27 February, 2018


The Inevitable Pluralist Demise of Science

The Funeral of a Maths-based Approach!

Since the necessary establishment of a Pluralist Conception of Reality by the Ancient Greeks, what has appeared to be the ever-expanding Understanding of Reality, has, in fact, been only an exploration of a very different, though-related, "world" called Ideality - involving only Pure Forms alone as its sole content - indeed, The Lauded Realm of Mathematics. And, in taking such a blinkered-course, Mankind has embarked upon such a flawed-and-contradictory path, as to both achieve sound technological gains, but, unavoidingly, along with them, a more-often-than-not totally unsound attempt at Understanding that Reality.

The problems reside in the confusion arising from the purely formal Reflections of Reality, delivered via Mathematics - occurring only-as-such in what we call Ideality, and seeing it as the supposed Determining Essence of Reality itself. For, while the real objective, concrete Reality outside includes everything that there is, along with its continuing necessary development: Ideality contains only Pure Forms alone - it is like a purely, formal mirror of Reality, reflecting only its current Forms, moment-by-moment, but absolutely none of its determining Causality.

Clearly, all the displayed patterns are delivered directly by observation and measurement, but none of the reasons for them are even implicitly resident in that data - only purely formal relations!

And, Form can never be a determining cause of anything: it us always only one of the consequences (effects) of such a cause.

For, Causality come from the properties of things, and the transforming processes they produce in given contexts. The student of Pure Forms alone can see patterns in viewed (reflected) space, and can even record sequences of them over time, but the seductive possibilities of the purely formal patterns extracted, and their valuable use in prediction, can, and indeed often do, take precedence over the much more difficult to extract causal relations.

And, significantly, such extracted formal patterns, having now been separated from their physical causes, can now only deliver a disembodied pattern, and hence always conform only to the Principle of Plurality - in which all relations are forever fixed, and, therefore, the only relations immediately evident are the quantitative ones of Mathematics, which can only relate the perfect versions of such forms to one another.

Indeed, it took Mankind thousands of years to even begin to do that!

For, it was necessary, usually, to initially study totally unchanging things - like the Heavens, and then, for literally everywhere else, to isolate situations, then significantly simplify and control them sufficiently, until some pure formalism was clearly evident - and to then extract and study that.

But, to even do that, required absolutely NO qualitative developments or changes to be allowed to occur, for any such extracted relation to be useable. Moreover, if Reality were Holistic (which it is), such extracted relations could never be counted upon outside of their artificially achieved, maintained and necessarily-stable contexts!

So, Mankind had to do two things to get-around the problem:-

1. They always replicated exactly the same conditions as had been achieved in extraction, as essential in any use!

2. They devised the Principle of Plurality to make such ideas "legitimate" theoretically!

So, though the farming of locations enabled great technological success: the pluralistic assumptions in Theory were bound to lead to contradiction, as Hegel had long ago demonstrated in classical Formal Logic.

NOTE: Surprisingly, Neil Turok, of the Perimeter Institute, placed Formal Logic ahead of Mathematics, when in fact it was the achievements of Mathematics that established the pluralistic basis for Formal Logic, and preceded it historically too!

Physicist & Director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Neil Turok

Indeed, though we rightly laud the vital contributions of the Greeks, we rarely criticise the amalgam of contradictory stances that they thereafter bequeathed to Mankind. For, they certainly added to the prior Pragmatism of early Man, by bringing in both Idealism (from Mathematics) and Materialism (from observational Science). And, when, Plurality was also added to these, the overall stance was unavoidably piecemeal - consisting of many contradictory parts, with their laws only useable in particular contexts!

So, the sequence of Crises in Physics, culminating in the abandonment of Physical Explanation - with the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, was the direct and unavoidable consequence of the major flaws in the underlying Philosophy of Physics, and the backwards step to purely pragmatic, predictive objectives, on the one hand, and idealistic speculations on the other, which can, and indeed will, solve nothing!

