18 February, 2019

Quantum Electro Dynamics via PBS Space Time




As is becoming a regular feature of my current theoretical work criticising The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and its various contemporary developments, I turn first to the young presenters on the PBS SPACE TIME platform of explanatory videos on YouTube - because they do their very best to deliver the consensus theory, warts-and-all, in the clearest and most honest way they can - which is commendable.

They don't actually succeed in convincing me, of course, but they do allow the inquisitive viewer, such as myself, to extract at least some of the key premises involved, in order to attempt to establish a vital alternative to theirs, by revealing both their limitations, as well as, hopefully, defining-and-presenting a better, coherent and comprehensive alternative view.


Certain defining premises are immediately evident:

  • First, that a Description of what occurs is always the objective!

  • Second, that the means used will always be Mathematics!

  • Third, that its real test will always involve Predictions!

  • Finally, that Experiments will confirm their validity!


But, what do these seemingly sound premises actually infer?

  • Descriptions deliver the way things appear, but never "Why they are so?"

  • Mathematics delivers only Ideal(ised) Forms and is unavoidably wholly Pluralist!

  • Predictions deliver possible outcomes without any real Explanation.

  • Experiments always involve a purposely farmed-and-maintained context only.

But, all of these cannot deliver Reality-as-is, but only a tailor-made, subset context, with almost all "supposedly-inessential" things suppressed. And, for it to work, Reality itself would have to be totally pluralist - that is constructed solely of eternal Natural Laws, for such a method to reveal the true components.

And the proof of these criticisms? You have to replicate exactly the conditions of extraction to subsequently enable effective use of such Laws! And, Reality-as-is and totally un-tailored is always Holistic. So, predictions based upon pluralist laws are similarly compromised.

From the very inception of the disciplines involved in that approach, by the Ancient Greeks, flaws were already evident (see Zeno of Elea's Paradoxes), so a parallel and holistic set of Explanations involving Properties, Causes and Effects were also considered essential accompaniments to the purely formal relations.

NOTE:But while descriptions, equations and predictions were always locked together as absolutes, Explanations (being attempts at the Real), never enjoyed that unanimity, because they were never absolute: they were composed of current and temporary Objective Content, so were always being updated or improved, while the contents of the Pluralist extractions were always "absolute"!

So, as long as Understanding was not as important as Use, the pluralist monolith would continue to dominate science. BUT, crucially Pluralistic methods, unavoidably, also always involved Idealisation- for all the data from experiments were used to fit-up Ideal Formal Equations, taken from Pure Mathematics, but as those were, by no means a comprehensive data set: the formula's validity was NOT intrinsic to the whole causing situation, but limited to a defined range alone!

So, Idealism was also imported along with the Formula.

Can you guess what happened to the Mathematics involved, in response to ever wider use in Science?It had to develop enormously in order to continue that defined use value. But, never, it must be emphasized, in delivering an explanatory value! Mathematics can't do that! Unless, that is, you abandon Materialism for Idealism, and consequently believe that the World is the way that it is because of the Mathematics which drive it!

For then, a study of the Purely Formal World of Ideality becomes a study of the sole drivers of Reality.

Are you recognising Modern Physics yet?




Now, developing Mathematics, without in any way compromising its Plurality, which, remember, was what had given it its descriptive power from the outset, really meant doing something you can do in Ideality, which you cant do in Reality. And, that is extending it exponentially, while maintaining its premises absolutely!

This was such a significant turn, so that in my Diagram of the Processes and Productions of Abstraction, the realm of Ideality had to be situated outside-of Reality altogether, which correctly included everything else.





The processes and productions of Ideality were defined as never ever getting validated by references of it to Reality!

So much for the underlying premises, but what about the "Physical Theory" which purports to additionally deliver an explanatory narrative alongside the Mathematics?

Well, the presenter, in addressing the heart of Quantum Electro Dynamics, first presents the classical electro dynamical explanation, involving a spinning, charged ball, only to then, immediately, dismiss that because - "It isn't a ball and it isn't spinning". But, his alternative explanations are incredible!

He imports the old Greek simplification of treating the particle as a Point-of-zero-extension, totally forgetting why that simplifying fiction was so useful, and instead making it an accurate description of the physical world: it isn't!
And, he does all this, while he, at the same time, continues to talk about spinning and/or orbits. along with charges, in other parts of his explanations (very inconsistent). He excuses this contradictory stance by insisting that Sub Atomic Physics is actually A Different World entirely!

Nevertheless, he carries over, with the very same names, concepts from classical Physics like Angular Momentum, and Magnetic Dipole Moments - features from the Classical World, which there are due to extended entities and real spinning or orbiting.

Notice that the pluralist tail now wags the holist dog?

His reasons for abandoning physical explanations are the simplifying abstractions of Plurality which converted the real world into one which could be both manipulated and developed pragmatically - but elsewhere! There IS still a real world in there, currently obscured by Plurality, but definitely requiring a switch to Holism, as the only way to address it.

And, as they certainly wont do that, they have to somehow reflect the main features of a Holist World, within the premises of their Pluralist world - Ideality, but only at the Sub Atomic Level! Now, how can they possibly do that?

They will do it the only way they know how - by extending Mathematics, along with a new concept of the underlying nature of Space itself, which becomes the source of Everything!
Now, if the alternative of Holism is indeed correct, the above wont mean a thing, unless that alternative is thoroughly described and understood, in particular, via its very different mode of Qualitative Development - its Evolution!

Now, this is no small task, and certainly too big to effectively include within this short Review, so here I will limit myself to contrasting it with Plurality.

NOTE: Now, this major task had already begun in this theorist's Theory of Emergences, along with his Theory of the Double Slit Experiments, Truly Natural Selection, and his papers on Abstraction. Finally, the first instalment of the demolition of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory is already available as A New Approach to Science.


Holism?

As distinct from Plurality, Holism does not see Reality as composed entirely of the various summations of multiple, strictly eternal Natural Laws- in other words, all aspects of Reality being produced by mere Complication, and thus legitimately-allowing the usual way we do experiments by targeting, via a selecting-simplification of the context, to a situation with only a particular single and "totally-unaffected" Law clearly evident!

For, instead, Holism takes the entirely-contrary view that all multiple, simultaneous laws always affect one another, to some greater or lesser extent, so that any apparent dominance, for whatever reason, is always only temporary, AND, crucially will be terminated when these cross-influences finally undermine the prior dominance, and a wholly different mix emerges following that former stability.

It explains switches between pertaining laws causally, whereas the best that Plurality can do is to merely switch due to some previously noticed threshold in a given parameter being passed, as yje switch occurred!

