As I was walking by a pet store the other day, I spotted a rodent running in one of those exercise wheels, and quantum reality suddenly came to mind. The parallel seemed fitting, except for the fact that the rodent a) probably knows it’s not going anywhere and b) is getting a useful workout. For the past 80 years or so, the confusion wrought by some of matter’s curious properties has crystallized into a latter-day mysticism called quantum reality. Quantum mechanics is a useful, powerful tool. Quantum reality however is about as credible as the study of paranormal activity, but has somehow wormed its way into the physics department. Indeed, one of its claims is that reality has a spooky nonlocality. The only difference between quantum reality and clairvoyance is the funding. Clairvoyance tends to be privately funded.

Quantum reality, like ‘jumbo shrimp’ and other oxymorons, has nothing to do with reality. What it has everything to do with is human ego. Unbridled, run-amok ego. The atomic realm doesn’t follow the classical rules we have so carefully laid out over the last hundred years, so the universe is irrational! When the confusion really started to percolate in the early 1900’s, de Broglie and Bohr, at least in the beginning, had no intention of starting a religion. Louis de Broglie wrote an excellent book, called Matter and Light: The New Physics (1939) that did a good job of expressing his deep desire to understand what the quantized world was trying to tell him. Heisenberg didn’t have the introspection of de Broglie and Einstein, and through force of will and his opponent’s inability to explicate a series of bizarre results, Werner started his own religion, and it is called the Copenhagen Interpretation (Quantum Reality).

Like any good religion, quantum reality rests atop deep, inexplicable mystery, and there are many things that, by the Uncertainty Principle, are taken to be forever beyond the reach of our instruments. Quantum reality works in mysterious ways. Do not question it. Do not ask us why it is the way it is; to do so is to consort in philosophy. Learn the magic rules of quantum reality, for that is science. These rules defy common sense, but nowhere is it written that the universe must adhere to common sense. Here is that megalomaniacal human ego again. We don’t understand it, physicists much smarter than us didn’t understand it, therefore it is beyond understanding. I pick up mixed signals on this assessment, but let’s see which one is the more likely interpretation. Are physicists a) freely admitting that they are not smart enough to understand the universe; or b) convinced that it can’t be understood because they are really smart and even they can’t understand it. One wonders. On what side does the burgeoning human ego fall?

Quantum realists walk silently along the halls of their quantum monastery, with shaven heads and wearing brown robes, and when they speak they all agree that physics’ job is to describe the universe, not understand it. To attempt to do so is at the best hopelessly naïve, or in the worse case heresy. Heretics are not tolerated in the quantum monastery. But one day, as the quantum monks are filing into their undecorated dining room, carrying their plates of lukewarm rice, they are startled to discover an intruder, sitting at a table, eating a hamburger, wearing shorts, a baseball cap, and a tee shirt with a colorful, offensive logo. “Yo” I said, “Want to see some cool geometry?”

Nothing like limiting a subject to a managable scope…

When comparing null physics to contemporary physics, the subject of philosophy invariably comes up because many things that are important to null physics are labeled, somewhat disparagingly, as ‘philosophy’ by physicists. Philosophy, we are told, is not science, and according to many of the physicists I have talked to, it is not particularly important in and of itself. Philosophical tidbits of note in null physics include such trivia as ‘why the universe exists’, ‘why is energy quantized?’, and ‘why does the universe have universal constants?’

Modern physics’ stance on philosophy is incongruous on a number of levels, but let’s just hit the highlight reel today. Here are the main categories.

Judgement call

To begin with, as has become clear during the course of many conversations, I doubt that the majority of physicists really know enough about philosophy to be able to recognize it when they see it. Reading the great book ‘Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance’ might be a good way to ease into the subject, but then they would be left with the false impression that philosophy has little to tell us about the natural world. So I don’t think people who are familiar with physics, but rarely delve into philosophy, are best suited to judge the line that separates the two. Not that philosophers are too eager to venture into physics either. Daniel Dennett forages through the life sciences to support many of his assertions, but he would seem to be the exception.

Unavoidability

What physicists don’t seem to realize is that philosophy is, by its nature, an intrinsic part of every human activity, and there’s far more to it than arguing over the meaning of beauty or good. It rests at the very essence of physics, such as the ‘scientific method’. The thing that defines physics cannot, in and of itself, be a part of physics, because it separates physics from ‘everything else’. So it is philosophy that tells us where physics begins and ends, not physics.

lnconsistency or merely hypocrisy?

As noted, many physicists woud claim that a question such as ‘why does the universe exist?’ lies outside of physics, yet cosmologists are always telling us that they search for the hidden ‘secrets of the universe’. When I talk about null principles or null geometry, I’m often told something to the effect that “If you can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist. Since we don’t have access to what came before the universe, it’s a philosophical issue.” As this is being written, cosmologists are looking for patterns in the cosmic microwaves that might tell them something about the state of the universe prior to the Big Bang. Yet to look at the contemporary universe for signs that it is the internal structure of nothingness is…philosophy.