25 February, 2018

Dialectical Physics

Naum Gabo

The Philosophical Premises of a Dialectical Physics

There is a Major Crisis in Theoretical Physics.

In spite of being told, on every hand, that we are witnessing a triumph in the subject, we are being asked to applaud a process that is causing ever-increasing contradictions, so devastating in fact, that already by the Solvay Conference in 1927 the Primary Purpose of Science had been abandoned:

To Explain Physical Reality!

This was deemed henceforth impossible, and wholly replaced by merely Describing-It-Formally and Predicting-Outcomes-without-Causes: and to do all this entirely via Mathematics and Experience - by Formulae and Pragmatism alone.

The original source of this crisis is in fact very old, and has caused increasing problems for millennia, alongside very successful technological systems, until finally the very foundations of Physical Theory were shown to be compromised fundamentally, with absolutely NO evident theoretical solution available.

So, explanatory Theory was shelved, and the obviously useable technological methods, involving advanced Mathematics and Pragmatism, were installed instead as the new "Theory" and "Practice". But, the old productive dynamic tensions between Explanatory Theory and Formal Description were lost forever - Thereafter Mathematics ruled OK!

The core of the problem was never realised, as a pragmatic solution had long ago been devised, which, most of the time anyway, allowed some real progress to continue, propped up by an effective, enabling trick! The foundational mistake was the Principle of Plurality. And, the pragmatic frig was "If it works, it is right!" The former patched-up the basic Theory, while the latter overcame any contradictory rational impasses.

And, most important of all, the technologists, doing what they always do best, soon learned how to drastically adjust-and-maintain both investigative and productive situations to get very close to conforming to the Principle of Plurality.

But this impasse must be transcended! 

So, SHAPE Blog, realising the inadequacies of this short Introduction, will regularly publish short informative papers, developing these ideas, and will subsequently publish a series of dedicated Issues of SHAPE Journal to finish the job.

This is important!

And it will only be available from this source...

20 February, 2018

The Quantum


Is it intrinsic or caused?

The whole basis of the Quantum Revolution in modern Sub Atomic Physics is that the Quantum of electromagnetic energy is intrinsic to the Nature of Reality, so that all theories have to be modified to build this requirement into them.

But, could it be that there is a purely physical explanation for energy being cast into, and thereafter maintained as such descrete forms?

This might seem almost sacrilegious to literally all modern physicists, but a purely theoretical investigation into the effect of a totally undetectable, but both affected-and-affecting Universal Substrate, has questioned that assumption, by finding physical ways that such energy might have a Quantum Nature imposed upon it - especially as the very same nature would, thereafter, in its normal means of propagation, be rigidly maintained.

There was, of course, another good reason for embarking upon such an investigation, which was clearly that this theorist was unhappy with the anomalous results of the New Theory, especially in the whole series of Double Slit Experiments, which had become cornerstones of the Quantum Revolution, and had, in addition, also led to the dumping of Physical Explanations entirely, for a wholly formal mathematical description as being "more reliable", and still allowing prediction and reproducible phenomena.

As far as this physicist was concerned, however, the real heart of Physics was in its explanatory power, rather than its reliable formal predictability, so he embarked upon this exercise to also investigate all possible avenues for such an alternative to be available. And the Double Slit Experiments with their supposed "Wave/Particle Duality" cried out for a substrate-based solution.

But, there was no discernable Substrate!

Clearly, if one existed, it would have to be totally undetectable, while also effectively functioning as a propagator of Electromagnetic Radiation. Whatever it was composed-of would have to be self-hiding while entirely capable of carrying quanta of electromagnetic energy.

It could only be a joint-particle, of the same basic model as the atom but composed of sub-units - opposite in every possible way, but capable of carrying energy also hidden within it. The obvious theoretical candidate had to be a mutually-orbiting pair consisting of:-

An Electron of ordinary matter and a negative charge


A Positron of antimatter and a positive charge.