In addition, Holism sees the trajectory of Development of Reality qualitativelyin terms of periods of self-maintaining Stabilities, separated by turbulent Interludes of major Qualitative changes, termed Emergencesor Revolutions.

Finally, two things have had to be included in the pluralist Mathematics of Quantum Theory to somehowreflect:-

1. the holist simultaneous presence of multiple mutually-affecting factors, and

2. The presence of an undetectable Universal Substrate delivering propagation and much else within the supposed purely "Empty Space".

Now, Plurality is inadequately-equipped to deliver such things consistently: they neveroccur in a Pluralist World. So, "something-similar", in consequence, had to be devised-and-constructed, via a mix of illegitimate philosophical imports on the one hand, and a crypto-substrate on the other, termed a Field!

Now, such additions would seem to be impossible, but Mankind has been effectively using contradictory concepts for millennia, by means of the pragmatic tenet - "If it works, it is right!", so they couldn't be defeated by the Classical Opposition to Copenhagen, who had been using similar excuses for their own contradictory inclusions for even longer periods of time.

And, of course, they did have an almost infinitely extendible means, and the appropriate philosophic stance, to be able to construct, via a distorted, idealist Mathematics, the Ground to deliver what was needed.

And it isn't by chance that at the heart of that frig was a use of the Wave Equations developed for use in physical media, but here applied to their non-material Field!

And, in addition, illegitimately-modified to deliver not positions (as in the prior use), but merely a full set of probabilities of each and every possible position being possibly currently occupied!

Of course, such a method could never deliver the actual situation at any given moment, but could deliver over-time results, as with the Statistics it was borrowed from!

But, and this is crucial, without further frigs, this system still couldn't suffice - so ever deeper burrowing-into, and even further construction-of, an extended Ideality seemed absolutely necessary!





Feynman had found a purely abstract way, by developing his "Feynman Diagrams" to deliver the required results for each-and-every possible outcome in any given interaction within a Quantum Field, which could then be somehowsummed, over-all-possibilities, to give the actual outcomes. And, as more and more of these diagrams could be included to increase the accuracy of the result, computers had to be involved, which are now enormous, as they get results accurate to ten decimal places.

NOTE: But what are they ralking about?

What exactly are they summing: it is not only reminiscent of an extended Wave in a substrate, but even uses Wave Equations developed originally in those prior studies. And, nevertheless, it can be applied to an effect uypon an individual Particle!

Now, as usual, the presenter does his best to describe all of this, but without causal explanations, what he does, at best, is to also deliver an "accompanying narrative" to what has been found to pragmatically give accurate results.

But, it does imply an extended activity underlying phenomena which he infers is due to Wave/Particle Duality, but which I explain by the presence of an underlying and undetectable Universal Substrate - containing and delivering, by various kinds of propagation, the means to produce the actual physical effects, which are distortedly-reflected by their pluralist, simplified and idealised formal analogues of the Copenhagenist interpretation!

There are many problems with the kind of criticism I am forced to make, because it is never allowed to be a contention between two alternative explanations. For, where I, as a scientist, have to deliver a coherent, consistent and comprehensive explanation, tackling everything physically involved, the contrary position has only the rules of Abstract Mathematics, applied to an almost infinite body of researches in Ideality, PLUS a confusing collection of extractions by pluralist physicists, AND a pragmatic principle that supersedes everything else, namely - "If it works, it is right!"

For, that illegitimate unifier, effectively smoothes-over the impasses and contradictions - "to be dealt with later, when we know enough!" In other words, a pragmatic and useable path through the situation supersedes ALL explanations!

And, their philosophic basis stands out clearly - all explanations are invention anyway!

The essences of reality are purely formal!

The only stance is Idealism!

And, one particular consequent method has to be exposed.

It is to take legitimate spatially distributed and multiple effects, but apply them to a specific locality.

Now, you can do this with the effects of overlapping fields upon a particular location, but they don't have such here. Nevertheless, they are summing multiple influences at a particular location. supposedly due to a summed-over-time(?) oscillating effect at that location.

Remember, these contortions are absolutely necessary, because they are NO LONGER dealing with Reality, but the simplified and idealised, pluralist realm of Ideality.

Interestingly, I, with my Reality-based alternative approach, can legitimately use summations at a specific location due to overlapping, different Fields, all propagating within a Universal Substrate, and it also allows that summation to deliver a vector sum of the differing directions, of the contributing fields, to change the orientation of the Magnetic Dipole Moment in that precise unit of the Substrate.

More to come...

You can see the referenced videos here:



04 February, 2019

The Coming Slump! What has to be Done?




Is the Left suitably equipped?


The pro-capitalist economists, when asked about the current worsening situation, are up-in-arms - they just don't know what has to be done!

Some are even referring-back to the result of the Great Depression of 1929-1941, a World War, as the only way to stop the alternative: Social Revolution!

Yet, the First World War didn't stop the Revolution in Russia! It probably enabled it.

The consensus among the group of economists involved in this set of interviews, varied from making the People pay for it all by a "new kind of inflation", to a cancelling of State Debts via a World War with creditor nations!

But, of course, no-one asked the People.

And where is the solution of the Left?

What is delivered currently the UK is a long, slow rebuilding to what they already have in Europe, with Socialist and Communist Parties and a Trades Union Movement. But, that is certainly no better than the current reaction directly from the People, which has been the Yellow Vest Protests in France.




But nothing yet from Revolutionaries!

Capitalism is finished: and if we don't bury-it-deep, it will pull us all down with it, into another Dark Age, if not something worse.

The rulers of the Capitalist powers have Nuclear Weapons, and the means to deliver them. And they are the only people to have ever used them before - in Japan!

Much as I am in favour of democracy in the workplace, I'm afraid Worker Co-ops are nowhere near enough to counter Capital's downward spiral. The Super-rich will have to be separated from their Wealth-and-Power! And, any threat of that, will cause them to turn, once again, to Fascism to restore the situation. This is what Fascism is for.

Do you doubt it?

Mass actions will be necessary - BUT of the order of The Yellow Jackets TIMES 100!

New political parties will be necessary, for the likes of the Blairites in the British Labour Party cannot be trusted. And both the Republicans and the Democrats in the USA are hopelessly tied to their funding by the Rich who are causing this mess.

The Left must organise into political Parties committed to terminating Capitalism and establishing Socialism by Revolutionary Means.

Be prepared to defend your streets, your families and your comrades against the mounting forces of the Right! For they will come.

FIGHT NOW FOR SOCIALISM

DeMOCKracy!


When the USA says it wants to see Democracy in Venezuela,
what do they really mean, and what is their real intention?


What are Real Democracy's necessary prerequisites and how is it subverted?

