics of most technologies. Our operational models are not very useful, however, in understanding the way in which the universe is put together.
Why should we care if science does not provide absolute answers about the universe? The reason is that many of us have come to believe that science does or eventually will be able to explain all things. Some take science as absolute and believe that the universe is indifferent to our lives and that science displaces the need for God. Modern societies are also becoming blinded by scientific successes to the reality that science is not able now and probably will never be able to truly explain reality in a fundamental and "meaningful" way.
If science defines all matter as waves in a higher dimensional space, for example, that just raises the question as to what higher dimensional space is and what it is contained in. The conundrum is like and clearly related to Godel's theorem which says in essence; "All rules have exceptions." Which if you study that sentence you will find that it is self referential. Basically, Godel proved that unless one is outside the system that is being described, self reference logical paradox is unavoidable. It is a little like the causal chain argument which leads to God as a being which is uncaused. God must be outside of the causal references.
When we understand that science and logic do not provide absolute answers, we are left with having to search more deeply and beyond science for direction for and meaning to existence. Fortunately science points to the universe being a creation that is very precisely designed for life; with all that that implies. All of this is consistent with most understandings of God.
Blind faith in science which is far less powerful in it explanations that most people believe, has both obvious and non-obvious material dangers which are more of a threat to society when those doing the science are simply profit minded materialists. The spiritual dangers to society are much less obvious, but probably at least equally as serious. Unfounded faith in science will effect the spiritual beliefs and values on which the United States has become a great nation. The truth of the limits of science need to be broadly understood, so that society will realize the need to continue to rely on deeper values and not on materialistic science.
Recent study forces scientists to rethink basic law of physics.
Hubble's deepest shot is a puzzle
Recent experiments being done and new information being collected.
Another fundamental constant accused of changing
Nobel Prize Winner R B Laughlin describes the new physics of emergence.
More public input means better science.
New Generation of Physicists Sustains a Permanent Revolution
Science and the Spiritual Quest