These, being of the same size, they would share the same orbit, but always occupying the exact opposite positions within it.

Such a joint particle would be invisible, but could carry a quantum of energy by the promotion of its internal orbit!

But, why should that carried energy be only as a Quantum?

The answer to that question is also answered by this new particle, but only revealed in its crucial role as part of a Universal Substrate. So, before we go any further we should establish just how this joint, neutral particle could possibly form an effectible and affecting Substrate.

It doesn't seem possible for such a neutral particle to be capable of forming any kind of "connected-Substrate", but investigation of these particles, in very-close proximity to one snother, has shown, theoretically-at-least, that they can.

For, when very close together, the sub-particles of one such unit will transiently be able to affect those of another. Indeed, as the sub-particles orbit they will cause an oscillating attraction and repulsion affect upon the two involved overall Units. And, the consequence would be that units - getting close enough, would be captured into a loosely-connected form, termed a Paving! And, all participating units would oscillate about mean positions at fixed separations of all the units involved. This would make a bucket-brigade propagation of quanta possible at a fixed speed - the Speed of Light - "C".

Now, for those impatiently awaiting the Creation of the Quanta, we are finally approaching the point where an explanation can ultimately be delivered.

It concerns the various possible modes of the Paving! For, though the form described above will be the default mode of the Substrate Units in quiescent regions, it can very easily be dissociated into its components Units, which in the consequent free-moving form are usually termed Photons.

And, the same material interlopers that precipitated such a dissociation will also tend to drive them into Streams and even Vortices. And though those these modes will be usually temporary, there is one set of circumstances in which that will not be the case.

It is that inside all atoms! For there, the dissociating cause is an orbiting electron, which will constantly return, and re-affect the photons and the caused Vortices in every single orbit. The energy will come from the orbiting electron and into the photons and Vortices, but the orbit will decline somewhat, so that upon a certain orbit, the energy will be FROM the photons and Vortices and BACK into the orbiting electron.

And there will be only a small number of optimum orbits, which display a persisting balance, so become Stable: these are the Quantised Orbits for that atom! 

And hence, all transfers of energy changing these orbits will always be between that atom's stable orbits!

It is only in atoms where the specific quanta of energy are determined!

Issue 57: Natural Philosophy?

“What is Reality? Who is interpreting it? And how are they managing that?”

This series of papers by philosopher Jim Schofield takes a fresh epistemological look at modern science and offers a strong critique of contemporary theory and practice, from a staunchly materialist standing.

It does so both through a dialectical examination of the discipline’s assumed premises and their historical origins in early philosophy, and through close criticism of a series of lectures by prominent theoretical physicist Nima Arkani-Hamed.

19 February, 2018

The Photon

The Photon

Pure Energy Quantum or Undetectable Container?
Purely Formal Description or Material Explanation?

Clearly, such paradoxes, as appear in the subtitles of this paper, reflect the now universally-accepted, paradoxical properties of this crucial entity. For, current theories, based upon the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory insist upon such paradoxes as being absolutely-essential to the real nature of this entity, and of Sub Atomic Physics in general.

Perhaps the most incongruous of these ideas are the related phenomena of Pair Production and Pair Annihilation! For, in Pair Production, a high-energy Photon suddenly converts from being a Quantum of Pure Energy into TWO material particles - an ordinary matter Electron with a negative charge, and an antimatter Positron with a positive charge.

Clearly, an example of matter being created out of Pure Energy - initially in some non-material, yet finite and localised form, which, then, all by itself, converts into two material particles of "incompatible" matter-types, moving off in exactly opposite directions...


So, perhaps the opposite process of Pair Annihilation will help our understanding?

For, in Pair Annihilation, the encounter of an Electron and a Positron, immediately causes the destruction of these two well-defined material entities, in which their physically-based properties, are converted into a Quantum - as a finite, localised concentration of Pure Energy - somehow retaining something of its previous incarnation, but converted into "the possibility" of Electromagnetic Energy, which is traditionally described in terms of two interwoven, varying vectors - one electric and the other magnetic.