Call me silly, but I think that there’s a fundamental difference between a debate over the meaning of beauty and a debate over the reason the universe exists. The universe is, ultimately, the reason why we have ‘physics’. No universe, no physics. The way the universe is, such as ‘really big’ and ‘filled with stuff’ is related (and the connection between the dots is very close here) to why it exists or where it ‘came from’. A chicken, for instance, makes a lot of sense if you’re in a barnyard and there’s chickens, eggs, and chicks coming out of eggs. A chicken would make so sense at all if you’re in a volcano or on the surface of the sun, because its properties would be entirely inconsistent with the environment.

So I guess the question is what is more ‘philosophical’. Using the known properties of our contemporary universe to deduce its geometry and most essential nature, or talking about things that are thought to have happened 13.7 billion years ago that we, by definition, have no way of accessing today?

As I have repeatedly tried to pin Big Bang proponents down with specific questions, I have noted a discouraging tendency toward obfuscation. I understand that the model is more suited toward description than having the kind of explanatory power that can tell us, for instance, why there was a Big Bang or what caused it. All I have been looking for is a precise, self-consistent set of premises. It’s like that ‘whack-a-mole’ game, where you ask one question and the answer slips away into a general relativity hole, and you ask another and the answer gets lost down the special relativity hole. So this process has led, quite naturally, to whether or not the Big Bang is actually falsifiable. In other words, is there an observation that, if made, would show the Big Bang to be false? String theory, for instance, is not currently falsifiable because it has made no predictions that are within the range of our test equipment. Many physicists shout ‘foul’, but the (art/math/philosophy) that is string theory rages on unabated. I wonder, however, whether the Big Bang is not falsifiable for an entirely different reason: are its foundational principles so malleable that it can be adjusted to any conceivable observation? Please allow me to share the discussion that led to this idea.

I had been told recently, by a few credentialed physicists (who shall remain nameless), that the galactic vortex proposed by null cosmology is simply not possible. To this I responded, excellent! You see, if there is no galactic vortex as predicted, then I can conceive of no possible way of undoing a galaxy’s fusion to create new hydrogen (for future fusion), which leads directly to the spectacular and unequivocal failure of null cosmology! In this way, null cosmology is falsifiable, as should be the case with any good physical theory. But then I responded, “if we do find this ‘impossible’ vortex, will that invalidate the Big Bang?” The answer was no; but it might cause some major adjustment to its current version of universal or galactic evolution. Then the grim reality suddenly dawned on me, and I asked a more global question:

Can you conceive of an observation that, if confirmed, would demonstrate that the Big Bang was false?

This particular discussion group could imagine no such observation.

Alas poor science, I miss you so.

Author begins with predicting the magnitude of the core-wand motion of the Andromeda galaxy, M31

Minneapolis, MN (June 18, 2008) – Is the Big Bang theory a bust? In several recent news articles, physicists have questioned the validity of the Big Bang. Terence Witt is going one step further by applying part of his Null Physics theory, Null Cosmology, toward predicting the magnitude of vortical motion in our huge galactic neighbor, Andromeda. This prediction, an integral part of Null Cosmology’s integrated ‘Cosmic Fusion Cycle.’will cast further doubt on the Big Bang’s validity.

“Null cosmology can predict the core-ward motion of any spiral galaxy," said Witt. “I’ve published the number for the Milky Way in my book Our Undiscovered Universe , and next is Andromeda, which is larger than our own galaxy but has similar characteristics. Null Cosmology, with its ability to provide a unified, comprehensive analysis of our contemporary universe, is a very serious problem for the Big Bang."

As inspiration often comes from conversation, Witt realized the need for additional predictions while conversing with physicists participating in his My Discovered Universe forum.

“The thing I really like about the forum environment is that debate often is the catalyst for new and greater idea development. All of us on My Discovered Universe – moderators and members – are concerned with the advancement of scientific learning and application. That’s what is truly enjoyable about the discussions. They get heated up, they get spirited, but at the end of the day, we all want the same thing: We want science to move forward.”

Within the next two weeks, Witt plans to publish his prediction as a white paper on www.ourundiscovereduniverse.com , as well as on the new My Discovered Universe (MDU) forum. All future predictions will be posted on MDU. With forum registration on a sharp and steady rise, Witt is not able to reply to every post in real-time, but will participate as often as his research activities allow.

With more new predictions to come, Null Cosmology is preparing to strongly challenge the Big Bang.

About Terence Witt
Null Physics is Terence Witt’s passion. He is the former CEO of Witt Biomedical and is a visiting scientist at Florida Institute of Technology. “Our Undiscovered Universe: Introducing Null Physics” is Witt’s first book. All the proceeds from “Our Undiscovered Universe ” will be donated to scientific research.

Victoria Lansdon
Public Relations Director
Aridian Publishing
(321) 773-3426
vlansdon@aridian.org