08 March, 2016

The Fight Back!

What is to be Done: XII
The essential tasks for the Marxists of today

Now, such a reactionary step had to be defeated. Scientists had been aware of a tendency to do this across the board in Science, but these “brilliant” Nuclear Physicists now had come up with a reason.

My first effort was to suggest a classical explanation “in the old style”. Various steps were taken to construct a viable explanation from a definition of the nature of the electron stream, as being solely determined by its Source, via a Diffraction of the electrons at both slits, giving a fan-out of velocities, with the fastest going straight through, and the slowest being inversely proportionately deflected.

So far so good, but if nothing else was involved these fan-out could NOT produce an interference pattern at the detection screen.

What was Missing?

There had to be something BETWEEN the slits and the screen which could deflect electrons, and this “field” would have to be very similar to an interference pattern. What could it be? Nothing had been detected!

But, something MUST be present in that space. It can only be caused by either the “slits” or the moving electron streams” or BOTH, but it does not have to be extensive. If it were initially strong but dropping off very quickly, that would still be sufficient to do the job. Two interfering components (one form each slit) would be involved, and as the effect is known to vanish as the slits are moved apart, it is clear that the mutual effects must at least be the distance apart of the slits in extent. Obviously, the problem that caused such a solution to be immediately discounted was the fact that interference can ONLY be caused by contributing elements that include both positive and negative (i.e. oscillating) parts, so that they can either re-inforce or cancel-out.

Now that sounds like wave motions, but such DO NOT terminate over very short ranges. They impart a momentary disturbance and then move on. But such have certainly NOT been detected over many years of trying and by innumerable researchers.

Do the Phenomena Demand a Substrate?

So we are talking about something NEW!

Let us put asode exactly what it might be for the moment, and instead work out what our required “field” would have to do.

Imagine that TWO components, one from each slit, come together very close the the pair and interfere in a fan out from the slits. The shape would be radial, and would be composed of alternatate reinforced effects and cancelled effects.

The electrons, as we have already established classically, would also produce fan outs due to diffraction by the slits.

Imagine the superimposition of these.

The reinforced fringe regions would deflect the –ve charged electrons, while the cancelled regions would allow the electrons to go straight through. When you work it out, you arrive at “gaps” where the electrons were not deflected, and “field” areas where they were. All electrons would end up in the target regions determined by NO FIELD at the slits., while those determined by ACTUAL FIELDS would deliver NONE.

The result at the detection screen would be the observed fringes.

But, What is it?

Now, of course, there is still a question mark about our postulated post-slit field. But the electrons ARE –ve charged, and are known to produce magnetic fields when in motion, while the proximity of charges are also known to produce induced charges in appropriate materials nearby. We are not exactly whistling in the breeze with these surmises are we?

And, of course, this does produce an Explanation. In this effort the electrons are NOT obeying a disembodied “Probability Wave”, but are generated the fringe effects by physical causative factors.

Remember, scientists throughout the centuries were willing to state such evidence as physically caused, long before they had full and accurate explanations as to the causes. THEY could have taken the route of the New Physicists, but they never did. Were they right? I would have thought that this particular version could be confirmed or denied by appropriate experiments.

New Ideas and Methods

BUT, my second alternative approach is NOT irrevocably based on this attempted explanation. I have also attempted a very different route, via my criticisms of the usual scientific methodology. Indeed, if anything, the following attempt is much more sound, and also delivers the necessary rebuttal to our reactionary scientists and it is not as alarming as it sounds.

It does not throw away the gains of that well established method of Experiment & Explanation (or even the truncated version stopping at the derivation of an equation). What this alternative explanation does is to explain the observed phenomenon via an Emergence-like transition.

The FLAW in their attempted version is the suppression of both the containing Context on the one hand, and the treatment of the negligible factors on the other. These are unavoidable in the usual scientific methodology, and delivers results, while-ever the situation remains, within a stable Context (or Level) and whether by Nature or arranged by us. In addition, having removed, or totally constrained, all systematic minor contributions, we treat both the bundle of negligible minor perturbations and any unknown (because invisible) remaining contributions as mutually contending, and this allows us to remove their effects by merely averaging our results. We can do this because these tend to cancel each other out. But, such averaging is “over time”, and moment by moment, these are evident as seemingly tiny, random perturbations. So we have these Random perturbations which as well as being very small, cancel each other out over time, and our averaging delivers a good sound result (accompanied by a small random error).

Now, elsewhere I have demonstrated that at an emergent boundary of any sort (whether minor as in Changes of State, or major as in a full blown Emergence), what were dominant factors and subject to normal scientific study begin to SUBSIDE, and the minor perturbations GROW in significance until they usurp the situation entirely.

What were tiny zigzags of perturbation, become MAJOR ZIGZAGS which totally swamp the situation.

BUT, they can STILL be predicted by averages, as they were selected as such by our methods. Thus situations can occur where by seemingly inexplicable individual events can be summed to produce predictable results.

That is what happens in the famed Double Slit Experiment. Because we NEVER did know anything about the mutually contending perturbations, they when magnified they are totally inexplicable.

Now, this is only an interlude in a paper with an extensive and wide-ranging remit, so I cannot present the full case here, but it is available in the personal Theoretical Journal The Double Slit by the author.

The crucial point here is how criticism of method traced through from Zeno to Modern Physics reveals the reasons for their failures in this and other crucial areas.


This now complete, 12 part series was meant as an introduction to the current Marxist Work delivered by the SHAPE organisation.

Current research and findings are at the forefront of such work, and the very latest is available on-line in the SHAPE Journal, Blog and Youtube Channel. It had become clear that a more basic outline of Marxism was necessary, and the above series was taken from our work 10 years ago as a suitable introduction. So, whether it has triggered an abiding interest, or an avalanche of criticisms, we can offer a substantial range of the very latest developments. This body of work is now available as a Special Issue. Read it all here!

No comments:

Post a comment