The usual call from the Powers-That-Be, in the rich Capitalist countries of the West, is for the "deprived nations" to be converted to "Democracy" (by force if necessary) as a solution to all their problems!

What? All by itself? And just by suggesting it?

"No, of course not: they will need guidance from US. We would send people in to help!"

What "people"? Soldiers with guns?

"Well occasionally, yes... There will be opponents to Democracy"

You should recognise the programme by now!

They have been "helping" in this way for some time... in Korea, then Vietnam, and latterly in many parts of Latin America, not to mention Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Yemen and many others. Will Venezuela be next?


Democracy protests in Venezuela

Can Democracy really be instituted this way?

Emphatically NOT!

Real democracy has to be an authentic bottom-up struggle of the people against the rule of rich and powerful individuals and cliques. For if the powerful remain in place, the resulting "Democracy" will always be a fake - indeed a DeMOCKracy, often worse than the system that preceded the regime change.

And what above all other factors prevents Real Democracy for forming? 

Concentrated Wealth and Power will always kill it STONE DEAD! 

So, all the means of establishing Wealth as an End-in-Itself must be made illegal, by a new democratic state! Inheritance of Wealth must be illegal too. While these unfair concentrations of power exist, the people cannot truly rule themselves.

All enterprises must become state-run services or grassroots worker cooperatives. And both Local and National Democratic Government must institute both full and regular information directly to the electors in public meetings, with an instituted instant recall, and immediate replacement of misbehaving / corrupt representatives.

Democracy means

Rule of the People, 

by the People

and

For the People

So, schemes instituted from above (or outside) are always intended to remove real democratic power.

27 January, 2019

Issue 63: The Dialectics of Natural Selection




-

This edition re-issues my work on Truly Natural Selection, on its 10 year anniversary, alongside some more recent contributions to this vital subject.

This series of papers extends Natural Selection beyond the Living World and into Reality in general.

It sees all “complication” not just as a summation of Parts, but as a necessary development of things, involving wholly new features, when it is usually, and correctly, renamed Evolution.

Where with Life we have the mechanisms of qualitative change as variation based on mutation, plus selection via competition, this more general form drives change via selection between competing chemical processes, and the significant transformation of context.

Fitness to survive, reproduce and prosper in the form which drives Evolution, is replaced in the more basic form by advantage to conducive, complementary processes and the successive transformation of the underlying situations entirely without Life being either present or necessary.

This view of Reality runs entirely counter to the famed Second Law of Thermodynamics, and therefore, requires physical explanation. We can do this in terms of context, whereas the Second Law is a product of interludes of maximally constrained stability, while competitive advances-in-order occur in quite different situations of unconstrained, maximum opportunity. And these alternating phases turn out to be the natural features of systems driven in cycles of any kind. The pattern of longer periods of relative stability, interspersed with short interludes of radical, qualitative change, is, in fact, the norm in the trajectories of such systems.

And the Key Events in these processes are the revolutionary episodes, which we call Emergences. Clearly, the most significant and undeniable of these has to be that which produced the very first Living Things. And this Event alone confirms that Selection in some form must have preceded Life! It was the source of Life on Earth.

Many important fallacies are addressed in these papers, including the usual mathematical definition of Probability, and its false use as a Cause of Life. And, most crucially, we address the concept of competition involving mutually conducive and mutually contending chemical processes, which are necessary for Selection in these circumstances.

The crux has to be the revolutionary Events called Emergences, which had clearly already occurred throughout the history of Reality, prior to the Emergence of Life, and which are generally ignored by most current Science.



-

Truly Natural Selection extrapolates Darwin’s Natural Selection backwards into non-living systems, and the competition between simultaneously acting processes, involving both the consumption of resources, and the generation of consequent products.

Such active systems would invariably transform their own bases, and rampant positive feedback situations would always dwindle as necessary resources were used up, while other processes could accelerate due to the adequate production of their resources by other processes. Now, apart from such relatively independent processes, there will always be other relations between simultaneous processes, all the way from necessary sequences of dependant processes to either mutually- supporting, conducive processes, and at the opposite extreme mutually-contending and opposing processes.

So, even in such non-living mixes, the processes would directly effect one another and a kind of competition would most certainly ensue. And along with these, there would also invariably be the ever-present, one-way, Second Law of Thermodynamics type processes which would seemingly prosper on a wide range of products and effectively parasitically benefit from all available productive processes.

These ideas, in a totally holist way, were developed to extend concepts originally thought to be confined only to the Evolution of Life, first to its actual Origin, and thereafter to the whole spectrum of developments that have occurred ever since the start of the Universe.

And these ideas finally became a cornerstone of my Theory of Emergences, and a new dialectical view of selection and change in nature.




25 January, 2019

Genes and Dialectics





Considering the currently-dominant reductionist methodology in the study of Genetics, it is crystal-clear that the same sort of drawbacks that are limiting current Sub Atomic Physics, will also restrict Genetics in similar ways.

Let us see what those ways are!

The first stance to emphasise, must involve an essential switch from Plurality to Holism, as it is clear that functional areas in a Genome are NOT merely, and or even solely, some fixed-blueprint for the construction-of, and the processes-for, that Living Organism, in the usual sense at all. For, if, I have it right, individual genes can not only influence functional processes elsewhere in the body of the organism, but also provide THE mechanism for the future Development of the whole collection of that species of organism, over successive generations. For it is THERE that the initiating changes take place!

And, the question, of course, must be "How?"

Now, to prepare to attempt to answer that question, I can only start by re-stating the alternative general Holist view of interactions. For, they naturally involve multiple, simultaneous and active factors, which, in most circumstances, do something akin to a Vector Sum, wherein individual directions are involved, as well as their more obvious contributing weights. In other words, you can get both support and/or contention from the various contributions to deliver an overall result - and that will not always be the same! Indeed, it will differ at various significant stages in a particular development.

Now, depending upon circumstances, some of these could selectively-cancel, leaving a dominant "summed" result - looking very similar to one of its components, or, surprisingly, something like that of its opposite.

Relevant studies by this author can be found on the pre-Life stages in Truly Natural Selection. These have just been re-published in the latest issue of SHAPE (63).


Issue 63 of SHAPE on Natural Selection
http://e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/i63home.html


Both of these are cases of a Stability - maintained results, where small changes in one factor, are compensated for, by the very-same-causes, eliciting balancing (returning) changes in another opposing factor.

Now, the above ideas emerged when considering relatively simple dynamical situations, but can, and indeed must, be extended to processes and even to complex Systems.

This rich, living world is no Lego-build, as is assumed by Plurality! Looking at the building blocks alone will undoubtedly prove insufficient.

