The Development of life & the De-evolutionary Principle.
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." (Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855))
There is a discussion raging in the media these days regarding Creationism vs. Evolution which tends to also introduce the watered-down amalgamation of the two; Intelligent Design (ID). In that discussion, a series of questions is routinely asked, to which only a very limited amount of [dogmatically derived] familiar answers are given. The debate, which is as old as mankind’s sentience, has become stagnated [in my opinion] due to a lack of perspective and fresh insight, and I intend to rejuvenate it. It is my intention to challenge everyone’s preconceived notions, including those of the scientists who refuse to accept creationism and the creationists who scoff at evolution; no one may graze their sacred cows here for free. As for Intelligent Design, well – I intend to bring the focus of it back to where it began with Anaxagoras, not where it resides today with John Calvert and da’ boys. Realize full well that I am not a proponent of I.D., particularly in the form offered today on television or on the internet. Read and enjoy.
The first thing to establish is that, whether or not you believe in a creator deity, evolution in one form or another did occur; to assert otherwise is foolishness. If you honestly feel that evolution does not occur, nor has it ever, you are visiting the wrong page. I am proud to say that this is not a page for those who choose to ignore reality and embrace absurdity. I invite you to follow this link to a more appropriate page: Plan B
There are going to be quite a number of scientific precepts used and references made, so, for those of you who require a quick study in physics, I have included a link to another page on my website. It will take you through all of the stages at a pace suited for non-scientists; enjoy! History of Physics Beyond that, the vast majority of this page requires an understanding of an emerging scientific philosophy dubbed COMPLEXITY. Click the link to gain and understanding of it before you continue please.
Here we go…
“Progress is man's ability to complicate simplicity.” (Thor Heyerdahl (1914-2002))
One of the first things that any truly religious person will tell you is that “God” had to have existed. Creationists instantaneously become mathematicians and cite tons of statistics indicating the unlikely probability that humanity spontaneously erupted and proliferated. The ID crowd, coming to their rescue, likes to use the common “tornado through a junk yard” and “Pocket-watch” analogies in support. Sadly, neither camp makes a cohesive point as their data is incorrect, incomplete, fraudulent and typically mis-applied. The evolutionists are on equally shaky footing when they proclaim that the evidence for evolution is any more concrete. Without the presence of transitional species in the phylum for anything remaining today, 100% of their theory is circumstantial and based on anecdotal evidence. As an aside, in order to discuss the rhetoric completely, we’ll be including the Big Bang Theory with the evolutionist's camp. This way we can do an “apples-to-apples” comparison between the two primary camps (Creation vs. Evolution) since “creation” is not restricted to the discussion of humanity alone; it includes the cosmos as well. The sad fact is, neither of the diametrically opposed camps, or their intermediaries, have solid [material] evidence to support the dogma they adhere to. Anymore, the creationists choose to believe anything that doesn’t pertain to evolution and the evolutionists refute everything that even remotely smacks of spirituality. It’s a lot like watching two children argue on the playground.
So — where does it leave those of us who think they’re all nuts? We are the ones that would like to be compelled to believe one theory or another by being overwhelmed by something likened to “evidence” instead of fairy tales and scare-tactics. I cannot speak for all of those who are like me, but I for one would also prefer that the anecdotal evidence is kept to a minimum. As with the current debate on global warming, that type of “proof” can be a bit of a slippery-slope. Just because the evidence is present to support your theory, does not mean that it is correct; we'll look at an analogy later. I am a realist however, and since I am unaware of a photograph of “God” autographed, “I am who I am”, or one of the universe prior to the big bang entitled, “You are here”, I will have to settle for a preponderance of circumstantial evidence (somewhat anecdotal). I do require that there be at least a shred of material/physical evidence to support the otherwise circumstantial case being made. This is the scary part… Circumstantial evidence requires analytical thought, logic, and an application of scientific method – all of which are being gradually removed from our society via the public school system and mass media.
Rationale, the archenemy to logic and a contemptible counterpart to common sense, finds no place in this exercise. Because there is no measurable way to determine someone’s level of sense; “common” or not, we'll keep the debate centered upon logic, and the progression of physical evidence.
