The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson
Containing
His Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).
What is Reality?
"Reality is the real business of physics."- Albert Einstein
- Introduction
- Reality Issues
- Final Thoughts
- Further Readings
- Disclaimer
Introduction
It is not in a metaphysical sense that I ask this question, but in a physical sense of the nature of the Universe. The goal of physics is to answer the questions of what the reality of the Universe is. Today, we have three great unknowns about the reality of the Universe; Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the reality of Quantum space. This article examines these issues.
Reality Issues
The following are the issues regarding reality in physics.
An Important Factor in the Advancement of Science
Before I began this discussion, it is important to mention one of the great factors in the advancement of science; the development of instruments to measure scientific phenomenon. Instruments that have a greater precision of length and/or a greater precision of time. Some early examples are the Refracting Telescope as refined by Galileo Galilei, the Reflecting Telescope as invented by Isaac Newton, the Pendulum Clock as invented by Christiaan Huygens, and the Microscope as invented by Zacharias Janssen and Hans Lippershey. Advancements in instrumentation led to advancements in science. This paper will not focus on these instrumentation advancements, only noting that advancements in instrumentation often leads to advancements in science. These instrumentation advancements led to the discovery of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, as well as the startling discoveries of Quantum Physics. However, there is an instrumentation limitation that is impacting Quantum Physics. The instrumentation of Quantum Physics has become exceeding expensive to build and operate, and the results of these instruments are becoming narrower in scope due to technological limitations. I shall examine this problem in my discussion in the “Problems of Quantum Physics” section of this article.
Problems in Astro-Physics
Dark Matter
In 1922 Jacobus Kapteyn suggested the existence of dark matter, using his studies of stellar velocities. In 1933 astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky, who studied galactic clusters, made a similar inference. In 1978 Vera Rubin and W. Kent Ford confirmed the existence of Dark Matter in nearby galaxies using galaxy rotational curves. In the early 1990’s Astrophysicists verified the existence of Dark Matter throughout the universe. This was done by utilizing space telescopes to take a census of the stars and their star type in many galaxies to determine the approximate mass of the galaxy. They then measured the motion of selected stars through the galaxy. They entered this information into a supercomputer that utilized Einstein’s General Relativity equations to produce a gravitational model of the galaxy. To their surprise, the model said that all the Galaxies they studied could not exist because there was insufficient mass to hold them together. They adjusted the amount of mass in the galaxies in such a manner as to get the result that agreed with what they were observing in galaxies. In every case the adjustment was the same – the amount of normal matter (baryonic matter) was 20% of what was needed while 80% of the matter was unseen – which they named “Dark Matter”. Not only was Dark Matter confirmed through stellar motions in galaxies but also by the observations of Gravitational Lenses.
Gravitational Lenses
Just as starlight is deflected passing the sun, so should light from a distant galaxy be lensed when there is an intervening massive body such as a closer galaxy. This lensing is seen as a circle (often observer as arcs) around the intervening galaxy. The diagram below illustrates this phenomenon.
When the Hubble Space Telescope started imaging the universe in greater detail and was able to detect dimmer objects, it became possible to see Gravitational Lenses.
Astronomers are now able to discover farther galaxies being hidden by an intervening galaxy because of the detection of lensing. Astrophysicists can also analyze the lensed light and determine the properties of the far way galaxy being lensed, as well as the masses of the intervening galaxies. The observed Gravitational Lenses require the presence of Dark Matter for these lenses to show the effects as observed.
Dark Energy
In the late 1990’s Astrophysicists realized it would be possible to measure the rate of expansion of the universe utilizing space telescopes and supercomputers (again utilizing Einstein’s General Relativity equations). At that time, they had three scenarios as to the ultimate fate of the universe; a closed universe, an open universe, or a flat universe. A closed universe is one in which the mass of the universe was greater than the force of expansion, and the universe would collapse onto itself to create a new universe (the expansion of space, a stop, and then the contraction of space). An open universe is one that the expansion is greater than the mass and the universe will expand forever and eventually suffer total radioactive decay and cease to exist. A flat universe is one in which the mass and the expansion are equal, and the universe would just stop and be fixed in size (nobody expected this result, but it was possible mathematically). Everybody expected that the rate of expansion was slowing, and we would end up in either an open or closed universe. To their surprise, the results showed that the rate of expansion was increasing. The only way this would be possible if there were a repulsive energy force that was greater than the gravitational force. They named this energy “Dark Energy”.
The composition of the Universe
 |
Given what we now know we can confidently say that about 74% of the Universe is composed of Dark Energy, and about 22% of the Universe is composed of Dark Matter, while only 4% of the Universe is Baryonic matter. This means that the “Standard Model of Quantum Physics” only accounts for 4% of what the universe is composed of. This situation, along with the unification of General Relativity and Quantum Physics, needs to be rectified to have a fuller understanding of how and why the Universe works. |
The existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy had no impact on General Relativity, as the equations of General Relativity allowed for their existence. Indeed, by including Dark Matter and Dark Energy into Einstein’s equations we have a much better understanding of how our universe works gravitationally.