For example, if we start by considering chemical reactions (processes), the factors involved are, always, both more numerous and of qualitatively different kinds. Both resources and products are related in a given chemical processes. And, the product of one, can be a required resource for another. So, extended-linear-sequences, could be linked by products-as-resources into chains of processes. And even Cycles become possible where the End-Product of a linear sequence, becomes the necessary Resource of the first process in that same series.

So, apart from the simpler stabilities, these relatively self-resourcing cycles produce a very different kind of Stability indeed, which also can deliver a whole variety of secondary products, which have proved to be absolutely crucial in Living Things. Considering these more complex aggregations, there will regularly be both secondary required resources and consequent extra products, involving many of the successive links in such structures: and, consequently, intricate networks will result - all-of-which will be susceptible to changes in resource supplies, both overall and internally within the structures.

The problems of the usually applied pluralist approach are immediately evident. For, in ALL pluralist experimental set-ups, they are expressly designed to remove "all-but-one" of the involved factors, and then to promote the single remaining and isolated relation into an eternal Natural Law- always deemed to be totally independent of any of its contexts.

And, remember, these revelations were made when considering supposed "bottommost rungs" occurring in real world developments.

But, even these criticisms are nowhere near enough!

Mankind soon concentrated historically upon things that didn't seem to change qualitatively at all, as revealing the truly essential factors - it being their dominance that maintained things so well. We actually chose precisely those things, which effectively hid the crucial mechanisms of change, and consequently of Development too!







But, isn't the most important purpose of genes to deliver such developmental changes - so that, somehow, when a particular mutation of a gene becomes established, it, along with others, produces the advantageous change in the resulting organism that contributes to the dominance of that change by Natural Selection.

And, of course, the functions of the Genome will be far more complicated that the analogies called upon so far! For example, how does the Genome deliver its "instructions" - not only to the relevant tissues, but also internally, within the Genome itself? And, of course, exactly when do these processes take place?

Is it before conception in the gamete producing areas?

Is it after conception, but before the development of the new foetus?

Do many achieved unions get rejected very early on: do they get ejected regularly?

And, surely, many functions will only be activated later either during the pre-birth developments, or at particular times, post-birth, in the maturation, and even in the eventual decline, of the organism.

Now, the communication problem is solved in a remarkable way, for every single cell of the organism, contains a complete copy of the whole Genome, as well as a secondary set, held within its Mitochondria, so many necessary communications are present locally within the necessary cell.

But, at far more dispersed situations, actual communications had neither direct routes to follow, or even unique "addresses" to guide the message to the right place, so the "messages" were produced in abundance, and broadcast literally everywhere, via the bloodstream, which because they were sent everywhere, would indeed finally get to its intended target, where it would be recognised by finding its own mirror-image-shape to connect perfectly with, triggering its necessary function.

But, such mechanisms generated problems, when dispersed elements had, not only to be both located and activated, but also despatched to the right place, along with others similarly located and despatched, to arrive at the right time and place to deliver the necessary functions.

I have to say that much of what I see about this the on the web fails to address these problems, and instead expects to find all the answers with its ever growing database of Genomes, but with no detailed description of the mechanisms involved.




This brief paper can do no more, at this stage, than indicate what is missing from this Science, which clearly will require a veritable revolution in the necessary underlying philosophy, before the really crucial questions can be adequately addressed.

The dialectical door was found by Hegel, and we were led through it to materialism by Marx, but the crucial domain of Science has not been comprehensively addressed from this stance, and until it has, such wrong turnings, as are evident in areas like Genetics, will not be overcome.


20 January, 2019

The Ghosts in a Ghost Substrate


A Hauntograph by Michael C Coldwell
A Hauntograph by Michael C Coldwell

The following is a quote from an article in New Scientist (3205) called How a ghostly, forgotten particle could be the saviour of physics, and I extract it here long before the writer gets to revealing which particular particle she is telling us about. For they are indeed legion in the standard Copenhagen approach, and also because there is an alternative theoretical stance which has proved that it can cope very well indeed with such problems, but which is currently anathema in consensus Sub Atomic Physics.


"THIS is the story of a particle that has refused to die. For 50 years, it has haunted particle physics, with hints of its presence appearing in maddeningly ambiguous ways. Some believe they have seen it. Others think it is a figment of our imagination. But every time we think it is definitely not there, a sudden gust of wind knocks over the furniture and once more there is confusion." 


Ghosts in New Scientist 3205

 Now, the most fleeting of particles actually occur at the very heart of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, indeed they involve absolutely all-of-those included in the concept of Wave/Particle Duality, wherein such entities can sometimes act as classical Particles, while at others, act as if subject to their own intrinsic Wave, which somehow determines, but does not reveal, where they are!

The reason for such remarkable behaviour is never explained, but instead is "put down to" Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which makes the Sub Atomic Realm very different from the rest of Reality, by being totally indeterminate.

Yet, the suggested physical alternative to Copenhagen, achieves a general resolution of all its founding anomalies present in the ill-famed Double Slit Experiments, merely by including a Universal Substrate in the situations.

Though, it has to also be undetectable!

Now, I bring it up here, because just such an Undetectable Universal Substrate has been theoretically-defined, solely in terms of mutually-orbiting pairs of diametrically-opposite Leptons. And, several crucial Units of that Substrate involve the very Neutrinos that are considered in this article.

So, let us investigate exactly how the presence of just such a Substrate affects phenomena occurring within it.

For then, with such a Substrate, the Wave/Particle Duality construct of Copenhagen dissolves instead into a classical Particle interacting with the Substrate to produce Waves, which are then transformed by passing through the Slits and, thereafter, interfering with each other, to then affect the slow-moving, causing Particle, when it finally arrives at the caused Interference Pattern, in that Substrate!





And, thus, such delayed interlopers having been affected by their differing particular passages through that changed Substrate, to finally produce, as Particles, the overall pattern on the detection screen.

Waves are rendered once more properties of extended, connected Substrates, when disturbed by a Particle. which scamper ahead and ultimately produce an interference pattern, that then affects its own much slower-moving cause.

And, the required undetectable Units for such a Substrate, are indeed possible via mutually-orbiting pairs of diametrically-opposite, composing sub-units.

You only have to consider Pair Production and Pair Annihilations, each involve one electron and one positron! For, we are informed that such processes convert Energy-to-Matter and Matter-to-Energy! How??

How about changing from and to mutually-orbiting-pairs instead? The pairs cannot be detected and so the particles appear to vanish or appear, as if from nowhere!


Ghost Particles by Michael C Coldwell
Ghost Particles by Michael C Coldwell


For, such have actually been observed to occur at Fermilab, in the Tevatron, and were named there as Positroniums. And, as it happens, all the other Leptons could also be so linked too!