Let’s begin with the “Beginning” shall we? “In the beginning”, the most highly contentious starting point in history. All sides of the debate lay claim to having a solution to the question that arises from the statement; “What came before the beginning?” The cosmological religious viewpoint is that there has to be a primary mover or first position and that this is a position of perfection – nothing can precede it. In essence, the creationists emphatically state that nothing came before God. The Big Bang theologians claim something similar, but slightly different due to a necessary alteration in definition. “Something” in their definition can only be contained within the knowable universe, leaving “nothing” as an abstract form of emptiness in that which has not become filled with “something”, but will be. In other words, this universe was not here prior to the Big Bang (BB) and whatever existed prior to it that resulted in its eventual creation cannot be counted as “something” since it did not exist in this universe. This is how they can rationalize the “creation of something out of nothing.” Convenience is rarely logical or factual however. There have also been other versions of supposed logical “proofs” used to support versions of creation (Teleological & Ontological), but they too were eventually disproved. Think of them as rungs on the ladder of biblical creation’s evolution, just like the evolution of the evolutionary theory. Neither side of the debate can boast their successes as they have each equally suffered from having the other deflate their assumptions (very publicly).
In plain language, neither side’s claim of an answer actually develops into one. Therefore, in the vacuum left behind, once all of the rhetoric has subsided, I would like to insert an opinion of my own. Think of it as a possibility offered by way of another set of questions that cannot be answered (yet). What if there is no beginning, and all life as we know it, is an existence on a mobius strip? Consider the potential that the worldliness of all atoms in the universe manages to converge at points that either create an atmosphere of evolution or de-evolution, and that the universe is perpetually renewed in this process. Furthermore, the probability that our existence is but a shadow of a much larger one is hard to ignore scientifically [theoretically]. This means that there are entirely too many unseen forces at work in this world to pin our hopes and theories on that which can only be seen. There are endless clues that tend to support this idea, or at the very least make it plausible, but we’ll discuss them throughout the paper. One thing I should define, however, is the notion of de-evolution as it applies here. I’m not talking about cavemen becoming apes, I’m thinking in a more practical way. The aspect is simple, in my opinion: Compared to an energy-based life form, being based upon matter is obviously substandard; unless of course, you want to be made of matter….(we’ll get back to that later) To help make my point, consider what we as humans manage to “create”. Can you think of anything that has been made by our hands that would rival our own existence? No, me either. So, in that context, “everything that is made is a, de-evolution of its creator…”
Alright – to the part that I enjoy the most: discussing the Status of the Status Quo and the potential that Energy-Based Life preceded us. In order to get the ball rolling, I have a tapestry to weave from clues available in all of the existing Standard Scientific Models. Also, we have an assumption to make. It would be that, energy-based life would have difficulty “physically” interacting with a world made of matter. For the purposes of my postulate, that is a safe assumption. There is however, a pair of items that will have to be stipulated to in order to follow this total line of thinking:
The age of the universe is unknown
I believe it is infinitely old.
Whether you agree or not - this is my contention, and you have to keep it in mind when following my commentary.
Imagine it if you will…
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." (Albert Einstein (1879-1955))
A recycling of the matter within the universe has just occurred. Call it a big bang, a big splat, or whimpering ding dong hoo-ha if you want, but it did happen. The evidence of its occurrence is overwhelming. The mechanism and the actual fundamentals behind it are unimportant for this part of the conversation, but the discussion will eventually turn in that direction. You have to ask yourself the following question: "Self, what would survive such an occurrence?" No matter what your proclivities are, you will be forced to admit that, matter cannot survive, although, energy could. The Astrophysical Standard Model works from the assumption that everything emanated from the Big Bang even though there is absolutely no evidence that [EVERYTHING] did. A multitude of satellites, balloons, telescope devices and interferometers were commissioned to look for evidence of the Big Bang (BB) Theory (including Inflation) in hopes of proving the BB with Inflation (BB+I) model. Each device built upon (and improved upon) the previous one in an attempt to evidence the BB Theory’s ability to make accurate predictions.
1. COBE - measured the very large scale fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). Returned data indicated clumpiness in the universe, and a flat-universe emerged from the images.
2. Cosmic Anisotropy Telescope - measured the very small scale fluctuations in temperature, in specifically small regions of the sky, of the CMB
3. Boomerang – a balloon flown over Antarctica that created precise high fidelity images of the CMB temperature anisotropies; data further supported the flat-universe theory
4. Cosmic Background Imager - interferometer at an elevation of 5000 meters at Llano de Chajnantor atop the Chilean Andes. Again, images of a non-homogeneous universe emerged, and the flat-universe theory gained more proof.
