Theory and Cosmology

 

Addressing the impossibility

 

of its Experimental Confirmation

The performance of cosmological theory over millennia has taken an unavoidably distorted trajectory, due entirely to who were involved in both initiating and then developing it. They were, most certainly, NOT in immediate, detailed possession of what they needed, to begin to interpret the Night Sky, which was where they sought answers, to what it displayed, as the context for where-and-how they then were. And, in spite of the clear evidence everywhere else around them of almost constant change, The Heavens above seemed different - while they were seemingly in constant movement regularly across the sky, they were otherwise fixed (or highly predictable) in content, displaying an intricate-but-unchanging order to the Universe!

Surely, the clear unchanging order of The Heavens must also underlie the complexities of things down here on Earth?

So, a general Ordering-Mythology was constructed, in the image of the observers - Mankind - by those who resided up there in the Heavens, and consciously-directed things down here, like pieces within a game! It wasn't very effective in influencing things down here on Earth, but it satisfied the majority - by reflecting those evidently occupying positions of power on Earth - while justifying largely what those Rulers did also.

But, it could not suffice, as clear causes and effects were increasing evident down here on Earth, and certain privileged individuals, with both the time and the resources, began to look for analyses, not only for what happened here, but also for the Nature of The Heavens, as they were increasingly observed in ever greater detail.

And, even more damning, there were increasing numbers of ordinary people, certainly not of the privileged class, who were intervening ever deeper into Nature, down here on Earth, with regularly increasing success, even if it was in the areas that were restricted to the privileged classes, such as those who planted crops, and both tended them, along with their captive food animals, built wheeled carts, and even smelted iron from naturally occurring ores.

The increasing intellectualism of the privileged classes, more and more, had to include these real concrete achievements made by those who had to successfully build things using natural resources, but always somehow-and-necessarily subordinated to the overall Philosophy that justified the current Political Order, down here on Earth!

The discoverers certainly weren't what we would now call scientists, and so their devised incantations were just as important, if not more so, than their sequences of appropriate material processes: for at that stage they only knew How, but never Why, things worked as they did.

Their basic Principle was Pragmatism, and this worked very well for many thousands of years.

And, the early attempts of the philosophic wing of the privileged classes did nothing to throw a revealing light upon these Pragmatic Discoveries. But they did, ultimately, in the Greek Intellectual Revolution of the 5th century BC, impose the general Principle of Plurality.

They imposed Plurality, first legitimately upon the Emerging Discipline of Mathematics, and, thereafter, wholly illegitimately, upon both General Reasoning and all of the emerging Sciences.

But, literally from even before the Bronze Age, Mankind had been observing both the Heavens and the varying times of sunrise and sunset, the Moon's rise and set: and also crude means of measurement of both Heavenly events and their Times, all slowly-but-surely related to measurable things, and these were purely for crucial prediction purposes - such as the planting and gathering of crops. The most advanced of these early cultures were always connected with rivers, due to their flooding, and then with primitive irrigation. But, as to any overall Explanatory Meaning to all these observations: that was only present in the form of being the controlling Decisions of the Gods!

It was only by the time of the Greek Intellectual Revolution, that they arrived at the entirely Pluralist Conceptions of Mathematics, and also linking their measurements to Causes, and these were, always, wholly idealistically, arrived at, with Number itself, being given Causal Weight, when it could, while all the rest still being due to the Will of the Gods.

Indeed, several millennia were dominated by such "explanations", and it was not until the early Middle Ages that Mankind added Investigative Experiments to the crucial means of developing the first real attempts at Causal Explanations, independently of Mathematics, though that continued to be a major means at the Scientists disposal! It was only when supposedly Explanatory Equations were developed, that Plurality was imported along with the increasingly dominant Mathematics, making all of these "Laws" also permanently fixed.

It must be emphasised that literally all Explanations were originally wholly independent of Mathematics, and always involved concrete physical Causes, which NEVER DID gel completely with the Equations formulated by the inclusion of Algebra and its evident Rationality into the System. They were similar, or even close, but as accuracy gradually improved, they increasingly differed ever wider from each other.

So, to cap it all, the technicians and engineers, who established the practical conditions for these Experiments, became supremely adept, by drastically limiting the context and content delivered, so that what went on was artificially converted into a wholly-artificial Pluralist State, in which the Pluralistic Equations DID reflect exactly what happened there! Yet, a further wholly WRONG assumption, underlying this whole process, was that, even in the World of Reality-as-is, the many naturally-simultaneous, individual Laws acting together were definitely NOT exactly-the-same as the artificially Pluralist Equations obtained from such Experiments.

For that was wholly UNTRUE!

And that has major implications for a supposed Generally Applicable Science, developed wholly-mathematically from a collection of uniquely constructed experiments, each strictly pluralised for that situation alone, yet here merged illegitimately into a "generally-applicable set of coherent Laws", achieved wholly by algebraic substitutions between its actually unique, individual, Pluralist Laws.

Now, in spite of these wholly damaging effects theoretically, yet technologically, as a whole sequence of wholly separate processes, they could be successfully marshalled into an overall Successful Production. And what had been the perennial, justifying tenet for many millennia?

"If it works, it is right!"

But Real Laws DO NOT remain exactly the same in all circumstances: they ARE affected by both context and content of their situations! Pluralist Fixed Laws were always a simplification: a "holding still of Reality", in order to tightly restrict its natural relations, and substitute a Single Fixed Law as a step towards understanding a situation.

Sadly, it Absolutely NEVER does that! It is, at best, a crude approximation, that, along with others of the same ilk, takes the overall theory ever further from the Truth, while in experentially demonstrated sequences can still achieve desired objectives. But, it is NOT an adequate means for extending our understanding of Reality-as-is, for it uses only Fixed Laws, which, at best, move in and out of Dominance!

To illustrate just how lame this is, it cannot ever predict-and-explain any Qualitative Changes at all: and the absence of predictions of the Emergence of the Wholly New are because they are always totally impossible, and even when such do happen, they can NEVER be explained!

The whole Dynamical Trajectory of Evolutionary Changes, were-and-are wholly unobtainable, because so-called Science hasn't ever addressed such things!

The most important, and really-existing Natural Laws are all to do with how purely locally-defined-laws can relate to one another: in fixed ways, and even then it isn't simple addition: nor should it be replicated by Overall Randomness, and Probability Theories, especially when Qualitative Changes occur, and remove the situation from its wholly Pluralist conditions... It is then, on the contrary Holistic!