Now, if the reader finds all this somewhat confusing - join the club! For, it was precisely such inexplicable paradoxes which led to the abandonment of the prior Explanatory Physics, to be totally replaced by a purely Descriptive, Mathematical alternative.

For, the new non-explanatory form could still be effectively used! It could predict, in a new way, with remarkable accuracy - and with the still major persistence of Pragmatism, as a long-relied-upon means of getting-around contradictions, physicists found that the prior requirement of also coherently-and-physically explaining phenomena, could be jettisoned for a pure mathematical consistency instead, which, henceforth, replaced Explanation as a sufficient "Theory"!

But, two immediate questions present themselves:-

1. Is such a change philosophically sound?
2. Is there a different physical explanation?

Now, there is an immediate answer to Question 1, which also explains a great deal more than we are considering here. To carry it through with sufficient philosophical rigor would be a significant undertaking. So, the briefest answer will have to suffice here (though a full treatment is available from this theorist elsewhere).

Ever since the breakthroughs of the Ancient Greeks, Mankind has had to manage with an incompatible amalgam of basically contradictory philosophic stances. Indeed, the prior major intellectual stance of Pragmatism was retained, but overlain, first, with Idealism and Plurality (from their invention of Mathematics), and then with Materialism from early observational Science. There was no avoiding inevitable contradictions, and a powerful blinkering to restrict study to exclusively actual or man-made Stabilities, and ignoring qualitative change as being solely due to mere quantitative accumulation. Finally, their development of Formal Logic was also damaged by the very same premise-extractions from Mathematics.

Such a basis was always, and still is, inadequate to the tasks presented to scientists by Development, Evolution and the emerging Nature of Reality at the Sub Atomic Level. The unavoidable contradictions proved just too much, and without a real philosophical solution, they just dropped the "culprit" of Physical Explanation completely.

Now, as to question 2!

There is, in fact, an alternative Physical Explanation, which certainly explains both Pair Production and Pair Annihilation, which I will touch on here. And, when extended beyond these phenomena and involving different components, seems to offer a full refutation to Copenhagen in general.

It involves the combination of an Electron and a Positron into a stable joint particle!

This is usually discounted due to the universally accepted tenet that matter and antimatter mutually annihilate one another on contact to deliver Pure Energy: but what if they mutually orbit one another instead?

We know it can happen because of the Positronium - a mutually-orbiting pair of precisely these two entities, as was observed in the Tevatron at Fermilab, but in that accelerator, what was produced never survived for long!

The alternative is a sufficiently stable version of that joint particle, which I have re-named the Neutritron.

So what do we get?

It appears to be a very small, wholly neutral particle with no magnetic dipole moment. It will therefore be undetectable in almost all circumstances, but, nevertheless, it is capable of having its internal orbit promoted by absorbing energy. And, if it is then moving freely it appears to us as a physical Photon!

Also, if too much energy is absorbed, it is clear that such an entity will dissociate into its component units - giving us Pair Production too.

Remarkably, this theorist has also established that in spite of its neutrality it can form a weakly-associated Substrate, termed a Paving, for, in very close proximity to one another, two Neutritrons can experience an oscillating attraction and repulsion, due to the effects of the orbiting sub-particles in one affecting those in the other. Indeed, as this only occurs within a small, fixed distance apart, the Paving seems an ideal medium for the propagation of quanta of Electromagnetic Energy, travelling from unit-to-unit in a bucket-brigade fashion, giving us the fixed Speed-of-Light!

Further, investigations have enabled this Theory to explain ALL of the anomalies of the Double Slit Experiments too.