5. Very Small Array - interferometer at an elevation of 3000 meters at Observatorio del Teide on Tenerife (Canary Islands)
6. Degree Angular Scale Interferometer - interferometer designed to measure temperature and polarization anisotropy of the (CMB) and operates from the Antarctic circle.
7. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) – a passive microwave radiometric satellite orbiting at the Earth-Sun L2 liberation point.
As a point of fact, the COBE data did not support the predictions of the astrophysicists, cosmologists or physicists; it turned a few of them on their ear. It was quickly revealed that there was far less consistency than anticipated and the lack of a lensing effect pointed to a flat universe (contrary to the established belief of curved space). This was a very powerful message sent back from the cosmos – one that the astrophysicists still refuse to acknowledge. They just quietly adjusted their initial predictions and formulated a handful of post-dictions to accommodate the results. No one (but them) need be the wiser to the truth. By studying the BB+I theory, it quickly becomes obvious that the only way it works is if homogeneity exists in the CMB and the agglomeration of matter within the perceivable universe is uniform. Now, considering that the BB+I theory has already been adopted as “The Answer”, the idea that the proof of its accuracy was vanishing caused a serious upheaval; spawning a “hustle-up campaign” to adjust the theory along with its evidentiary data so that they co-mingled. Note that I did not say converge.
Today, the hierarchy of science shows everyone the COBE and WMAP images and chants “homogeneity” though they themselves do not “see” it. Hence the reason rationale was created to explain why the universe appears inhomogeneous, while still being completely consistent with their predictions. The vast expanses of nothingness are said to be where matter first formed (even though some of those expanses are quite close to us) and the extremely “hot” portions are postulated to be regions of active star birth (which runs counter to the evolutionary timeline for the universe). It is just one parlor trick after another with this theory. There is an old English politician, Sidney Algernon (January 1623 – December 7, 1683), who was famous for saying, "Liars aught have good memories." I am reminded of that phrase whenever I read new details of the CMB program… Take that statement in stride though, I do not necessarily believe that they are all liars, just that their theory has become so convoluted with rationale that they are having trouble remembering all aspects of it.
For the purposes of this discussion, I believe that the BB never occurred in any way consistent with the current model. I think of it more as a "recycling event" — simply a reshuffling of the deck if you will. Imagine two regions of vastly different energy and density potentials coming together... For the entire process they strive for equilibrium, and depending upon the dynamics afoot, this could potentially rob energy from one while feeding the other, although, not necessarily. Consider the image below for a moment:
This is how I imagine the universe we live in; The blackness is "The Bulk" discussed throughout the pages that separates one brane from another. Consider the possibility that we reside on the upper brane and the parallel (lower) one is forever influencing ours. For years now I have been trying to describe this as the primary reason for such mystical properties as Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Inflation and Gravity itself. In other words, each "force" being the result of activities occurring on the other brane. This is a converse similarity also; consider that there are forces that life in the other brane experience due to the proximity to ours.
This would go a long way to explaining the clumpiness of our non-homogeneous universe and the fact that we are seeing greater density the further we peer into the past. This also provides an easy to reconcile answer for why the expansion is increasing, and why the further we looked — the faster it was moving. Consider the enigma of the agglomeration of quasars at the outer reaches of the universe for a moment. They are super-massive black holes (SMB) that have swallowed up billions of stars and hundreds of millions of galaxies and become active. Do the math, for a second… The pictures of them that we are receiving today are between 8-12 billion years old, meaning that, we are seeing what was happening 8-12 billion years ago. At this point, they are only 2 billion years into creation according to the current theory. But in that short time, they have managed to vacuum up all of these formed stars and celestial matter? Gosh – considering the standard theory has matter only starting to coalesce into solar systems at the 300,000,000 year mark after the bang, this shortens the available time for quasar creation to a staggeringly small 1.7 BY. There just simply isn’t enough time for them to have formed out of nothing post-BB; there had to have been something there to begin with. Me thinks there might be an error in the Standard Model of the Universe, hidden in plain sight— but I let you be the judge.