For, in Reality-as-is, absolutely NO law exists or acts either alone, or in such simple relationships as occur in all cases in Plurality. All results involve a number of contributions, that always affect one another: and all the involved qualitative changes, which can only be addressed in some sort of Holistic way.

But, the Laws governing these interactions are largely, wholly unknown, and never sought, because they appear to result in endlessly complicated, and forever varying results! And, though that is almost true, it isn't entirely so - for these seemingly un-analysable complexities DO indeed settle into regularities, but with frequently initially-totally-unpredictable outcomes!

Perhaps, the very best illustration of the difficulties involved in Holist Science, was demonstrated by Stanley Miller's famous Experiment upon the Origin of Life on Earth. He set up a sealed System, containing all the known components of a pre-Life Earth, with the elements of a primitive Atmosphere, Water and the application of Heat, with a condenser to deliver Rain, and electric Sparks as Lightning, and set the System in Motion! Within a week, he opened it up, and analysed the Reddy-brown liquid that had been formed, and discovered that it contained Amino Acids - the Key Building Blocks of All Life, which had been produced. But, he had no idea, and could not discover, just how it had all happened: as well as no idea how, then, to proceed further with his investigations! The Experiment was abandoned as impossible to achieve anything further that would be useful.

But, as this physicist has discovered, developments since Miller's time, along with, instead, a required whole sequence of experiments that would be necessary: each one determined by questions arising within prior-produced versions. And also, the included provision of inert channelling barriers - devised, to allow alternative simultaneous paths of development, along with non-intruding monitors - built into those barriers - gathering a great deal of information that could be gleaned, in detail, about what exactly was going on.

Clearly, such means simply must be a major part of the Holistic Experimental Procedures, for what, generally, needs to be revealed are NOT Single Fixed Pluralist Laws, but whole sets of related circumstances, with their contained, but varying Laws - and, of course, sufficient validations of any extracted theoretical conclusions! And, instesd of merely linear addutive "development, there surely has to be an effective means of recognising the precursors of a Coming Qualitative Change, that will change almost everything involved.

Now, the reader will probably be wondering now exactly when we are going to address Cosmology!

But, clearly, though in the usual Pluralist Approaches to the topic, many obvious criticisms could be validly made - they would, most certainly NEVER lead to new and revealing solutions, because the whole Pluralist Basis is both wrongly and wholly incapable of revealing what is necessary! Clearly, the only possible effective approach has to be Holistic too.

So, the above clarifications had to be essential, to have any hope of making real progress in the area of Cosmology! Just think about the difficulties of effective Confirmation Experiments on Earth.

They would be wholly impossible in Cosmology!

But, the very variety of outcomes with a Holistic Approach, could only match with a profoundly close set of holistic explanations: and further possibilities could be suggested and examples of them sought in The Cosmos! Indeed, the very variabilities become an advantage so mere Observations would be far better confirmations than they could ever be with Fixed Pluralist Laws.

Postscript:

Just imagine Miller's Experiment, re-designed as described earlier, involving long sequences of versions, with separated paths of development, along with others in an investigative-remix! What could be learned there would be the best possible primers for a subsequent set of applications in Cosmology...

Process, Context & Recursion I

Recent contributions within the Electric Universe Group, regarding Markland and Birkeland Effects in Spatial Electricity and Magnetism, are certainly posing important questions concerning the "Supposed Diametrical Opposites" clearly involved at crucial turning points in the Development of the subsequent System.

For, these new questions strike at the very heart of the Standard Universal Pluralist Approach - still wholly dominant in literally all of the Methodologies throughout the full set of the Sciences. The Wholly Static Conditions always thereby imposed upon all Investigative Experiments, currently undertaken, in order to reveal, supposedly, the Forever Fixed Natural Laws involved, NEVER address the real interactions between them in our Actually Fully Holistic World.

Indeed, the Dialectics of Hegel, and even Marx, treat the evidently existing Opposites, as merely capable of completely cancelling each other out. Whereas, the new evidence says that they don't! They not only continue to exist, but actually to co-exist, in wholly new-and-varying joint Forms - especially within Electricity and Magnetism!

Clearly, after two and a half millennia of subscription to Plurality, scientists are mostly at a loss to cope with these crucial new interactions. And, it also, most certainly, doesn't help, that in Cosmology, the almost total lack of appropriate Experiments (or even the necessary conditions to arrange for them), as well as the fact that even the best-informed Oppositionists, being almost entirely from within a Technologist Community (EU), who unavoidably carry over into their criticisms of Mainstream Scientists, their own primarily Pragmatist Stance, which though opposed to the position of the Wholly-Theoretical Mainstream Scientists, nevertheless, still maintain the very same dedication to Pluralist Laws and Equations.

The problems are not only incredibly difficult to solve, but actually Totally Impossible to implement, without a Root & Branch Rejection of Plurality by both sides of the current split in Physics.

And, to Compound the Felony, the only current strand in Philosophy that attempts to reject Plurality for Holism (namely the Marxists), have never managed to extend things, comprehensively, into any of the Sciences - which is vital for, the absolutely Primary Task, in equipping all of the Sciences, with an essentially exclusively Holist Approach.

But, for that to be the case, that mammoth Undertaking certainly must be urgently addressed! And, to do this, we now know exactly where to begin! The only quesation has to be HOW?

For, in spite of the major contribution by Karl Marx to Capitalist Economics - as it then took him the rest of his life, to lay a sound and comprehensive basis in that Discipline, it hasn't, yet, even begun to be addressed in Science, and, instead, has, most devastatingly, veered well off-track into the Key maximally-flawed area of Modern Physics! So, let us briefly re-iterate the key and profound difference between Plurality and Holism in all of the Sciences.

It has two major aspects.

The first, is that with multiple, different and simultaneous factors, both active-and-mutually-affecting of one another, they are always unavoidably-involved in Reality-as-is: and thus will also, be generally, and both-ways recursive with everything-else involved, and, therefore, repeatedly, and significantly, modifying all involved components!

Yet, on the contrary, Plurality wrongly assumes that these are all Fixed Eternal Laws, and fundamentally independent of one another - ONLY merely-summing, and never modifying qualitatively and recursively with any of the others.

