| Adapted for the Internet from: Why God Doesn't Exist |
1.0 Math is naught without testimony
Bohr seemed to think that a physical object becomes a real object only in the presence of an observer:
- " Nothing exists until it is measured." [1]
[I knew I shouldn't have tried to measure that snake!]
" Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and
observable only through their interaction with other systems. " [2]
[Quantum particles are just abstractions? How do you get these abstractions to
collide in the bubble chamber?]
" There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description." [3]
[An 'abstract physical'? That's a good one! Physical = 'pertaining to that which is
material' [4] (i.e., shape). Abstract = 'thought of apart from concrete realities' [5]
(i.e., no shape). Bohr is trying to get away with saying that he can explain how
two particles collide without the particles. He's just going to do it, you know...
mathematically.]
- As all mathematicians, Bohr knew something about Math, but very little about Physics. Shape doesn’t need an audience.
It has nothing to do with observers. An object has shape irrespective of whether Bohr is watching. In our vernacular, we
may characterize a lump of clay as formless, meaning amorphous, but this is not equivalent to ‘lacking structure.’ Neither
does formless mean that the jury cannot reach a verdict because the shape of the object continues to change over time
or because we are not certain of the object’s material constitution. When the Moon collides against an asteroid while we
all sleep, hopefully they are both objects and exist irrespective of our knowledge. The idiots of Quantum get tangled in
their own faulty language.
The arguments that the mathematical physicists raise are contingent upon an observer. The mathemati-cians have made
the definition of object depend on testimony, on what a mathematician perceives and measures. In the ridiculous world
of Mathematical Physics an object is not what it is on its own, but what a mathematician says it is. The mathematicians
have never learned that testimony and time have nothing to do with the definition of the words shape and object. Shape
has nothing to do with observers. Shape is what the Moon had even before life arose on Earth. Shape is to a static
photograph what temporal parts and four-dimensionalism are to dynamic films and explanations. The definition of
shape makes no provisions for observers, explanations, time, parts, or motion. We don't 'prove' that Mars is an object
by standing on its surface or by ‘verifying’ its contour through the sense of sight. And we cannot prove that a black hole
is an object through an experiment as some folks do:
- “ To prove that a compact object is a black hole, scientists would have to measure
effects that only a black hole could produce.” [6]
The reason for this is simple. If we fail to prove that a star at the other end of the Universe is an object because we can’t
see or touch it, is this star not an object for the purposes of our dissertation? A planet has shape irrespective of
opinions, knowledge, or experiments. Shape is a static concept, and an object has shape by definition: its inability to
alloy with space in one frame of the universal movie. Therefore, the definition of shape also makes no provisions for
subcomponents or intervals. For the purposes of the category object, the Moon is comprised of a single piece.
| Bohr says that an object is not an object without an observer |
| That can't be for real! I gotta see an ophthalmologist soon! |
2.0 Touch and see what?
Perhaps the most widespread ‘bundle’ definition of the word object is the ‘touch/see’ proposal:
- “ object: Something perceptible by one or more of the senses, especially by vision or
touch; a material thing.” [7]
“ a physical body is an object which can be described by the theories of classical
mechanics, or quantum mechanics, and experimented upon by physical instruments.” [8]
“ physical object: a tangible and visible entity; an entity that can cast a shadow” [9]
Such definitions suffer from at least three obvious fatal diseases: circularity, dynamism, and proof.
• Circularity: Words such as something, thing, entity, particle, substance, medium, physical, construct,
- noun, structure, architecture, and body may not be included in the definition of object because they are ‘nothing’ but
synonyms. Something is the word we are trying to define.
• Dynamic: The word object designates that which is conceptually static. We do not need to see
- something move or to go through the motions of touching it before we can call it an object. An object stands alone,
with or without observers. An object is conceptually a photograph or a statue; it precedes motion. If the juror must
touch or see an object before we can call it an object, a star located at the other side of the Universe would not be
an object until the film begins to roll. Is an invisible neutrino not an object until it moves? Is a black hole not an object
until it swallows a stupid relativist? Is my chair not an object in the middle of space where it cannot cast a shadow?
If, as Newton reasoned, objects underlie motion, the attempt to predicate the definition of object on motion makes
the definition circular.
• Proof: This touch/see attempt does not constitute a definition, but is rather a ludicrous attempt to
- ‘prove’ that an object exists. The proponent is not defining a word, but daring the skeptic to carry out an experiment.