Come to think of it, what says that any of the SMBs had to have formed by swallowing the available material within its neighborhood? What if the same something I referred to above exists within the inner universe as much as it does on the outer edges of it? Consider another question for a moment… Does the recent realization that every massive galaxy [purportedly] has a SMB at its center seem more like a clue to the secret of the cosmos or a definition? I vote “clue”. What about the fact that galactic σ (Sigma) has been successfully determined and verified? In other words, the galaxies (ours included) should be rotating in Newtonian or Keplerian way if all of the matter that we can see is the mass that dominates the center of our galaxies and therefore fulfills the formula: M(R)=(V2rot*R)/G. Well, as the picture below clearly shows us, our prediction (red line) did not match our observation (green line).
Most of the stars in a typical spiral galaxy are in the inner 10 kpc or so. If stars provided all of its mass we would expect the following:
Look at the figures below (left) for a moment. They represent the motion within solar systems that are governed by the Laws of Kepler & Newton. The images to the right show what the arrangements would be if they violated the aforementioned laws and locked step with orbital period or speed. Click on either of them in order to get to larger (readable) images.
I think you notice that the pictures to the left are familiar; they are what we see in our solar system. Newtonian/Keplerian physics at its best.
The image to the right, however, was a complete surprise to us. Through Doppler red-shift measurement we were able to verify that the motion of the galaxies do not mimic that of the solar systems.
The observations show that the rotation speeds within galaxies stay roughly constant (a "flat rotation curve") at large radii. Higher speeds at large radii would tend to indicate that a galaxy has more mass at large radii than is observed in the stars and gas alone. So, the nucleus ("the bulge") of the galaxy is not where all of the gravity creating mass is. This is where the discussion of Dark Matter (DM) begins. Because the motion acts as though 90% (est.) of the galaxy's mass appears to be outside of the orbit, a mysterious unseen entity must exist that keeps everything in lockstep. This is the calculation that leaves us with σ; the variable that indicates that there is something we know nothing about. Of course, there is still the potential that the obvious answer was overlooked for one that could complicate (unnecessarily) the situation to the point that practically no one can understand it; par for the course.
Heck, σ alone makes one wonder if, in fact, the universe didn’t begin with SMBs (or the necessary gravity wells) in-situ. “Gravity wells” are a generic term for that which, in M-theory, would be a connection between the branes through the "bulk". Or maybe, incredibly close proximity of the branes. In Multiple Dimension Theory, they would be the disturbances generated by connections between the higher dimensional space and our own. In the multiple-brane picture above, it would be where the branes are extending downward and upward toward each other. Finally, in the Many Worlds Theory, these “wells” would be theoretical tunnels through the “void” or "bulk" between our world and others. Consider the whole multiple (higher) dimensional space as a balloon and the individual branes as balloons within the higher balloon. The "bulk" is that which exists in between. As the primary balloon maintained its size, and the inner balloons increased, they would begin to become more energetic as they began to encroach upon one another. Now, in this case they wouldn't actually touch, but as distance between them decreased, pressure (energy) would increase within each brane balloon. Due to the laws of energy conservation, the closed system as a whole (primary balloon) would maintain the same energy state, but the energy in the bulk itself (open spaces between the balloons) would decrease. The calculations become incredibly complex at this point. As the effect we have named inflation continues to increase, the resistance to it would decrease; causing a further acceleration. Energy transfer between the branes would increase and the preponderance of [what has been named] dark energy would linearly follow inflation. As well, in the regions where the branes were straining to touch one another, the mysterious effect we have dubbed dark matter would begin manifesting itself in organized ways. If this is proven to be correct, we would suddenly know the answers to a number of questions. Questions like:
Where does all of the energy go in a black hole once it passes the event horizon?
What is Dark Matter, or, What is really behind the effect that is called Dark Matter?
What is Dark Energy, or, What causes us to theorize Dark Energy?
If the universe is expanding such that everything is moving away from each other, why do galaxies collide?
If the universe is expanding such that everything is moving away from each other, how come we cannot detect the origin point of the BB?
How & Why do galaxies form?