Problems in Quantum Physics
The Copenhagen Interpretation
|
The Copenhagen Interpretation is an expression of the meaning of quantum mechanics that was largely devised in the years 1925 to 1927 by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. It remains one of the most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities that measurements will produce certain results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse. There have been many objections to the Copenhagen interpretation over the years. These include: discontinuous jumps when there is an observation, the probabilistic element introduced upon observation, the subjectiveness of requiring an observer, the difficulty of defining a measuring device, and the necessity of invoking classical physics to describe the "laboratory" in which the results are measured. Alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation include the many-worlds interpretation, the De Broglie–Bohm (pilot-wave) interpretation, and quantum decoherence theories. |
The Copenhagen interpretation was disputed, most notably by Albert Einstein but by other Quantum physicists as well, on several grounds including the Principle of Locality, the Measurement Problem, Quantum Superposition, and Quantum Entanglement, as recapped below. The adoption of the Copenhagen interpretation by most Quantum Physicist led to great advancements and discoveries in Quantum Physics. Indeed, it is the basis for Modern Quantum Theory.
|
In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is directly influenced only by its immediate surroundings. A theory which includes the principle of locality is said to be a "local theory". This is an alternative to the older concept of instantaneous "action at a distance". Locality evolved out of the field theories of classical physics. The concept is that for an action at one point to have an influence at another point, something in the space between those points such as a field must mediate the action. To exert an influence, something, such as a wave or particle, must travel through the space between the two points, carrying the influence. The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the problem of how (or whether) wave function collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wave function in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the system that is not obviously a consequence of Schrödinger evolution. Quantum Superposition (a.k.a.) Schrödinger's Cat Quantum Superposition (Schrödinger's Cat is the thought experiment), sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects. The scenario presents a cat that may be simultaneously both alive and dead, a state known as a quantum superposition, as a result of being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur. The thought experiment is also often featured in theoretical discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon which occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the state of the other(s), even when the particles are separated by a large distance—instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole. |
A major impact of the Copenhagen interpretation is that at the Quantum level we live in a Problemistic Universe and not a Deterministic Universe. In a Deterministic Universe if you knew the properties of a starting point, then the forces acting upon the starting point, you could then predict the result. In a Problemistic Universe you can only predict possible limited outcomes.
General and Special Relativity observations and experiments indicate that we live in a Deterministic Universe. While Quantum Physics observations and experiments has shown that regarding atomic and sub-atomic particles, we live in a Problemistic Universe. It is this dichotomy that is of concern for modern physics, leading to much scientific speculation and (heated) debates.
Modern Quantum Theory
After World War II, and the development of the Atomic Bomb, the government’s involvement in Atomic Physics increased dramatically. Hundreds of important scientists and thousands of supporting scientists contributed to the development of Quantum Physics, unlike the previous times where it was dozens of important scientists and hundreds of supporting scientists. The advancement of Atomic Physics grew dramatically as a result. The most important development was the development of the “Standard Model” of quantum particles. With more and better instrumentation atomic physicist began discovering dozens then hundreds of sub-atomic particles. So much so that atomic physicist began searching for a simpler explanation of atomic particles. The result was the development of the “Standard Model” of quantum physics. By combining the various quantum particles, in various combinations, you could account for all the various sub-atomic particles.
Fermions were composed of mass (Quark particles) and energy (Lepton particles). Bosons were force particles that bound the Fermions.
They then discovered the ways that these quantum particles could be combined through three properties of a quantum particle; Mass, Charge, and Spin. Complex mathematical formulas were developed that limited the acceptable ways of combining the elementary particles.
Standard Model of Particle Physics
This is the current model of Quantum Physics which all quantum physicist utilizes in their experiments, hypotheses, and theories.
The Problems with the Standard Model
While the Standard Model is a triumph of quantum physics and has withstood all observation and experimental tests, there are three major problems with the Standard Model as an explanation of how the Universe works (and What is Reality?).
The first is the problem of Gravity. Gravity is a universal force, but the “Standard Model” has no explanation for gravity, and gravity cannot incorporate the “Standard Model”. Until Gravity and the “Standard Model” can be incorporated (through a “Grand Unified Theory” – GUT) it is not possible to have a full understanding of how and why the Universe works.
The second is the problem of Dark Matter. In the early 1990’s Astrophysicists verified the existence of Dark Matter. Matter that exists in the universe, but we cannot see. The astrophysicists went to the quantum physicists to ask what this Dark Matter could be. The quantum physicists had no answer. Yet everyone agrees that Dark Matter exists, and until the “Standard Model” can incorporate Dark Matter it will be incomplete.