Dissociations of the Paving into free-Moving Neutritrons (Photons) has also allowed driven streams of these units and even Vortices, which when associated with orbiting electrons in atoms, can physically explain Quantised Orbits - without the need for Planck's Constant and the rest of the Copenhagen "theories".

[With thanks to Yves Couder for his earlier Walker Experiments, with his revealing of similarly-caused Quantised orbits at the Macro Level in a "Substrate-only" Experiment]

Yves Couder's experiment shows the potential for a physical substrate to explain quantum phenomena

As a postscript, I cannot omit the extension of this Theory to include both Magneton and Graviton units of such a Universal Substrate, which are fast removing all the anomalies of Fields - which become re-arrangements of the Substrate.

17 February, 2018

Quantum Riddles

Robert Spekkens
Critique of Quantum Theory

Let me start by saying what Spekkens doesn't address, not I must emphasize as a criticism of his findings, which are excellent!

But, via criticisms, which I make, at a much more basic philosophical level, of the general approach in thinking since the Greeks, and in Physics Theory, since the victory of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory at Solvay in 1927.

For, my criticisms are concerning the major flaws in the underlying premises of both Mathematics, and Formal Logic, and what they have been doing, and still do today, to what we call Physics Theory.

These I have dealt with in detail elsewhere.

Nevertheless, Spekkens critique of the means used in Quantum Theory does not run counter to the more basic critique I take. His criticisms are confined to Quantum States and Probability Theory, which he correctly equates to only our incomplete knowledge of what is going on, rather than the Nature of what is actually happening in Reality - they are essentially philosophical questions rather than Physics Theory!

Clearly, for the best delivery of Spekkens findings, I can only strongly recommend the watching of his Perimeter Institute Public Lecture on his version of the means used in Quantum Theory, which he likens to "The Riddle of the Sphinx"

Nevertheless, as my intention is to demolish The Copenhagen Interpretation totally, and also, at the more basic level involved, rescue Human Thinking from the simultaeously applied, contradictory amalgam of philosophical stances - namely those of Materialism, Idealism and Pragmatism, particularly with respect to the mistaken Principle of Plurality - I can only say "Congratulations!" to Spekkens, with the rider, "It is not yet enough!"

09 February, 2018

Hudson and Keen: The New Economics

The works of Michael Hudson and Steve Keen are demonstrating the limitations of only looking backwards to Marx's Das Kapital as the sole means of understanding contemporary Capitalist Economics. For, though Marx's contributions were both brilliant and revealing, they did reflect not only Capitalism as it was then, but also Marx's understanding of it at that time, as well as his approach!

For, though, due to his revolutionary Dialectical Materialist philosophical stance, he was able to see things more clearly than all other economists of his time, Capitalism was not, and is not, a fixed and unchanging system: it certainly developed due to its own internal contradictions and its own significant transforming effects it had upon the World. Indeed, already by later in the 19th century, it had so expanded across the World that Lenin had finally to explain its effects in his book Imperialism, and, of course, further, often devastating changes have been frequently unavoidable since then. Clearly, as with all such systems, the nature of Capitalist Economics isn't fixed, but changes due to its own internal developments, and the responses of active participants to maintain, amplify or even safeguard what they are able to extract from it!

So, after the major slump in the 1930's, by the 1970's the crises within Capitalism were changing, which necessitated a remarkable increase in Debt at all levels to delay an ultimate terminal decline. It was, in one sense a return to the old pre-Capitalist rentier methods of accumulation, and rapidly began to replicate the vast Inequalities of wealth of that prior era, and it is this that Hudson and Keen have increasingly addressed over recent years.

Now, Democracy at Work in their Left Out series of YouTube videos have made available revealing interviews with both of these "new economists", while both Hudson and Keen have also written extensively, and also published via YouTube. Clearly, though this marxist philosopher (Jim Schofield) is making original contributions in Marxist Philosophy, especially with regard to Modern Sub Atomic Physics, he must recommend the current contributions of these economists as absolutely vital in the fight to overthrow Capitalism.