Now, even this major simplification would NOT be discernable in Reality-as-is, so scientists also artificially severely-reduced the factors present in Investigative Experiments, in order to ideally involve only, at best, a single factor, which would perform exactly the same, as when acting with others, but which here is eminently discernable for use in all possible diverse circumstances (when only comsidering that single factor)! And also, of course, unmodified by any other also present factors.

Second, the use of such Pluralist Laws necessarily separated the full set of required technological processes, into many wholly individual processes - each one allowing only the use of a single Pluralist Law, within the necessarily provided perfect environment for that Law to act (and no others), to perform each single step in the ultimately necessary individual laws, along with their required outputs.

But, this amounted to a strictly man-made, wholly artificial technological route to a finally required result!

AND, it DID NOT reflect exactly what happens in Reality-as-is.

So, to deal with such things theoretically: that is to actually advance Human Knowledge and Understanding, so that, exactly as had happened with Euclidian Geometry, and thereafter with Mathematics-in-general, the involved Discipline could then be cerebrally constructed, and also allow sound theoretically-achieved predictions, not merely pragmatically, but intrinsically, hopefully by some similarly Rational System of established facts and their Laws. BUT, that couldn't happen with the Real Laws for they were unavailable - totally ensured by the only methods currently available to Mankind!

They had only the old pragmatic means, along with the non mutually-relatable individual Pluralist Laws - and that simply wouldn't do!

Nevertheless, they did also have a truly valid Rational System - that of Mathematics.

So they cheated!

Even though the Pluralist Laws were valid only in particular tailored situations, the scientists derived mathematical versions of those Laws from measured Data!

And then related them rationally(?) to one another, though, of course, wholly illegitimately from those Equations delivered entirely from the wholly incompatible Laws. They merely assumed that they could do this; but they most certainly couldn't!

Don't get me wrong! Mathematics is a wholly valid Rational Discipline, and crucial to Mankind in dealing with Form... But, its uses to relate Scientific Laws, as revealed artificially in Science, is wholly illegitimate! To really do that, those involved must first understand, in detail, exactly what the actual HOLIST Nature of Reality-as-is consists of: and that has NOT yet even begun within most Sciences!

And, of course, the most crucial area resides in the mutual modifying affects of scientific Laws upon one another, which are ususually qualitative and distorting, whereas the usual assumption is that they are Fixed, and indeed Eternal, and usually only Sum and Complicate, rather than Qualitatively Transform one another.

Now, the possibility of arriving at "What Really Happens" has, because of Holism, always been a major problem, for every even small change in the Conditions of an Event, will always qualitatively modify what ensues. So, investigators always worked very hard to prevent such changes, for only then would the results always be predictable!

Mankind had successfully developed Pluralist Science! And for the most part, Pluralist Science was successful. 

But, in fact, there were many ways of assuming Natural Situations... And they all gave different results!

The Natural Way:

Non-scientists could only take Reality as its occurring naturally, so every way would be different, as various involved laws varied! So, an avaerage was the best that could be achhived - requiring several repeated measurements. But, of course, none of the individual measurements, or even the Average of them all delivered a real Law. Yet in everyday processes, and even in school experiments: this was the method used.

The Technological Way:

In Industry, the Natural Way certainly wasn't good enough, so there the Situation was controlled as rigidly as possible, by keeping containing conditions as constant as possible: and purifying the active components as much as possible!

The Scientific Way:

This takes the Technological Way as it Data and Primary Laws as means, but Theoretically it uses Mathematical Rationality to build further extensions into the Science's Discipline.

The Holist Way:

Now, Holism is still in its infancy, as regards Science-in-general, but has been extensively used in developing a Critique of Capitalist Economics, along with echoes in History and Biology, by Marx primarily, and by others less comprehensively!

But, the multi-millennia-long sojourn of Plurality within the Sciences, has in time, strongly enabled an effective Technology, while doing literally nothing for effecting also an Explanatory Science. For though that was sufficient to lead to a veritable explosion in Effective Technological Development, it also led all the Sciences ever deeper into the mire, explanation-wise - so that, by now, many demanding areas within literally all the Sciences are slipping into irretrievable purely speculative chaos, which will only get worse unless-and-until an effective Holistic and Explanatory Approach is extensively both instituted and developed, to finally allow the construction of real Explanatory Theories to be established.

But that, of course, is much easier said than done, for the old trick used within Plurality of establishing totally unchanging areas in which to both reveal and develop Laws, turns out to be either impossible or wholly self-defeating within Holism. The use of those Maintained Stabilities (that were once assumed to be permanent) is now impossible!

But, as it happens, (wholly Temporary) Stabilities DO indeed occur, in our Holistic World, but, in time, they will always collapse unto what are termed Emergences. In spite of their non-permanent nature, these stable interludes alone make possible the crucial introductions of various important Macro Forms of Organisation, above and significantly affecting all the possible single Processes of Plurality, actually contained within them.

For, individual Processes do NOT act alone, and, therefore, are NEVER sufficient to solely determine outcomes!

First they always are acting multiply together with others, both simultaneously and over time! And, as such, they require multiple, different and necessary resources, yet consequently produce multiple identical outcomes for each kind of process!

And they will always be accompanied by other different processes, with their resource requirements and consequent outputs!

And, these will often be essential to a particular concurrent process - both delivering its necessary resources, and requiring their ultimately produced outcomes!

Very clearly, you will NEVER be able to predict overall outcomes purely in terms of single well-defined processes. The overall Nexus of everything involved must profitably and continullay mesh!

And apart from internally produced resources, within the overall System, there will be necessarily-maintained inflows from outwith that overall System: and their relative abundances would enable one or two to effective dominate, via the abundance of their outcomes. With the usual kind of mix, with many difference processes, and measures of outcomes would quickly reveal which process was the most abundant and hence Dominant overall!

NOTE:

This reflects exactly what occurs in most inadequate School Experiments, supposedly effectively Pluralist!
Clearly, this account is far from complete and will be continued in a following paper!

The Problem with Classroom Physics

Semi-Pluralist Science: 

Schoolroom Physics

Having watched a video from the USA supposedly presenting the very best of Schoolroom Demonstration Experiments in Physics, I immediately recognised exactly the kinds of experiment that was done in my own own school as a boy, when I first started studying the subject.

For, I am now able to see why my efforts, and that of my fellow pupils', in those unavoidably delivered circumstances, were, (despite my being proven as excellent at the theory) all so poor when it came to experiments, and also why some of my fellows students did so well in that area.