Finally, this would result in a model that would enable us to make some significant predictions not proposed by the current model. The first (and most obvious one) is the reality that our brane is not necessarily "bound" but actually tapers off into nothingness [into the bulk]. In this aspect, we would see a tremendous amount of energy building toward the limits of our brane and then it would begin to erode to nothingness. The second, and almost as important feature would be the appearance of holes in the space-time fabric contained within our brane. These too would be tapered off at the edges in the same way the limit boundaries are. For a mental picture, imagine a natural pond in the middle of an otherwise open landscape. I can tell you that the evidence in the current standard astrophysical model is flimsy, thin or nonexistent as answers to the questions above. Dark Matter (DM) and Dark Energy (DE) are requirements in order to make sense out of the activities in the cosmos, although no theoretical (mathematical) model has predicted its existence. This is a case of a created answer in order to derive a solution. There is no answer at all for the first and fifth questions. The answer to the fourth question requires that DM & DE are real, as does the answer to the sixth. So, as you can see, there is a lot riding on answering the questions above, and it might have something to do with why the powers-that-be don’t mind relying on circular logic to solve their problems. There are a number of us out there that would be more than willing to help— all they need to do is let go of their paradigms, and embrace science once again. We’ll need to cover some serious territory before I can make a cohesive point about the possible solution to this, so we’ll come back to it a bit later. For now, let’s just catalog the litany of errors as clues and continue moving forward. I have provided a visual aid for you all below. If Fig. 1 is correct, then it means that our current theory can only explain 4% of what we see of the universe, and that hardly instills confidence in me. Of course, if there was a theory to explain the actions of the galaxies without employing 96% “unseen stuff”, more folks might be compelled to pay attention.
Fig. 1 — Makeup of the Universe
Why do we investigate?
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." (Galileo Galilei)
As within any investigation, when the evidence intimates a flaw in the theory, we are obliged to scrutinize it further, but certainly not assume that it is accurate. Nor should we argue that it is entirely incorrect. Instead of working to demoralize the standard model of cosmological evolution (and physics in general), we are going to move along and investigate its alternatives. Those of you who know me and have followed my writing know that there is nothing I hate more than critics who offer no reasonable answer to put in place of the theories they take aim at. It isn’t enough to say, “Inflation is ridiculous” or “Super-massive black holes couldn’t spontaneously emerge from gas clouds,” an acceptable answer needs to be given to support the model in the absence of the discredited piece. For example, to disparage post Big Bang Inflation, I would have to offer not only an explanation for why the [homogeneity] data (contrived as it is) looks the way it does, I would also have to offer elucidation as to galactic movement and why quantum physics takes the shape it does. You see, kicking the leg out from underneath a chair (particularly if all of the weight is on that one leg) can make an otherwise decent chair, collapse. Our “chair” is physics, and although we know it’s wobbly, we don’t want to destroy it— only to make it better. The overwhelming problem we have is that there are so many deficiencies that, from a 10,000’ view, it looks to be easier to destroy the chair and build it anew than to correct its faulty construction. Upon closer scrutiny, however, there are only a few major repairs that are needed in order to facilitate future minor (cosmetic) improvements. For this, we look at Superstrings, Brane worlds, World Sheets and multiple dimensions.
To date, there is absolutely no way to explain why Strings (Super or otherwise) are correct. We study them and speculate because of the fact that they manage to unify gravity with quantum mechanics, and quantum mechanics appears to support the standard model of particle physics. In fact, General Relativistic formulae are naturally occurring when performing the mathematical gymnastics of String Theory, as is quantum mechanics. Furthermore, the aforementioned theories make the disastrously ugly standard model of particle physics look a little more like a super model than a train wreck. But still, we have no clue as to the mechanism behind any of them; more so with String Theory though, due to the direction of its discovery.
That brings us back to the discussion of, “Why not accept what we are told?” and/or “Why seek for answers to that which we [purportedly] have answers for?” Simple— from my perspective, I know that the answers being taught are based upon pure supposition, speculation and refined with dogma; wrapped in circular logic. An example can be found in a paper I read about 3 years ago from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics pairing of Andisheh Mahdavi and Margaret J. Geller entitled, “THE LX − σ RELATION FOR GALAXIES AND CLUSTERS OF GALAXIES”. The paper was submitted to The Astrophysical Journal Letters, and it provided the stark example that I am seeking to prove: I do not have to specifically discredit the “status-quo” when they do it themselves; as they so openly do in this peer-reviewed journal entry.