Aren't such ghost particles usually called Photons - meaning disembodied Energy gobbits?

And, it makes more sense than electrical and magnetic sinusoidal oscillations, acting at right angles to one another, and carrying Energy, supposedly in totally Empty Space - not to mention turning into physical matter and antimatter particles spontaneouly! How all this is meant to happen has never been explained.

In this alternative model it is. The full nature of electromagnetism is indeed encapsulated in an orbiting charged Particle, including the involved Energy, which occur in such mutually-orbiting pairs!

Now, I am well aware of the consensus stance, but reject it both philosophicallyand physically, for I consider such a purely Maths-based stance to be merely an idealist formal construct: indeed a wholly pluralist complexity, embodying all the premise-errors due to an insistence upon Eternal Natural Laws, and also to the total omission of all qualitative changes from all of Mathematics, as well as all consequent non-dialectical Reasoning too.

Though, the complexity of their multi-dimensional Mathematics effectively hides it, their involved philosophical stance is an illegitimate amalgam of several wholly contradictory stances, apparently justified only by the immature Pragmatism of "If it works, it is right!"

The problems outlined in this piece can be transformed, once a Universal Substrate of the kind outlined above is involved, and not only due to their actions as parts of that Substrate, but also as occasionally, temporarily free-moving units dissociated from their usual Substrate roles.

For example, the theoretical Substrate research has revealed by the discovery of several different modes of those units, both as transformed Substrates, and as free-moving Streams and Vortices - the latter allowing a totally non-Copenhagen explanation for quantised electron orbits in atoms.
 

"The bad news is that the latest round of experiments set up to look for it claim that it can’t possibly be there."


But, consider again the theoretical research - when particles can exist in three different modes as :-

  1. Free-moving as mutually-orbiting pairs
  2. Existing as a part of the Universal Substrate
  3. Free-moving as parts of a dissociated Substrate Unit

For then the described anomalies will be due to the transfers in-and-out of being Substrate Units, and in-and-out of being mutually orbiting Pairs!

But then:

"As long ago as the 1960s, however, physicists measuring the quantity of electron neutrinos reaching Earth found a major shortfall, with one experiment detecting only 25 per cent of the expected number."


Clearly, with a totally space-filling Universal Substrate composed in part of just such Particles, the capture of some of that Solar Stream into the all-pervading Substrate composed, in part, of the same kind of Particles, seems more likely than not!

The difference between a Totally Empty Space, and one filled with a complex Universal Substrate, surely has to be colossal. Indeed, not only would such a Substrate allow the explanation of many phenomena, but it would turn a vacuum peopled with only colliding particles, into a maelstrom of turbulences, propagations, transfers and Energy.

But,

"Rather than being massless, each neutrino did in fact have a tiny amount of mass, no more than a millionth that of an electron. This mass gives neutrinos a remarkable ability to switch between flavours"


Now, all-known-Neutrinos have been integrated, via mutually-orbiting Pairs, into my Universal Substrate, and designated as potential Gravitons or alternatively as a similar, though-much-tinier Photon, so clearly, in addition to the usual releases and captures to-and-from the Substrate, and even the regular dissociations and re-associations of pairs to-and-from the individual components, while the mini-photons will also be literally everywhere.

Thus, such a Substrate area, with is multiple processes, could very easily be misinterpreted as described in the above quote!

"That meant electron neutrinos produced in the sun’s core could transform into either muon or tau neutrinos, evading our searches on Earth."

OR, as I hope has become clear, a Universal Substrate, containing all these kinds of neutrinos, in abundance, will undergo dissociations due to the surges from the Sun, so enabling their detection as part of that Solar Stream. Not an oscillation between different types at all!

And the article goes on to mention many other anomalies - all succumbing to the same explanation as I have outlined above. I will not list them all!

But clearly, they all assume that these happen in totally Empty Space - either occurring naturally "in Space", or artificially maintained as in all pluralist experiments. But, clearly in neither situation is the undetectable Universal Substrate actually removed! It is always there, but in different states, perhaps.

However, once you have embraced the infinite variety of Ideality, and causal explanations are no longer open to you, instead you get this type of thing -

"the idea is to invent a fourth, “sterile” flavour of neutrino capable of shape-shifting into any of the other three."


Need I say more!

Now, to those who demand full explanations from myself, as the dissenter, may I say that I am just a theorist, and the task, if it is considered to be worthwhile by other Physicists, is surely to find ways of experimentally investigating my suggested undetectable Universal Substrate.

But, I'm afraid this will be impossible pluralistically!

The whole stance of current Physics prohibits such a task, which involves a complete revolution both philosophically and experimentally.

Finally, having read this article more than once, it has to be said that it reeks of Modern Mathematics, as it must, of course, if the only place to look for "reasons" is Form, therefore redirecting the focus totally from concrete Reality's Properties & Causes to Ideality's infinite Forms.

Notice how even experiment has become subordinated to confirming to the Mathematics!

06 January, 2019

New logo based on El Lissitzky's Red Wedge



logo

Welcome to SHAPE


Special Issue 62: Change






This new special issue features a single essay on the crucial subject of Changing Reality, and our general inadequacy in dealing with it.

Even in the obviously mutable structures we erect, from houses to cities and societies, we fail to notice, address and understand the change taking place. And when we look at the natural world around us, we have even greater difficulty, deferring instead to eternal gods or unchanging Laws of Nature, ignoring the incessant flux, its rhythms and its tempos...


05 January, 2019

Real Holism?





What is Holism? It isn't the usual New Age pseudoscience which unfortunately co-opts the term. 

Having commenced reading a book upon supposedly "Holistic Science", I was surprised how very differently, and with very different conclusions to my own, in the way that very idea of Holism was handled. 



The Holistic Inspiration of Physics: The Underground History of Electromagnetic Theory by Val Dusek


For, my emphasis strongly contrasted Holism with what I term Plurality as crucial-and-opposite premises, in considering the World, whereas, at least in his introduction, the writer contrasted it with what he termed "Atomism" and Reductionism (or even "Mechanism"). His emphases upon top-down-causality as distinct from bottom-up-causality seemed to primarily define his Holist Stance.

Yet, in all Causality, it has to be Properties that primarily enable explanations of phenomena: and though this does seem easier in bottom-up explanations, and therefore naturally-selective of subscribing to Reductionism, the universal resilience of Stabilities, regularly overcoming challenges from below to nevertheless persist, also invokes credit to some sort of apparently "top-down" causality too.

But, the absence of any reference whatsoever to Plurality does not bode well, and I will explain why this is so.