The third is the problem of Dark Energy. In the late 1990’s Astrophysicists realized it would be possible to measure the rate of expansion of the universe utilizing space telescopes and supercomputers (again utilizing Einstein’s General Relativity equations) and much to their surprise discovered the expansion of the universe was accelerating due to the presence of Dark Energy. The astrophysicists went to the quantum physicists to ask what this Dark Energy could be. The quantum physicists had no answer. Yet everyone agrees that Dark Energy exists, and until the “Standard Model” can incorporate Dark Energy it will be incomplete.
Instrumentation Problems
As mentioned earlier the instrumentation of Quantum Physics has become exceeding expensive to build and operate, and the results of these instruments are becoming narrower in scope due to technological limitations. Modern Quantum Physics requires colliders where atomic particles are accelerated at very high speeds in a magnetic powered ring. These particles then collide with each other and Quantum Physicist observe the results of the collision to determine what has happened at a quantum level. The faster you accelerate a particle you amplify the energy of the collision, which results in the greater amount of information obtained. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world’s largest and most powerful particle accelerator that first started up on 10 September 2008. The LHC consists of a 27-kilometre ring of superconducting magnets with a number of accelerating structures to boost the energy of the particles along the way. The Large Hadron Collider took about a decade to construct, for a total cost of about $4.75 billion. The total operating budget of the LHC runs to about $1 billion per year. The main purpose of the LHC was for the discovery of the Higgs boson, as well as determining other Quantum Physics. Taking all of those costs into consideration, the total cost of finding the Higgs boson ran about $13.25 billion. As a result of the LHC experiments, Quantum Physicist believe that they need an even more powerful collider to advance Quantum Physics. At what point do we determine the economic costs of building and operating large colliders exceeds the Quantum Physics advancement benefits? An important question that needs to be answered.
The technological limitations are the vast quantity of data the LHC generates. It is currently not possible to technologically capture and store all of this data. The LHC Quantum Physicist narrow the data collection and storage to those areas that they believe will produce results that are useful. Therefore, much of the data generated simply disappears. This begs the question if they are making the proper data narrowing assumptions, or if they may miss important scientific data that could be useful?
Finally, no one has observed the reality of the Quantum Space (and many Theoretical Quantum Physicist deny this reality). As the possible quantum space is the smallest possible space it is not possible to observe it directly. This is because scientific instrumentation must be able to observe and measure at the same level, or smaller, that what is to be observed or measured. This is not possible since quantum space is the smallest level in the Universe.
Quantum Entanglement
Quantum entanglement, as recapped previously, poses a significant problem due to simultaneous changes of paired particles. What this implies is that if one or more of the pairs(s) has a change in state the change is instantaneously reflected in the other pair(s), no matter how far apart the particle pairs are. Current experiments have confirmed that this is true. However, if this is true than Einstein's Special Relativity cannot be true, as Special Relativity states that the speed of light is constant in the Universe. If the speed of light is constant, then it should take time for the change state to be transmitted and reflected in the other paired particle(s). Einstein's Special Relativity has been confirmed by many thousands of observations and experiments over many decades. Therefore, there is an apparent conflict between Quantum Entanglement and Special Relativity. To date there appears to be no resolution to this conflict.
Quantum Reality
An underlying foundation of the Copenhagen interpretation and the “Standard Model” of Quantum Physics is that Quantum space has no reality. It exists only as wave functions that collapse when observed to become “reality”. Reality being that the computations of Quantum Physics predict the results of the collapse. Indeed, it is not even necessary to determine or discuss quantum space but only deal with the results of the predictions. It is only when things are observed that they become “real”. This led Einstein to once ask his young friend Abraham Pais if the Moon existed only when someone was looking at it. Scientists who dispute this assumption are often ignored or dissed as not understanding the true nature of Quantum Physics. This has led Physicist David Mermin to say, “If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be 'Shut up and calculate!’”, and most Quantum Physicist shut up and calculate.
One great scientist, John von Neumann, published a proof that Quantum reality doesn’t exist. However, another great scientist, John Bell, has disputed this proof on convincing grounds. Therefore, the reality of Quantum space is undetermined. We need more, not less, scientific speculating and hypothesizing on the reality of Quantum space. This could potentially lead to experimentation to determine the truth of Quantum space, and perhaps a significant advancement in Quantum Physics.
Scientific realism is the view that the universe described by science is real regardless of how it may be interpreted. "Scientific Realism" as Hilary Putnam the philosopher, mathematician, and computer scientist said "is the only philosophy the doesn't make the success of science a miracle". The question is "How could our everyday world of things that exist be composed of a quantum world where nothing is real?", as the philosopher and academic J. J. C. Smart wrote "The great and compelling reason for refusing to regard the elementary particles as theoretical fictions is that unless something like what quantum mechanics tells us what is true of underlying reality, then [the fact] that the macroscopic laws are what they are . . . [sic] too much of a coincidence to be believed". Therefore, more scientific inquiry and research needs to be done to address the question of Quantum Reality.