Assuming that you are simply going to prove your theory at the beginning of any investigation ensures that you are most probably going to ignore the truth when it arrives, if it contradicts your original thesis. For those of you who take the time to read the paper (above), I should tell you that the evidence of a conscious decision to simply ignore where the data takes you resides on page 1, in section 1 (Introduction). The Introduction describes that, in the “Basic Theoretical Models”, hydrostatic equilibrium exists among the gas, galaxy, and dark matter components in clusters. Furthermore, because of this assumption, the bremsstrahlung-dominated emission values result in Lx, T 2, and σ 4. All of this is to ensure that Dark Matter is in fact the cause of the galactic motion and resultant σ calculations. All “intelligent” people know that the surest way to guarantee that your anticipated result is confirmed is to put your supposition directly into the formula! However, as the authors point out, there are a "host of discrepancies" and complications with the basic model given observational evidence. Oh well, read it for yourself, I think you’ll be able to spot the assumptions and supposition as it occurs.
This is exactly what keeps us from revolutionary findings; insisting upon the application of the evolutionary cycle. The only reason I bring any of this up is because there are so many out there who would believe everything they are taught. From elementary school to post graduate studies at and Ivy-League school, everyone assumes that the information they hear in educational circles has been "sanitized for their protection", and I'm warning you that it is not. Even the moniker "PEER REVIEWED" does not guarantee accuracy; only that it does not offend the prevailing thought of those who are supposed to know. This is how the scientific community ensures that radicals never take control of science.
We have to face facts — astrophysics and particle physics, just like the chemical and biological sciences, are an evolution. Almost everything we have learned about physics prior to Strings has emanated from the evolutionary nature of building upon previous work and refining it with experimentation. Think of it as gradual refinements of the observable until we reached the limits of our senses. At the end of observation, we have been enjoined to use our imaginations, and that’s where the “theoretical realm” enters the field. In most cases, this is where we set most of the original supposition and assumption in stone, but there have been a few radicals along the way.
The Theoreticians and the Contributors:
“Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new.” (Albert Einstein)
You have to ask yourself “why” every now and then; for a multitude of things. Often times, the answer you give [yourself] is one of convenience (laziness) or is simply a regurgitation of something that you were once told. This is commonplace according to the psychiatric community, and hardly merits further discussion. However, there are a group of people out there that have routinely ignored their “inner-couch potato” and avoided the easy answers offered by those claiming to know. By and large, these people have made up the bulk of the philosophical and scientific community throughout the ages. That is not to say that the rogue school teacher or baker from time to time has not performed such a miracle (by today’s standards); no— not at all. Most of our greatest thinkers actually emerged from the non-scientific ranks to stun the world. There are far too many examples to cite. My point here is simple; the majority of our most radical paradigm shifts have come from the groups previously mentioned. It is because of this that I often spend endless hours pondering just how we arrived where we are.
By my estimation, in many fields of science, we are as far as we’ve ever been with answers, but hardly any further than we were with understanding. This is due entirely to our ability to observe, and it causes me a lot of lost sleep. The theoreticians should be able to make predictions based upon pure theory, devise a way to test the theory, and finally, have the predictions verified. This would thus validate the theory via observation. As much as I hate to admit it, a very miniscule portion of our understanding of science has happened that way. In fact, I can count the number of pure theoretical validations on the appendages I was born with. In most cases, the science happens a little differently. Thoughts occur, observations are performed, formulas are written to explain the activities witnessed. Predictions are made based upon the formulas, tests are performed, and corrections are made to the formula to accommodate the changes. It goes round-and-round until the formula can survive most obstacles thrown in observation’s path; finally the results are finalized. In the rare circumstances that the formulae are still impeded, we will "generalize" of add perturbation to the calculation to avoid infinities. This is why evolution and not revolution commonly takes place in science, and this is the mechanism behind our current understanding. Enter the “Mere Contributors”…
Newton was accurate (generally), Maxwell was right (mostly), Klein (mathematically), Hubble (observationally), Bohr (early in his career), Davies (partially), Friedman, Faraday (in many cases), Gamow, Planck (for small things), Schröedinger (in many ways), Minkowski (mathematically), Lorentz (abstractly), Volkas, Webb, Veneziano, and so many others. Each of them contributed significantly to what we think we know today – because they refined their predecessor’s work. Contrary to the fanfare associated with their names, most of these gentlemen did nothing “revolutionary” by history’s standards— they were just quicker at evolving, solving and contributing; my hat’s off to them for that.