For, whereas I did exactly as I was told, and consequently got the poor results, in fact, all of these poorly-equipped investigators should have affected everybody, yet at least some of my fellow students "looked up the expected answers", or asked previous year students, to see what they should be getting, and made damn sure they got something like that themselves! But, I was convinced by the Theory, and expected invaluable confirmation in the "proving experiments", so when they didn't, I accepted that I was a lousy experimenter!

And, it didn't get much better, as an undergraduate at University. For, once again, I was a top student at Physics Theory, but "poor" in experimental work! Nevertheless, I still usually ended up top, particularly in Mathematics, which did seem to conform exactly with Real World applications.

And it is only now, a lifetime later, that I can clearly see what was amiss...

Even in Higher Education, most of my peers had quickly learned to cheat, for the Experiments were both too badly conceived-of, and even set-up, to ever give correct answers. So, while I misguidedly struggled to find "The Truth", in what I believed to be the true scientific way, my fellows just wanted the right answers and got them by other means.

Sadly, these experiences put me off Experimental Physics, though I continued to excel at Theory: and I consequently had many rows with the postgraduate "demonstrators" who were supposed to aid undergraduates with their experiments. And, as they were the only real contacts between the Staff and the students, my stock with the powers that be in the department was soon declining rapidly...

And it is only now that I know why!

The reason was that the Pluralistic Mathematics intimately-involved in both in how the experiments were conceived-of and carried out, and even in the so-called Theory that we were taught, were mutually gelled-together, as well as possible, between the two, but only if "correctly" carried out "perfectly" on the experimental side. But, neither side actually delivered Reality-as-is at all!

The crudity of the Experiments meant that the matching with results became increasingly difficult, and even often impossible to obtain, and if and when they did, it was NEVER the sought for Truth, but an approximation based squarely upon an assumption of permanently Fixed Laws.

NOTE:

Indeed, this major error, over many years, had separated those involved, into those delivering Experiments, and the Theorists who interpreted them, into two very uncomfortable groups of bedfellows, who, nevertheless, were indispensable to one another - precisely because of their very different priorities in maintaining a simplifying fiction.

So, by my fellow students cheating, the true inadequacies of the Experiments were masked, and, consequently, literally no-one was comprehensively adequately trained in all aspects of Experimental work. Indeed, if by some prior good teacher of experimental work, a particular student actually got exactly what the experiment could deliver, it would, nevertheless, be marked as wrong, because it would still NOT exactly match with the "Theory"!

Let us see why such a scenario was wholly unavoidable.

Ever since the Greeks, the Results of Experiments were always treated totally pluralistically! All were aimed for particular Laws, that were assumed to be naturally forever FIXED.

Nature was falsely assumed to work only via such eternally Fixed Laws. 

But the real unfettered world is not fixed in such a way, and to get anywhere even reasonably near to that situation, the rigid control-and-maintainance of the constitution of the Experiment would have to be absolutely perfect: and that, of course, was almost impossible to achieve without great expense and sufficient time being allocated to ensuring that supposed "perfection".

And, needless-to-say, that didn't ever happen with entirely student-run lab experiments!

By the way, in Professional Science contexts, the experimenters and practical product deliverers were Technologists rather than Scientists, while the theorist interpreters of the resulting data were the actual Scientists.

Any Fixed Laws, extracted in such experiments, were never generally applicable either: they would only behave as such if the Applying situation was totally identical to the Extracting one - the complete control of these environments is technology!

Modern physics is impossible without advanced technology

So, in other words, the true guardians and implementers of the aimed-for Pluralist Science were ONLY EVER the Technologists.

The scientists, on the other hand, were initially holists, seeking Natural Laws, which in that Real World of multiple simultaneous and mutually-affecting Laws, were impossible to extraxt as such, without a radical pruning and thereafter continued rigid control of the situation: and that could NEVER reveal the same Law, as applied in Reality-as-is.

For the Laws did not just SUM: they changed one another in various different qualitative ways! So the Laws in Experiments were DIFFERENT to those Laws in Reality-as-is!

A FIXED Law as was evident in a perfect Pluralist Experiment, actually never existed as such anywhere in Reality-as-is!

Now, for Science-in-General, and even in the professional World of scientific endeavour, a further totally-mistaken assumption was made. It was assumed that the Fixed Law extracted, by these methods, was the natural, underlying Law present in absolutely ALL relevant situations, usually along with others, all of them being of the very same type. They just combined somehow to deliver Reality-as-is. And, this belief was embodied in the universally-accepted Principle of Plurality.

What that meant, was that absolutely NO Qualitative Changes could ever occur, by the action of Natural Laws: all real Development and even Evolution were put down solely to mere Complication alone.. And this is clearly wrong!

So, why was it adopted so emphatically?

You have to remember exactly-when it was first achieved, and what a remarkable Revolution it precipitated within Mathematics! For, it was first implemented, as such, in Ancient Greece, almost 2,500 years ago, in what later became known as Euclidian Geometry, and thereafter and equally legitmately extended to the whole of Mathematics - as it then was. For, the use of a wholly new kind of Abstraction had been involved that only referred to Relationships, and consequently had, for the first time ever in Human History, enabled the sound construction of a whole new Intellectual Discipline, by using these Revealing Abstract relations, via a totally reliable New Rationality.

Indeed, the Revolution was incorrectly-assumed to encompass Absolutely Everything: and was immediately, and wrongly, applied to both General Reasoning and all the emerging Sciences too.

Now, to further explain that more general use, we have to consider the special situation of Stability: for, in the Rationality of Mathematics, it was also validly applicable in Stable Situations of all kinds, as long as they remained as such! And Mankind had long been "holding-things-still", while they used them, for a very long period prior to the gains in Mathematics! So, the extension was obvious, and, as long as the Stability was maintained, it remained a valid application.

But, an intellectual Rule that only worked in special pragmatic situations was NO GOOD for valid-and-comprehensive explanations, even if it was adequate pragmatically: in other words, it was OK for Technology, NOT for real exploratory Science!

So, these two stances for dealing with the very same things, naturally drifted apart, and pragmatic problems were solved by technicians, while the scientists persevered, under increasing difficulties, with the consequent pluralist Theory!

Now, Experiments increasingly were set up "to work" by necessarily-attendant technicians, while the scientists carried out the Experiments and attempted to fornulate the "Fixed Natural Law" supposedly involved. But they usually got somewhat different results, each and every time they carried out the "supposedly very-same" Experiment. Now, it was always put down to "randomly-varying conditions", so that by taking averages over several runs, the underlying "Fixed" Law might be extracted.