Plurality actually enabled Abstraction for the very first time, to be greatly and powerfully extended into wholly new areas. It happened when the ancient Greeks invented Euclidian Geometry, and thereafter, the much larger discipline of Mathematics, that it begat. It was simultaneously a Great Enabling Revolution, and yet also at the same time, a potentially-destructive "time-bomb" to possible further developments at a later and more advanced stage in Mankind's intellectual thinking.

For, Abstractions don't exist as such, physically: they are aspects of Reality that can be extracted and discussed, because they reflect something important in what they are aspects of, while also being common to a wide range of other physically existing things too.
Number is the clearest example!

NOTE: But, as we will see, the absence of even a mention of all this, and the emphasis upon "top down drivers" opens the door implicitly, without direct mention, to Principles like that of Plurality, as well as to the allocation of Cause to Form - to mathematical versions applied to physical relationships too.

Mathematics is entirely Pluralist!

But, the Greeks took Abstraction further, to include descriptors of Shape, Position and Direction. And, they soon were able to relate these into "always true" Rules: which they established into a system of relationships, between these, amounting to a kind of Spatial Reasoning.

But, only of fixed Abstractions.





Now, though quantitative features can vary, the Principle of Plurality insists that the formal Abstractions and their inter-relationships don't: they cannot change qualitatively.

And, this limits Mathematics to only those areas where such will always be the case.

But, and this is very important, the success of Mathematics caused the Greeks to extend Plurality to general Reasoning too, delivering Formal Logic, and later to Science also - and this limitation to everywhere in these contexts is most certainly NOT legitimate!

Indeed Pluralist disciplines cannot deal with qualitative developments of any kind: they can only apply if the situations are either naturally or artificially kept rigidly-unchanging in the "essential" qualities involved, and only vary quantitatively.

Clearly, not even mentioning this crucial ground in his introduction does not bode at all well for where he personally will be taking the important topic.

In addition, many other features, that are often mentioned, also need explanations.

For example, how on earth can top-down causality work?

It cannot be the same as the role in bottom-up, as instead of many-to-one causalities - simply adding-up, many-to-many cannot be so easily dealt with, for the actual containing Context is also being changed, and even multiple Recursions via a series of bottom-up caused changing Contexts, can often be unavoidable. Top-down causalities therefore often drift into one-to-many restrictions such as Principles or Iron Laws from "on high"!

NOTE:this criticism also applies, though less often, in bottom up causality, but not most of the time, though when it does occur, the established relation being assumed no longer pertains, and a partially or even a wholly different one is usually required.

We call the situation when-Plurality-pertains as the state of Stability, and, when it irretrievably fails, as that of Instability!

NOTE:That Science, as-originally-conceived-of, after the Greek Revolution, could only be relied upon, by successfully imposing the most extensive and rigid maintaining of the Context - tailor-made for a single aimed-for Law!

Nevertheless, with the rapidly increasing skills of the scientists and technologists in both achieving and maintaining those requirements, the successful application of these methods rapidly increased.

I'm afraid that up to the end of his Introduction, his stance appeared to be, so far at least, wholly inadequate! 

But, there is an excuse for the current mess that is evident in the theoretical and philosophical bases in this area. For, they consequently reflect the dire standards, both in Education, and perhaps even more so, due to those same inadequacies in the political organisations of the Working Class. 




Dialectics

For, though the means to avoid these errors had been finally established, first by Hegelian thinking, and then, more generally, by Marx in his Dialectical Materialism of concrete Reality too, it was never comprehensively applied to Science, despite being the forefront of philosophy from the early 19th century onwards.

The still fast-moving monolith of Science carried on exactly as before, constrained by its dominance by those committed to, and staffed by scientists exclusively from, the privileged classes.

But Marxism had been taken on by many in the Working Class Movement, and, hence, it was down to that strand to also apply it to Science.

But, to the detriment of both, that didn't happen either!

And, as indicated by Dusek's Introduction, this book will not be tackling the real problems either! Nonetheless I will be following this initial crit with further contributions in the near future...


03 January, 2019

DNA and the Social Development of the Brain?


In a CARTA video available on YouTube, by Leah Krubitzer, she delivers a remarkable alternative to the usual Genome-dominated idea of development in the brain. It clearly demonstrated that though the forms-of-development within the brain are solely determined by genetics, the actual contents of those developments are NOT so determined at all, but are primarily influenced by actual use, via behaviours in the real world - especially by behaviours caused by major crises inflicted upon the recipient.





This "seems" to return to the oldest problem of all in explaining development!

Is it wholly blue-printed within the DNA (Genome) of the living entity, which effectively determines everything that subsequently occurs, though occasionally changed by what are wholly accidental Random Damages to individual Genes, OR, can things learned during life be passed on to descendants as "Acquired Characteristics" (such as in current epigenetics and a return to Lamarckism)?

For, her contribution could also be seen in that way, but that certainly isn't, and indeed wasn't her case either. What Leah Kubitzer reveals is more a development of the former than a return to the latter as will I hope be revealed!

Indeed, various studies both of unusually sensually-equipped animals both occurring naturally, as well as in addition others having had their sensorial means artificially totally-restricted, and the effects on their brains compared over many individuals.

The results were remarkable!

Actual use, over time, had physically-changed the brains involved.

Particular areas of the brain appeared transformed in the animals artificially reduced in sensorial abilities, to enhance some of those that remained, to end up with a brain-structure similar to that of the duck-billed Platypus, whose brain-area dedicated to its super-sensory bill was relatively enormously enlarged. But, the changes noticed, in both, amounted to a great multiplicity of the connections from that part of the brain to other areas within it, and consequent increases in those particular areas too, the behaviours-possible were down to those vastly increased connections, and NOT to wholly new functional areas.

The brain was physically changed by enhanced behaviours, but then, via new connections, also enabling, in addition, wholly-new further development of such behaviours.

But, there is a great deal more in these findings than what immediately presents itself.

Notice that the duck-billed Platypus, as a species, hasn't changed much in vast periods of time, and yet the particular individual animal (a possum) deprived of its sight changed at a remarkable rate, and made all the necessary developments very early in its life - the initial period was absolutely crucial.




Nothing new was available to that animal, indeed it was a deprivation that precipitated the developments.

But, we already have a process in which the given Genome of an animal delivers all its "built-in" behaviours, with any changes being down to random chance mutations of genes. And, in addition, it is supposed to be only by such purely random damage to the genome that any changes can ever happen, and thereafter by Natural Selection, which chooses the best adaptations to predominate over succeeding generations.

Is not that single one-way causality also somewhat challenged by these findings?

For, the deprived individual animals developed not only new connections in their brains, but also enhanced, or even new, behaviours benefiting from those changes.

Yet, the developments in the brain must also be inherited! How else do modern animals including ourselves come to be as they are? And, at the same time, why do some organisms remain unchanged for millions of years?