Do not mistake my motives here, refinement is a good thing; however, in the world of the theoretical, it also assures that nothing radically new can develop as a normal course of events and existing preconceived notions will probably be realized. Thankfully, there are an intermittent bunch that choose to enjoy the knowledge shared by their colleagues, but otherwise ignore the push to be herded like cattle. Enter “The Real Theoreticians”…
Riemann, Ramanujan, Einstein, Kaluza, Yang, and Euler make up my top 6 throughout the past 150 years. Though, in many cases, they too were working from a preconceived notion or two and standing upon the shoulders of their predecessors, for the most part – they were unconventionally forward thinkers. However, aside from their iconoclastic status, there is one prominent trait that separated each of the men from the antecedent group: They weren’t satisfied with assuming that the current foundation was solitary or sturdy, and suffered great pains to seek proof. What we have here, are some very intelligent people theorizing at the extents of their ability, creating new understandings far beyond the scope of others (revolutionary). Their insights into physics and mathematics were so complex and heteroclite that it took years for the other great minds to come to grips with them. Hell, we still cannot wrap our brains around some of the concepts authored by Ramanujan. It is unfortunate that he did not live long enough to deliver an “inspired” paper on modular functions, that would enable us to solve for strings in multiple (11) dimensions without needing Perturbation Theory. Of course, that would be too easy, and all that would be needed to complete String Theory (or M-Theory) would be a geometric description.
Fortuitous & Uncalculated Serendipity
“Look for something, find something else, and realize that what you've found is more suited to your needs than what you thought you were looking for.” (The definition of serendipity as told by Lawrence Block)
String Theory: An accidental finding of the Euler beta function by Veneziano and Suzuki started us down their path, Kaku & Kikkawa managed to stumble over a field theory to describe them, Greene & Schwarz were able to refine the theory – making them “Super”, and finally Witten mathematically “proved” them. What was once 5 separate dysfunctional 10-dimensional guesses, became 1 unified amalgamation in 11-dimensions (just as the super-gravity folks foretold). A complete and utter accident, folks, and the evolution of the theory is running backwards. There is no underlying physical principle, hence why it makes so little sense to so many, yet scientists are flocking to the media everyday to describe it . As I said above, the direction of its discovery is what is causing us confusion. Think of it this way: We were handed a solved puzzle, and are trying to tear it apart and put it back in the box the same way it came out… Unfortunately, we have no idea of how it looked in the box, the steps used to complete it, or even how many pieces it is. To complicate matters, imagine that the puzzle is a multiple-dimensional one (11 dimensions), although we can only see & touch 3 of them and perceive 1 extra. It’s fascinating really, the Super-String Theorists are most probably correct – but no more so than Newton. Proof is rearing its ugly head again to indicate that 11 dimensions may not be the whole story (it may be far more complicated than that) and at some point someone is going to ask the following series of questions:
“What are strings made of?”
“How did they form?”
“Why did they form?”
Keep in mind, the biggest unanswered question will remain a mystery with String Theory, just like its predecessors; “What came before Strings?” We’ll need a “geometric” understanding and discussion of M-Theory for that answer. It is an all encompassing theory which includes the principles of strings, but also incorporates specific types of them (open & closed) and gives them a home in membranes (branes). All of this occurs in 11-dimensions, and we use worldsheets to perform the mathematics that enables us to describe the multiply dimensional existence in 4 dimensions. That makes M-Theory the theory formerly known as String Theory, but I shall continue to discuss specific aspects of it separately for clarity’s sake.
It occurs to me that being handed the completed puzzle of Strings, just like glimpsing the make-up of DNA, the WMAP & COBE data, and the Galactic σ observations, are like being handed the winning lottery numbers without being told which lottery in the world they are for, or when. In the absence of any other information sent along with these winning numbers, you could spend and equal amount of money as you would win in the lottery trying to play them in every lottery around the world – forever. This is what many philosophers and scientists would refer to as, “Temporal Censure,” or in some cases, “Cosmic Censorship.” It is most easily defined as the Universe’s way of ensuring that equilibrium always exists, and no one ever gets a peek up Mother Nature’s skirt. At any rate, the 4 categories listed above, and their obvious theoretical similarities cause me to think endlessly about whether or not they are actually clues. “Clues” that indicate a fundamental mis-step in our thinking. When the complex is sought, the simple or obvious is often overlooked.
This is the end of section 1, “The Prologue”