But there isn't such a Fixed Law! The real World is holistic, wherein many simultaneously-acting Laws, both modify each of them AND the overall final effect too! And, that variability in results would be an average of all those, still making some sort of contribution, BUT by randomly varying as would always be cancelled by averaging, but "all-in-its-own-single-way" for each and every as yet still not-completely-removed contributor.

Sum the achieved average would NOT be of a fixed underlying Law, with randomly varying context, but, instead, an average of the involved and still-acting remnants of the supposedly-removed natural and multiple, usually accompanying contributions.

Which is why, in the title of this paper, I termed it "Semi-pluralist"!

And, which, at best, delivers only a poor approximation to an actually non-existant supposedly Fixed Law anyway!

Clearly, to conquer Reality, in all circumstances - absolutely essential if the many anomalies and crises, currently totally inaccessible outside of the artificially-fixed version, are also to be fully dealt with, what they simply must be tackled with a comprehensive knowledge of the Real Holistic possibilities.

A Holistic Version of Science must how be both unearthed and systematically developed!

Maybe one day we'll see holistic experiments in school Science labs...

The Fundamental Error of Quantum Mechanics

A Right Criticism

but 

The Wrong Solution

There is a Stanford "Continuing Education" Lecture, by Leonard Susskind, the purpose of which is supposedly to deliver, to a collection of mature-and-interested general auditors, an interesting Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, and its Foundations in Theory.

But Susskind's Lecture, from its very outset, instead attempts to ground his criticisms of Classical Physics, solely from a Quantum Mechanical (basically a Copenhagen) standpoint, via what seems initially to be a valid revelation of the fundamental-and-debilitating weaknesses of the former. 

He wrongly puts it down to congenital errors, due to actual "inaccuracies-in-measurements", but he does it, by inferring that the blame should be put solely upon the unavoidably inadequate means used in obtaining them, instead of Classical Physics' actually wholly flawed and totally inadequate mathematical rationality, which ever since its inception in Ancient Greece, was wholly incorrectly and damagingly transferred to ALL the Sciences.

Susskind does not even recognise this problem - but he also, in attaching the errors solely to poorly arranged-for experimental means, thereby delivering the blamed evident inaccuracies of the results obtained.

But in that he is doubly wrong: for his criticisms, which still leave him (and his auditors) totally unaware of the real causes, so, both cannot, in any way, deliver a solution, but also, in that wrong attribution, he completely hides the real causes, and, therefore, allows his "purely theoretically-perfected" equations to be the ONLY Ultimate Sources of Truth.

He establishes his position by this as totally idealist.

He establishes it NOT via Reality, but through Mathematical Rationality alone.

Theoretical Physicists have always dealt with all experimentally achieved results and consequently theoretically interpreted them via the mistakenly applied Pluralist Rationality, which sees all extracted relations solely as products of Eternally Fixed Natural Laws. That ONLY come out of the consequently formulated and theoretically confirmed Equations. The data so originally achieved will NOT be the Form that is required, but, on the contrary, that imposed upon the situation by just those constraints that ensure its total conformity to Plurality.

We do not directly measure Reality-as-is, but a Reality so constrained as to reveal more clearly only exactly what is purposely sought! But, unless the data-producing experiments required for the usual Pluralist Approach have been "perfectly applied", both in how the experiments were set-up-and-maintained throughout, they will never deliver the exactly aimed-for data, which is necessary, and will instead only produce data certain to differ from what could be either achieved in such sufficiently-rigidly controlled experiments OR taken directly from prior, "accurate" individual Equations, as all simultaneously-acting Laws are assumed to be wholly independent of one another, and hence arranged to be extracted one-at-a-time - pluralistically!

Whereas, in the actual Real Holist World outside, those could, if done correctly, actually reflect Reality-as-it-actually-is.

The problem is that the Rationality of Mathematics, as fully exemplified in Euclidian Geometry, did indeed define a legitimate Rationality - it works flawlessly - but ONLY in constrained areas. This is solely because Form, unlike almost everything else in Reality, does indeed soundly conform to Plurality's rules: a specific Logic for dealing with a Discipline composed exclusively of separable entires and FIXED relations or Unchanging Laws!

But, the trouble was, that following the universal successes of Pluralist Logic, it was applied to all the sciences, in a way which omitted the richness and dynamism of the material Universe.

In assuming that revealed relations are Eternal Natural Laws, all Real Development is excluded.

And, Susskind, in his Lecture, then proceeds to "Compound the Felony", by marshalling all his arguments, via the same mistaken Rationality. He correctly demonstrates the inability to predict in literally ALL situations, but instead makes it solely due to measured inaccuracies, whereas the most important of them are all due to the total exclusion of handling All Qualitative Change. 

And, he conversely puts down the simple addition of results into more complex situations, as due to the very same reason - rather than the actual reason that classical Pluralist Physics cannot deal with Reality-as-is, and merely substitutes, instead, the additions of multiple Fixed Laws, for the actual totally unknown and unconsidered Real Qualitative Changes that are involved.

He declares that the Double Slit Experiments all totally prove his case, whereas the opposite is true. 

Their paradoxes, on the contrary, and much like those of Zeno, expose the fundamental inadequacies of Pluralist Logic.

[See "The Theory of the Double Slit Experiments" in SHAPE Journal]

And, in a significantly ineffectual following section, he then resorts (as is usual for him) to proving his case using Mathematical Equations alone - the very cause of the major failures, to "prove" the opposite!

NOTE:

A whole series of papers dedicated to a major prior series of lectures by Susskind, has also been published in SHAPE Journal, but give-yourself-time, SHAPE has been publishing for 11 years now, delivering 125 issues with perhaps somewhat more than 1000 individual papers available!

Having spent most of my professional life posing these difficult questions, the importance of this now mature philosophical stance in addressing what is wrong with Modern Physics, is also succesfully employed across many different disciplines, from Politics to Evolutionary Biology. 

The flaws of the dominant Pluralist stance are revealed inadvertently by Susskind himself, for he passionately believes in Pluralistic Theory over-and-above any messy purely Pragmatic Extractions from Reality-as-is. 

When presented with "beautiful", generally consistent-and-coherent elegant Theory, and the messy error-filled "facts" from Nature, he resolutely chooses the Former as "containing the Real Truth". 

However difficult, Reality must be our final arbiter. 