The fundamental problem with the see/touch definition of object is that it invokes a second object. Does an object become
an object when an object touches it? The prosecutor is trying to pull a fast one. He's saying that a table is not an object
unless your hand (another object) comes in physical contact with it. The touch/see definition presupposes the existence
of the object that does the touching and seeing (i.e., you, your hand, etc.). If a sphere is the only object in the
Universe, is it not an object? Isn't an asteroid an object in the absence of gossip or motion? Wasn't Mars an object before
life arose on Earth? Is the Moon not an object until the skeptic lands on it? Is a black hole not an object until the astronomer
sees it through his telescope?
The see/touch definition amounts to a test. This test or observation must be conducted by a conscious object. This makes
the definition circular. All test definitions ever proposed in Philosophy of Science fail because they implicitly invoke a
second object that carries out the experiment. In Science, we do not test definitions. If anything, we test theories. A
definition is a proposition embodied in the prosecutor’s hypothesis that we agree upon without proof. The see/touch
definition stealthily embodies a challenge and, hence, cannot serve as a foundation for a static scene.
Therefore, touch and see are unacceptable criteria for the definition of the word object and must be discarded for the
purposes of a scientific (consistent) presentation. Any use of the touch/see definition relegates the presentation to
ordinary speech.
- 3.0 Inconsistent usage
Assuming, in light most favorable to relativists, that we accept ‘perceptibility’ as a criterion, the prosecutors are
responsible for using it consistently throughout their presentation. As we will see in the following examples,
mathematical physicists rarely follow this rule.
The contemporary prosecutors begin their presentations by taking for granted the definition of the word object,
perhaps assuming erroneously that the Philosophers of Science or English Majors have already settled the matter
conclusively:
- “ particle: In ‘particle physics’, a subatomic object with definite mass and charge.” [10]
By defining the crucial word ‘particle’ as an object, the mathematical physicists unwittingly rely on the ordinary
definition of object that we find in dictionaries, which emphasizes the observer’s ability to see and touch it. The
prosecutors of Mathematical Physics have no qualms with this vague definition. It suits their purposes just fine
because they are going to ‘prove’ the existence of particles by seeing and touching them. [11] [12]
Having established the notion of ‘particle’ firmly in the mind of the juror, the prosecutors now propose theories that
openly violate these foundations:
• We can neither see nor touch a virtual or an anti-particle half the times.
- “ a pair of virtual particles may briefly ‘pop into existence’, and then annihilate
each other a short while later.” [13]
“ Virtual pairs: pairs of particles and anti-particles can appear then disappear
anywhere in space, provided that each pair exists for only a very short time
interval” (p. 578) [14]
“ the vacuum energy can appear as a result of a quantum fluctuation and then
vanish into nothing” (p. 100) [15]
- So what do virtual and anti-particles look like, specifically during their brief non-entity stage? Do virtual and
anti-particles qualify as objects during the time the mathematicians can’t detect them? Did the particle
spontaneously lose length, width, and height? If so, by what rational process? These are the questions that
a particle physicist must answer. The physical interpretation is the bottom line. This is what Physics is about.
The mathematicians would rather have you believe the opposite: that they did their job and that issues such
as how a particle vanished or what it looks like are opinions. We can’t verify your concerns anyways, so
what’s the point? Qualitative stuff is outside the field of science because it is un-testable, unverifiable.
You should take up these matters with your local philosophers, or perhaps with a shrink. These topics are
beyond the purview of Mathematics.
But here’s where they’re wrong! Qualitative matters may not have anything to do with Mathematics, yet they
have all to do with Physics. The reason we invented and developed Mathematics in the first place was to get
a feel for nature. We were trying to understand the relations within ideal geometric figures or why an apple
falls to the ground rather than flying upwards to the sky. These are qualitative issues. The fact that we
quantified them is secondary. That a cheetah chases down a gazelle is wholly a qualitative matter. We don’t
need to know the exact speed of either animal to understand what is occurring. You may not be able to
predict exactly how many seconds the cheetah will take to catch the gazelle, but you do get the intuitive
idea that it won’t happen after you’ve had your own lunch. The entire purpose of Math is to help us infer
physical interpretations of natural phenomena. If the mathematician is just going to use his equations to
perpetually talk in abstract mode with no relation to the hands on world, then what is the purpose of all his
functions, variables, and sets? What is the purpose of Math if the mathematician is going to delegate the
task of deciphering his hieroglyphics to the philosopher?