Denial of Significant Advancements in Quantum Physics
The last great advancement in Quantum Physics occurred in the 1970’s with the introduction of the “Standard Model” Since then the advancements in Quantum Physics have been incremental. Even the discovery of the Higgs boson that occurred recently was based on a theory postulated in the 1960’s. Richard Feynman, one of the greatest quantum physicists of the 20th century and founders of the “Standard Model” said of String Theory (a major hypothesis of modern Quantum Physics): “String theorists don’t make predictions, they make excuses”. Today, Quantum Physicist (and String Theorists) often make excuses as to why their predictions are not uncovered within the experiments. Some Quantum Physicist have even suggested that due to the nature of Quantum Physics that we may never be able to “prove” Quantum Physics but must accept their theories based on mathematics and belief. I, however, believe it is the responsibility of physicist to explain the real universe and prove that their explanation is factual and real. Abandoning your theories and hypotheses has nothing to do with apologizing, it has to do with being willing to admit that an idea doesn’t work and move on to something else. In science, this happens all the time and requires no apology, as most scientific ideas don’t work out in the long run. Given that there have been no significant advances in Quantum Physics for the past forty years it may be necessary to ask if we need to move on from the Copenhagen interpretation to another interpretation of Quantum Physics?
Final Quantum Physics Thoughts
The modern technological world is not possible without Quantum Physics. All modern electronics must take into account Quantum Physics to function properly. The ubiquitous cell phone would not work without accounting for Quantum Physics (and General Relativity for GPS). Indeed, today’s world would not be recognizable without Quantum Physics. We all owe a debt of gratitude for all those thousands of Quantum Physicists who were involved in the discovery and development of Quantum Physics.
Final Thoughts
There are four great unknowns about the reality of the Universe; Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Entanglement, and the reality of Quantum space. There are several experiments and observations underway to resolve the mystery of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Quantum Entanglement. I am not aware of any experiments and observations underway to resolve the mystery of Quantum space. We should all insist that experiments and observations begin to prove or disprove the existence of quantum space. Until this is done we cannot know “What is Reality?”.
Further Readings
Below are the books I would recommend that you read for more background information on this subject. They were chosen as they are a fairly easy read for the general public and have a minimum of mathematics.
- Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray by Sabine Hossenfelder
- The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next by Lee Smolin
- What is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics by Adam Becker
Disclaimer
Please Note - many academics, scientist and engineers would critique what I have written here as not accurate nor through. I freely acknowledge that these critiques are correct. It was not my intentions to be accurate or through, as I am not qualified to give an accurate nor through description. My intention was to be understandable to a layperson so that they can grasp the concepts. Academics, scientists, and engineers entire education and training is based on accuracy and thoroughness, and as such, they strive for this accuracy and thoroughness. I believe it is essential for all laypersons to grasp the concepts of this paper, so they make more informed decisions on those areas of human endeavors that deal with this subject. As such, I did not strive for accuracy and thoroughness, only understandability.
Most academics, scientist, and engineers when speaking or writing for the general public (and many science writers as well) strive to be understandable to the general public. However, they often fall short on the understandability because of their commitment to accuracy and thoroughness, as well as some audience awareness factors. Their two biggest problems are accuracy and the audience knowledge of the topic.
Accuracy is a problem because academics, scientist, engineers and science writers are loath to be inaccurate. This is because they want the audience to obtain the correct information, and the possible negative repercussions amongst their colleagues and the scientific community at large if they are inaccurate. However, because modern science is complex this accuracy can, and often, leads to confusion amongst the audience.
The audience knowledge of the topic is important as most modern science is complex, with its own words, terminology, and basic concepts the audience is unfamiliar with, or they misinterpret. The audience becomes confused (even while smiling and lauding the academics, scientists, engineers or science writer), and the audience does not achieve understandability. Many times, the academics, scientists, engineers or science writer utilizes the scientific disciplines own words, terminology, and basic concepts without realizing the audience misinterpretations, or has no comprehension of these items.
It is for this reason that I place understandability as the highest priority in my writing, and I am willing to sacrifice accuracy and thoroughness to achieve understandability. There are many books, websites, and videos available that are more accurate and through. The subchapter on “Further Readings” also contains books on various subjects that can provide more accurate and thorough information. I leave it to the reader to decide if they want more accurate or through information and to seek out these books, websites, and videos for this information.
If you have any comments, concerns, critiques, or suggestions I can be reached at mwd@profitpages.com.
I will review reasoned and intellectual correspondence, and it is possible that I can change my mind,
or at least update the content of this article.