Anything else can only be delusional!

 

Magnet and CRT screen

How can we explain magnetic fields in space without a substrate?

The Family of Differently-Orientated Physicists

Physicists come in many shapes and sizes

Coming as I do from the Working Class, I was at first only aware of one kind of scientist. There were none in my immediate family, as my dad was an unskilled labourer and my mother was a sewing-machinist working for the Co-op. But, nevertheless, every street, in the district where I lived in Manchester, had its skilled technical worker, and the best (as far as I could see) were those that could make broken things work again "as-good-as-new!". They loved engines, and clever machines, and because of their detailed experiences could find out what was wrong, and fix-it!

They were actually Mechanics. But they were also part of a continuum stretching all the way up to Engineers.

Perhaps surprisingly, these types also occurred in a Science like Physics as a special breed of Experimenters, who co-existed in the same discipline as the Theorists, and also along with the application Producers: but, again surprisingly, rarely did a single individual occupy all three of these categories.

Indeed, often the Producers separated themselves off as Engineers; while the Experimenters served Theorists as actually both enabling their required Experiments, and even confirming their theories via well-designed tester-experiments.

But, such divisions also soon became legion in all the Sciences, and the knowledge-bases of these various specialisms seemed to constantly move ever further-apart from each other, so that if a mix of all three wasn't in place within an able team, the results produced became increasingly limited in scope, and also in success!

For example, a request to a theorist for help with a technical problem would rarely result in a solution. While a request for an explanation as to why something behaved in a particular way to an Engineer would also fail more often than it should.

Now, I managed to become a qualified Physicist, but was only taught Theory during my extensive education.

University of Leeds, 1960s, where I studied Physics

It was stimulating intellectually while I was at school, but if you required a solution to anything technical, you had to ask a Technician. And, this was true at every level even to when I became a Lecturer in a College.

Questions about faults in my house invariably meant a visit to the Engineers.

But, as I was to ultimately discover, these divisions of labour were not determined solely by the participants' aptitudes, but fundamentally by major Impasses generated due to important concepts in the Reasoning associated with various different areas.

Let me clarify!

Though, within certain areas, reasoning could allow some explanations and solutions to be achieved, at certain very crucial points, these impasses always occurred - effectively prohibiting lines of reasoning from traversing them, and continuing beyond them. So, these impasses became no-go areas, or boundaries, and so divided up areas of study into separate "specialisms", within which logical consequences could be traced and used: but which always terminated at each and every one of these impasses.

And, it took over 2000 years to be understood! But, a mere 200 years ago, the German Philosopher Hegel found out why they occurred. Mankind had little or no intellectual development for almost all of its time as a separate species, because of their isolated Hunter/Gatherer mode of life, so most concepts only began to be considered after the Neolithic Revolution, when people began to live together, in static communities, and in larger groups, and begin to discuss. So, our concepts were never then, and still are not, even now, exactly correct. In fact, they are all always approximate to some extent, and when used in Reasoning are therefore guaranteed to be occasionally delivering such impasses.

In fact, the Formal Logic, used in literally all Reasoning, has always had a grave fault, inherited from Greek Mathematics, which also begat Greek Formal Logic: for it treats all concepts as fixed, because they are pluralist disciplines, which actually enable most of their manipulative qualities - and hence cause their users to stick-tightly to that assumption, even though it actually isn't true. Hegel attempted to correct Formal Logic by revealing and correcting such impasses, but the problem wasn't totally eliminated, for the key disciplines used in Science are all pluralist too, and the effective extension of Hegelian Dialectics to Reasoning in these disciplines has still not yet been comprehensively addressed. And, its further application to the material World in general hasn't either.

So, the three Physics specialisms referred to earlier, have their experts, who can only deliver within their limiting-impasses as boundaries, and the only way to ever proceed MUST involve a diverse team, who "pass-the-parcel" between specialists in the hope that one can deliver what is required.

But, clearly, that is certainly NOT the best way to tackle problems is it?

Now, this Physicist, who is also a Dialectical Materialist philosopher, has recently completed a major criticism of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory in Sub Atomic Physics, which he had to undertake alone, as he found no others similarly-equipped to help.

But, he did come across the Electric Universe Group, who certainly had some positions in common with him - although some pretty strange ideas too.

They were, it seemed, all defined by the above-described Impasses, and came from the so-defined specialism of Engineers. They too rejected the most recently defined Group of Theorists, who have even abandoned Physical Explanation, and now deal solely in Mathematics along with the Pragmatist tenet of "If it works, it is right!", which our Engineers also subscribe to, though they jib at the Mathematics-as-cause belief, which is what Physical Theory has now become.

For, as most mathematical frigs were invented by Engineers, they know better than to turn them into Theory!

Frankly, this theoretical Physicist could do with some Electrical Universe members on his team, but perhaps only as Engineers and Experimenters. Their 'Theory' leaves a lot to be desired, even if some of the problems and gaps they highlight are true.

"If they put up with the Mathematical Theorists, I'm sure they could put up with me!"

While Wal Thornhill's Electric Universe "Theory" seems to occupy similar territory to the criticisms of contemporary Physics published in SHAPE, he never fully explains any of his ideas. EU Theory is severely lacking, perhaps because he is an Engineer, and these categories/impasses persist, unresolved.

Jim Al-Khalili and the "Two-Slit" experiment

Al-Khalili has learned nothing on the Copenhagen Interpretation of The Double Slit Experiments

In a recent lecture (see the YouTube clip below), Jim Al-Khalili repeats the usual Copenhagen Interpretation of the ill-famed Double Slit Experiments, and his arguments have not changed one iota.

The video is captioned: "If you can explain this using common sense and logic, do let me know, because there is a Nobel Prize for you.." 

Well Jim! Have you seen our video?

Many years ago I listened to an In Our Time radio programme presented by Melvin Bragg, in which a gaggle of prestigious supporters of the Copenhagen Interpretation of that same experiment, put forward an identical account. But, neither version could transcend the contradictory accounts of particles "sometimes acting like Particles, but at other times acting like Waves".

Ever since Zeno's Paradoxes in Ancient Greece, applications of Formal Logic to certain puzzling scenarios would always end in such contradictory endpoints - entirely inexplicable in Formal Logical terms.

The problems were not trivial!

They were caused by a founding principle of both Mathematics and Formal Logic termed Plurality.