The issue of whether a virtual particle really exists has to be resolved by the proponent and not by a philosopher.
It is the idiot of Mathematics who proposes this poppycock as an explanation for his equations. If the
mathematician concludes and opines that a virtual particle flickers on and off like a firefly, it is his responsibility
to provide the physical explanation for how this occurs. The mathema-tician’s attempt to delegate this to the
philosopher, arguing that it is beyond his jurisdiction, only reinforces that Mathematics is not the language of
Physics. It is by delegating loose ends to other fields that has permitted Mathematical Physics to stick around
this long. The questions before us are strictly semantic and have nothing to do with measurement, magnitudes,
or equations.
From a strictly conceptual point of view (which the dimwitted mathematicians like to think are ‘philosophical,’
by which they really mean that it is just your ‘opinion’), if space is made of virtual or anti-particles, the accelerator
guy did not ‘create’ anything. He just managed to detect ‘something’ that was already there. The Greek
philosophers already realized this over 2,000 years ago:
- “ nothing comes into being from not-being…‘all things were together’ and the
coming into being of such and such a kind of thing is reduced to change of
quality…things come into being out of existent things, i.e. out of things already
present, but imperceptible to our senses because of the smallness of their bulk.”
(Bk. I, Part 4) [16]
So the philosophers have already made their opinion public: Any ‘physicist’ that says that a particle was
created from the vacuum is a stupid moron, especially if he works at one of the particle accelerators of the
world! That’s what the philosophers say. So now the onus reverts to the particle mathematician. The burden
of illustrating what he thinks a particle looks like falls squarely on his shoulders. The prosecutor is charged
with telling the juror what a particle looks like before sharing his beliefs (theorizing). This is relevant to the
presentation because he must relate shape and behavior. Why does a virtual particle flicker on and off?
This is not an issue philosophy or opinion. This supernatural behavior is an intrinsic component of the
theory that he is proposing. What does it matter whether he can answer with numbers and equations how a
particle interacts if the particle he uses is a supernatural entity?
• A quasi-particle is a ‘state’ or an ‘excitation.’ It does not allow itself to be photographed…or even
- imagined:
- “ In the language of many-body quantum mechanics, a quasiparticle is a type of
low-lying excited state of the system (a state possessing energy very close to
the ground state energy) that is known as an elementary excitation.” [17]
[ Somehow, however, this verb miraculously morphs into a solid noun in the middle
of the dissertation. The almost-particle becomes a well-delineated, discrete entity that
has the ability to move and to interact with other ‘individuals’…]
“ It turns out that the interactions between quasiparticles become negligible at
sufficiently low temperatures, in which case we can obtain a great deal of information
about the system as a whole, including the flow properties and heat capacity, by
investigating the properties of individual quasiparticles.” [18]
“ it was shown that 2n quasi-particles at fixed positions span a 2n-1 dimensional
Hilbert space, and that braiding such quasi-particles around one another…” [19]
- The quasi-particle of Mathematical Physics is all motion and no substance. Therefore, the mathematical morons
are twining and weaving verbs. It is meaningless and unethical to shove these qualitative issues under the rug
or to philosophers. The owners of the problem are the mathematicians. They are introducing metaphor and
ordinary speech (i.e., poetry) into a scientific scenario.
• A point particle is zero-dimensional (0D), so it is conceptually impossible to touch or see it.
- “ A point particle…does not have any volume or surface area; it is zero dimensional…
Particle physics suggests that fundamental particles (quarks, electrons and other
leptons) may be point particles which can contain mass, charge, spin, and multipole
moments without occupying any volume.” [20]
- It is disregard for definitions explicitly established or stealthily insinuated at the beginning of the presentation that
converts physical interpretations of mathematical physicists into supernatural theories. The idiots live with such
nonsense and profess it to be ‘science.’
- Module main page: Is an object a bundle of properties?
1. Frege says that a variable is an object
2. Russell says that an object is that which is one
3. Lavoisier says that an object is that which cannot be destroyed
4. Newton says that an object is that which has mass and occupies space
5. Plato says that an object is that which is ideal
6. This page: Bohr says that an object is not an object without an observer
7. Elder says that an object is that which is made of parts
| Buzz Bill |
| Hello Houston? Control Center? Can you hear me? I repeat. I have now confirmed that the Moon is an object. |
| confirming objects through the sense of touch |
- ________________________________________________________________________________________
- Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008