Mankind has, in the past, clearly revealed important processes in this area, but, as usual, always conceptually simplified them in order to more easily develop them further - for simplifying Abstractions always enable such things (see all of Mathematics!).

And, there has to be more to the mostly wholly redundant and unused majority of any organism's Genome, where the genes seem to be in "rooms used as depositories of rubbish, and like those in many a Stately Home, full of no longer used cast offs".

I don't believe in 'junk' DNA! It is more likely that this represents The Past of that organism in some way, in its evolutionary development: occasionally transformed by mutations, but later bypassed either temporarily or permanently, as a repository of things that once worked but now bypassed. Could this be how prior evolutionary solutions return, in supposedly convergent evolution, such as the return of fish-like traits in sea mammals? 

Primarily, though, the dead weight of our pluralist history in Mathematics, Reasoning and even Science has imposed upon our thinking the myth of eternal Natural Laws and Reductionism, which fatally damages our ability to make sense of such Development at all, by falsely converting it into the mere Complexity of many summed-fixed-things and laws.

The consequent missing ingredient was therefore Real Qualitative Change, and hence the absolutely necessary means to ever understanding Creative Changes.


Darwin, Engels and Marx

Now, since Hegel and then Marx, the methodology of Dialectical Materialism had been devised to address such developments, culminating only in 2010 with the Theory of Emergences (by the writer of this paper), which finally tackled the trajectory of alternating Stabilities and Emergences that characterise Qualitative Development in literally all spheres.

And, echoes of it are clearly shown in the case of the deprivation of sight in a possum leading to a rush of developments in other senses - for in the Theory of Emergences the termination of seemingly permanent Stabilities can only be precipitated by crises that cannot be resolved from within them, and therefore necessarily results in both a collapse of the current Stability, and thereafter the consequent construction of a wholly new one, which is finally established via another and wholly different Stability and set of new capabilities!

02 January, 2019

Wealth!





  1. Is wealth the legitimate reward for hard work?
  2. Is it the necessary spur to absolutely essential innovation?
  3. Do the owners of inherited Stately Homes and Landed Estates deserve their Life of Luxury?
  4. Is all wealth actually created by the Captains of Industry?
  5. And is all War absolutely necessary to defeat those who wish the privileges of others for themselves?

NOT A CHANCE!


The Poor can do none of these things, except, of course, they create absolutely all new value by their labour!

How else is wealth really produced?

Yet, we are supposed to live in a Democracy!

Why don't the majority just vote in a Socialist Government to redistribute wealth more fairly?

The answer is, once more, they don't have the wealth to do it!

Socialists don't have the mass media in their pockets - no daily newspapers to state their case. They don't have round-the-clock radio and television programmes on their side, nor the mainstream film industry, nor any glossy magazines.

They don't even have the resources to build their organisations, and fund their organisers, their researchers, their publicists, or their journalists and writers.

They can't pay for roadside adverts, or those every few minutes on TV!

They can't buy the votes of elected representatives, by Knighthoods, or the like, or even just a regular ticket to The Good Life.

But the Rich do have enough to do all of these things... as much as they like! Could that be how they always stay in the driving seat?

Now, the Labour Party has a committed socialist as its leader. If we had a General Election now, he would win!





What will the rich do?

What did they do in 1945?

You know, don't you?

So, how could they be stopped THIS TIME?


19 December, 2018

Who delivers the News?



Graphic from Another Angry Voice


Without the facts, how can the People understand whats going on?


Can we really have a Democracy, without also having the necessary information to make informed decisions at the ballot box?

Who actually owns the Press and other Media? Who now organises the Social Media Platforms, and prioriotises their content?

It is always the Tories of this world, and their penumbra of "privileged-service providers"!

And it is clear what cause they serve - PROFIT!

Did the Working Class cause the Slump of 2008?

NO, it was them - the Profiteers and Bankers, extending the profit-making reach ever deeper into the poor, and then blaming them for their inability to be sucked any drier, and even shutting down the social services that are there to aid them: the completely disingenuous project known as Austerity.

And where in the Media is this truth exposed?

Absolutely nowhere.

Can the informing of the People be left in the hands of those whose sole purpose is to exploit those they are supposed to be informing?

NO! 

Of course it can't.

We have a National Health Service - so why not a National News Service? It could be independent of government - as an extension of a Real Library Service perhaps, financed through taxation, and NOT advertising. Local Papers would be produced by Local Libray News Servvices, which would also include a major presence on the Internet. And National Newspapers would come out of regional hubs in major centres throughout the country.

And why stop there? The publishing of books currently only survives if it makes a profit for the owners. A Public Publishing Service under the democratic control of its employees, would be very different, and it would also transform publishing on the Web. Indeed, the publishing of Music and Recordings, and the organisation of Concerts and Gigs, without the money making parasites, would benefit everybody involved. And, clearly, such would also be the home for Film Making - for writers, performers and artists would all be involved.

But, it would certainly NOT be as a top-down hierarchy, a bureaucracy as was established in "Soviet" Russia! It would be built out of grassroots Worker Co-operatives - today's real "Soviets", so that Democracy would dominate at every level.

Clearly, this would never be allowed under a Capitalist System, but would be ideal in a truly Socialist State. For, the fight for Socialism is never merely the switching of the Ruling Party of Government: it has to be far more fundamental than that!

Here is the key question:

If Corbyn's Labour Party win a General Election, what will the rich do to undermine it? 

And will we let them do it?

10 December, 2018

Dark Matters Loom



Anish Kapoor, Cloud Gate (2006) made of light-absorbing Vantablack


In a recent New Scientist (3206) article on Dark Matter, we are presented with what passes for Sub Atomic Physics today, namely:-
Particles crossing to our world could open a portal to the dark-matter realm
We've identified particles that could secretly cross from the regular world to the shadowy realm of dark matter.
No, you are not reading a treatment for the latest far-fetched Science Fiction blockbuster, but the introduction to the musings of several leading modern physicists worldwide.
WE KNOW it is out there. It makes up the bulk of matter in the universe and sculpts its grandest features with a hidden gravitational hand.
And yet, despite a long campaign to expose it, the mysterious cosmic architect known as dark matter continues to evade detection.

New Scientist (3206) - this publication is really starting to read like a comic 

So.... How did they get to this point, and what is it that is determining their problems? Well, it is a very long story, which is far too voluminous to include in a short review such as this (as I have discovered to my cost).

But, it IS a major crisis, and if it isn't remedied immediately, it will join the current Economic and Political Crises in danger of somersaulting our World into oblivion! And, these increasingly desperate Crises are not as unconnected as they seem.