And, the reason that this crucial flaw was never addressed was because the Greeks purposely limited their intellectual disciplines to concepts and things that did not change - they remained the same qualitatively.

And, perhaps surprisingly, it proved to be an extremely empowering stance to take! For, assuming, or even ensuring, such stability in situations, certainly made them predictable.

First, this was the essential Foundation Stone of Mathematics - and legitimately established a whole new and extendable discipline, absolutely-valid for things that remained the same qualitatively: it enabled an effective Discipline of Forms and their Quantities.

But, its powerful methods of Extension and Proof, persuaded the Greeks to carry them over to a system of reasoning, later termed Formal Logic: so the new discipline could only be applied to concepts that did not change.

The logical contradiction of the Double Slit can be traced back to Ancient Greek Philosophy

This same supposition was also embedded in the initial approach to Science too.

In fact, NO real attention was given to this important disability, for about 2,300 years, when Hegel finally realised that Qualitative Changes were just NOT addressable within Formal Logic as-it-then-was, and he determined to unearth as many of these Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts as he could, in order to find out their disabling bases.

He was successful in a whole number of cases, where he found that both concepts in such a Dichotomous Pair arose from the same-inadequate-premises, which would have to be changed to turn the usual non-transcend-able impasse, into a transcend-able Logical Fork.

Now, following this initial success, a great deal more has followed, enabling a major transformation of Formal Reasoning to include the tempo, processes and even the causes of truly qualitative changes.

Yet merely the application of Hegel's initial discoveries, to the Double Slit Experiments, would be sufficient to address every single anomaly of that confusing evidence. For, the mistaken premises can be both incorrect or actually missing: and the inclusion of a currently undetectable Substrate within those experiments did indeed physically explain everything!

Michelson-Morley disproved Luminiferous Aether

Now, of course, no such Substrate has ever been found, and the Michelson-Morley Experiments had seemingly banished and then denounced that assumed-to-be-present Ether, as non-existent. But, that did not banish any currently undetectable Substrate that was, nevertheless, both affected-by-and affecting-of interloping entities.

Every single anomaly was easily explained by assuming auch an intermediary.

But it had to be established that such a Universal, yet-undetectable, Substrate could both exist, and, deliver physical explanations of everything involved. It was initially undertaken to establish, theoretically, just such a Substrate - composed entirely of various mutually-orbiting pairs of Leptons, with diametrically opposite properties.

The first of these was a stable version of the Positronium, which was re-labelled as a Neutritron. This was a remarkable entity, neutral in every way, which could exist in three different modes and associations, and also be dissociated back into its separate components - one Electron and one Positron.

A very loosely-associated medium, termed a 'Paving', was possible, which could propagate Electromagnetic Energy at the Speed of Light, but could also be dissociated into its individual Neutritrons - identical to Photons, which could behave like a random Gas, or be driven into energetic Streams and even into Vortices.

A Substrate of particle-pairs like the Positronium, could be an invisible medium for EM radiation

Now, every kind of Substrate Unit was, because of their mutually-orbiting nature, also capable of carrying quanta of electromagnetic Energy via the promotion of that orbit: and could deliver such quanta by the demotion of their orbits.

And, elsewhere, it has been possible to explain the quantized orbits of Electrons within Atoms, by the dissociation of the Paving, and driving of Neutritrons into accompanying Streams and Vortices, which because of the constant return of the driving electrons, can find stable orbits wherein the net transfer of energy between electron orbit and maintained vortices arrives at a balance via stable maintained radii.

I could go on, but my sole purpose here is to counterpose the above Physics to what Al' Khalili peddles.

What do you think?

Equilibrium

When nothing much is happening?

When postulating all Stabilities as temporary, and all real Qualitative change as emergent, to a lesser or greater extent, as I most certainly do, then the undoubted objective of obtaining Equilibrium in experiments, before ever taking any measurements, must surely require clarification!

First, what is going on in such situations, that initially prevents that Equilibrium, and what is happening in the Nirvana of it finally-being-achieved?

The scenario described is both that in the school chemistry lab, and that confronting all early scientists.

First, whatever were our prior actions, and about which reliable results are required, and having done everything that was necessary, nevertheless, any immediately taken measurements would still be totally useless!

Why?

The reason is that they would be different, not only to everyone else doing the same experiment, but even your own re-measurements taken immediately after the first!

You have to wait. 

Because the thing you are trying to measure is clearly made up of many parts which can have individual properties of their own. So, all your initial problems are because what is sought, isn't everywhere fully there yet!

In fact, it will only be there when all the unavoidable changes caused by our actions have communicated themselves throughout what it is that we are measuring - so that the many different parts settle down to a similar state, and that is not only never immediately achieved, it is also NEVER finally achieved either.

So, even after an initial thorough stirring-or-shaking, and a further wait, a single measurement can never be trusted as accurately describing the entity as a whole.

So, many re-measurements will be essential!

And, they will be similar, but not identical.

So, what is going on, and how do we finally get our required result?

All of these experiences demonstrate that our studied thing is NOT a single totally-homogeneous-entity: it is a collection of entities in close proximities to one another. And, we want them to "become-the-same", and they do gradually approach a common state. But, their modus operandi isn't simple: they are all vibrating, and affect one another, and only very slowly, does a sharing of what we are trying to measure, gradually approach what we might call Equilibrium!

So, we take a number of measurements - at the right time, and take the average of them all! 

Indeed, if all the parts, making up our overall entity, were separated, then they would all have different values for what we want. Indeed, we will ONLY get a single answer when they are all in causal-contact and have maximally shared the thing being measured,

It can only be a measurement of them all together.

The measurement achieved can even be something which is meaningless when applied to any single part in isolation, it can only be of the aggregation of all of them together: it will be of something like Temperature or Pressure!

Such measurements occur at a given Level.

So, if we go down to a lower level, they will vanish as such, so the causal descent through many such levels leaves behind prior quantitative measurements, and look, instead, into new ones. Yet, each level delivers a similar situation - always presenting something with key entities composed of lesser components.

And totally unfettered nature is even worse!

Indeed, to have any hope of extracting anything at all, we have to impose an Artificial Stability upon a situation, as well as carrying out all the above methods to get anything useable at all! We remove as many affecting factors as possible, and hold others constant, in order to be able to target a single and extractable relation. This is the same in practically all experiments.

We have to do this because Reality is Holist- a multi-factor World, with everything potentially affecting everything else. That is why nature evolves- producing the wholly New, like Life and even Consciousness.

Yet, we "hold it still"! We stop any natural change occurring. We never study the real Holist World, because we don't know how to!

We not only impose Stability, before we investigate, but actually believe that this reveals the Essences of Reality!

But, it doesn't!

So, to justify this fiction, we sanctify the Principle of Plurality, which has all active components independent of one another, and hence simply summing in various mixes to produce all the many different phenomena. And, this Pluralist Science aims only to reveal "Eternal Natural Laws",which alone are considered to deliver that Fictional World - fictional because Formal Relations, as such, can deliver absolutely nothing in the concrete world, for they are only abstractions of really-existing influences and effects.

And, real entities with their properties and influences must be the actual causes behind such purely formal descriptions.

Now, this aberrant path does not lead into mistaken subsequent actions, because the exact conditions achieved for extractionare always replicated for use! So, Technology is well served, while Explanatory Science is certainly not!

So is that elusive Equilibrium sought to reveal the defining Stability of Reality?

NO!

Indeed, though Natural Stabilities are very common, they actually hide the complex of mutually-affecting causal factors that always can find a temporary, if long-lasting, Stability in a balance of those contrasting and even opposing elements.

And, to Understand, rather than merely Describe and even Use, Explanatory Scientists, as distinct from Applying Technologists, must seek out the Causes for all the Qualities evident in our remarkably rich World - and they are NOT revealed in formal descriptions of Stabilities whether Natural or Arranged-For (in experiments and technology).

Music and Holism

Cymatics - music meets Yves Couder?

A Gateway to the full Richness of Reality?

As soon as you consider the consequences of a Holistic World, the possibilities as compared with the usual strictly Pluralist standpoint actually explode dramatically into a host of new possibilities - not only into myriads of previously unconsidered alternatives, but also into the effects of sliding amounts of different components in all compound entities and processes, but crucially, in addition, into also including both rich joint interference patterns, and, in gradually varying mixes of different components, even how they produced consequent combined, mutually affecting, and sometimes, significantly, wholly unpredictable results.

Mere quantity changes are expanded into changing qualities, and even the emergent production of the wholly new! The traditional pluralist approach cannot deal with such in any meaningful way: we just have to accept them and find pragmatic ways of including them.

Only the holistic approach admits there is more than mere complication in the emergence of the new, and it isn/t a purely continuous process: sometimes it requires a major dissolution to even make possible a new direction of developments. And as, distinct from the old conceptions causality can act in both directions = from the old to the new, and from the new to the old. What is actually possible leaves the usual assumed combinations of fixed entities and eternal Laws well behind, on the foreshores of the Pluralist World: the majority of the vast oceans of the Holist World remain to be explored!

Now, perhaps surprisingly, the cornerstones all of Mankind's effective intellectual disciplines, ever since the Ancient Greeks, have been entirely dominated by the Principle of Plurality - a definition of the "nature of things" that always treated them all as qualitatively-fixed, which had originally been applied to the shapes of things, and related all existing shapes to combinations of individual Perfect Forms, that is as mere additions of various amounts of several of those always-the-same components. Indeed, the following major successes with such Shapes, enabled not only the construction of a powerful means of dealing with Forms in general, via Mathematics, but, was also exported to form the basis of a new reasoning with Statements of Fact, termed Formal Logic! And, within a generation, was also extended to the early attempts at Science.

Now, elsewhere, by this theorist, this has been rigorously contended as totally ignoring all Qualitative Change, and even the indisputable Evolution of things in a trajectory of qualitative developments.

For, absolutely nothing in nature is a mere Legoland-like constructional puzzle! 

Lego Moog

Clearly, the diametrically opposite Principle of Holism, with its tenet, "Everything affects everything else!" has to be much closer to the Truth, yet it hasn't been comprehensively applied to any of Mankind's Intellectual Disciplines, thus far! But, the flaws of Plurality have long been known, though never recognised as such.

The best early critique was formulated by Hegel, and converted from his idealist approach to a strictly Materialist one by Karl Marx. Yet, a comprehensive application to Physics has never yet been attempted.

Now, this is currently underway by the writer of this paper, but within his other interests, it rapidly became clear that the most appropriate area for a truly Holist Approach to be both demonstrated and even developed, just had to be in Music, and especially in Electronic Music!

After centuries of pluralistic structures in Music, particularly in the West, the forms began to "break the rules", though in a remarkable way still using instruments actually constructed to deliver the old pluralist scales. Yet, certain stringed instruments, without-frets, did allow portamento - sliding between "legal notes". And, an increasing awareness of Oriental music, (particularly that of India) revealed a much richer sonic world, with instruments expressly designed to make portamento an integral part of the artistic expression.

But in the 1960s the musical experimenters using tape loops and early electronic musical instruments, such as those used by Terry Riley with his "In C", also extended the variations to a much wider set of changes, initially at least, NOT totally under the control of the players.

Like the fractal mathematicians watching their constructions, produced by algorithms on computers, generated ever more unpredictable forms, so the musicians did likewise with combined cyclic sounds and very slowly indeed reflected another aspect of Reality.

And, in Physics, the French physicist Yves Couder, focussed primarily upon the properties of liquid media, devised analogistic experiments at the macro level, using a liquid substrate, and absolutely nothing else, to produce persisting entities called Walkers, which began to reveal qualities analogous to those occurring at the Sub Atomic level, including quantised orbits.

Now, those may not seem to be related to our thesis here, but they are! 

The Holist approach is much closer to natural Reality than Plurality, especially when phenomena occur in a Universal effectible and affecting Substrate. And, by far the most controllable discipline involving its propagation and receipt via a medium is MUSIC!

And, it has the property of being directly receiveable by the senses of human beings, especially those with a musical bent. This enables not only the discovery of the wholly new, but when the very instruments of production are directly under the investigators hands, variations can be made to listened to examples explored with immediate and direct feedback.

Now, Terry Riley and his colleagues were performing musicians rather than scientific investigators, so they were making primarily artistic decisions, as to exactly when they came in with their contributions. But, that meant that they did not have a complete idea as to how their contribution would affect the following overall piece.

Other performers since, playing the same "In C", decided to have a random number generator choosing when the various contributions would be added - you could just as easily have scientists choosing when to bring in certain elements to achieve certain sonic effects.  Clearly all three versions would be different, and reveal different "music"! But there can be no doubt that such investigations would go beyond what the more usual kinds of music would deliver.

More on this idea soon...