We forget just how recently Mankind began to construct their modern intellectual disciplines, and how certain it would be that many wrong-turnings would definitely be unavoidable, in that endeavour, and their correcting would never be easy, or even fully achievable. For, Mankind was not designed, beforehand, for any particular purpose (certainly not for understanding the universe), but actually evolved within circumstances that were wholly independent of Mankind's existence. Any actual development was not a matter of decisions made by anyone, but the Natural Selection of that organism within the conditions it encountered.

But, NOW, with all these crises happening together, especially when Money and Power are steering the ship, it means that vested interests will oppose vital solutions, if they can be found at all, for such changes will inevitably be to their total detriment.

In past intellectual crises in Science, they were still painful and difficult to resolve, but progress was usually made eventually, unless, of course, they were also bound up with political power, as with the Church in certain historical cases. 


Galileo made crucial scientific discoveries that upturned the entire discipline and upset the powerful Catholic Church.
He was charged with heresy and spent the rest of his life in prison.


So though, as a scientist and philosopher, I will be attempting to deal with the total mess that currently confronts Science today, I may not be listened to, as other cataclysms may dominate, and the path I indicate may be made impossible to pursue in the ensuing circumstances!

Two different contributions have determined this current crisis in Cosmology.

First, there is the relative inaccessibility of the Cosmos we attempt to study: we cannot experiment upon it, as we can with many other more accessible parts of Physics.

And second, the primary tool for Cosmology - Physics, has now finally abandoned Explanation for the supposed Essentialities of Formal Mathematics.

It has, therefore, switched from Materialism back to Idealism (did God write this Math!?) - and switched from investigating concrete Reality, to studying abstract Ideality- the study of Pure Forms alone, presumably as the sole determinators of Everything in the Universe!

And, if that wasn't bad enough, the key intellectual disciplines of Mathematics, Formal Logic and Science are all wrongly-based upon the Principle of Plurality, which deals only with qualitatively-fixed components, and their quantitative variation. So that Science, for example, is supposed to be determined only by eternal Natural Laws. And, therefore, Real Development is replaced by a mere Complexity of pre-existing Laws.

And, Contradiction always and only ever spells Falsity!

But, the achievement of Plurality, for it surely was a step forward 2,500 years ago, is now becoming a major liability, and actually prohibits any real Understanding of Qualitative Emergences, such as those of Life, and then much later, that of Consciousness.

And, in the current topic of Cosmology, with its extremely slow tempo, and yet its breathtaking temporal scope, we cannot avoid the noticing of clear qualitative developments: they are everywhere. Indeed, remarkably, laid out, surrounding us out in Space, is a veritable History of the Universe, caused by the finite Speed of Light, as the further we look into the distance, the further we can look back in time. 




In addition to which, occasional Cosmic cataclysms, like Supernovae, and different stages in the evolution of Stars, are also available from various times in the past (but seen now).

But, and this is important, only snapshots of instances in the past are available, so as with the fossil record and the genetic record, all the involved actual processes of change are NOT directly available, so the interpreting trajectories are always, to some extent at least, purely speculative (leading to the sorts of quotes we saw earlier). 

The actual material determinators happened both somewhere else, and at a time no longer available.

The other source of data which skews our understanding is the modern, massive experiment machines like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), where high speed collisions of "Elementary" Particles can be arranged-for and then observed and analysed.

Now, unsurprisingly, this latter evidence is considered to be "exactly" what may have been the case in the early moments of the Universe. So, overall, astronomical observations, plus accelerator experiments on Earth, as well as Mankind's discovery of how to cause Nuclear Fission and Fusion, were all used (along with Pure Speculation!), to construct the supposed Early History of the Universe - in particular commencing with The Big Bang.

But, totally unavoidably, too many premise-errors would necessarily scupper the possibility of those speculations being at all well-founded:

First, Plurality decreed that the Natural Laws would be the same throughout that whole period of Development, which is certainly NOT true. Second, all the components used in relating those developments are always the exact-same, or closely-related to those we know now. Third, the strictly pluralist view would also be unable to reveal, at the right key times, the creation of the wholly new, via Emergences, without which no real understanding of the trajectory involved could ever be possible. Fourth, the full richness of a true holist mix of simultaneous factors would not be even contemplated, nor are their consequent productions of Stabilities, Crises and even Total Collapses, not-to-mention the concluding crucial creative-constructive-phase producing the entirely new.

With such a constipated premise as Plurality, the true glory of the actual trajectory of Change could never ever even be approached.

Now, as a "review" of this New Scientist article, you might have expected a comprehensive account of all the current positions upon this "area of study". But, if I did that, I would only be perpetuating this pointless discourse. For, as those involved have already shot themselves firmly in the foot, and are hobbling away in a doomed-to-fail direction, I have, unavoidably, had to address two key things only.

First, the mistaken premises and methods of all current Physics, and second, the possible Nature of Dark Matter! So, having briefly dealt with the former, there remains only to establish an alternative explanation for the Nature of Dark Matter.

The answer may well lie in Substrate Theory.

I have spent some considerable time demolishing the Copenhagen idea of Wave/Particle Duality, by explaining-away all of its consequent anomalies with a simple idea. Wave/Particle duality is clever workaround for the fact that we can't detect the Substrate - merely by the re-introduction of a material Particle moving within an undetectable Universal Substrate, with the disturbances caused by that Particle, delivering the wave-like aspects via actual real Waves in the Substrate, and changing the whole set of phenomena into both initially direct and later recursive interactions between the two.

The main problem, in delivering this Substrate, was to define joint particles that would be so undetectable, yet entirely capable of delivering the full set of observed effects: and this was ultimately achieved using mutually-orbiting pairs from the full set of Leptons.







Now, without also delivering the full results of that extensive research here, we can still, at least, consider what impact that research has upon the possible Nature of Dark (which means undetectable) Matter!

For the Substrate could, itself, BE the fabled Dark Matter, or alternatively, if that doesn't work physically, the same sort of research that was applied to defining the Units of the Universal Substrate could instead be directed to other possible mutually-orbiting pairs of Elementary Particles, similarly undetectable. 

Dark Matter needs investigating properly!

Finally, it must be made absolutely clear what "modern"  Sub Atomic Physics has done to this once superb discipline.

In their reductionist commitment to the bottommost units of Matter as the basis for explaining everything else, Physics was committed entirely to the study of literally invisible so-called Elementary Particles, and studying them almost exclusively via Accelerators and Colliders. 

And this had deleterious effects. The abandonment of Physical Explanation, and its inadequate replacement by Mathematics, which because of its pluralist, simplifying and idealist nature, could only act as a means of revealing the Nature of Ideality, and NOT of concrete Reality - or its seemingly hidden matter.