New SHAPE bookshop

The new SHAPE Journal bookshop

Issue 65: The Lepton Substrates

10 years SHAPE Journal presents Substrate Theory vol. 1

Read the issue

SUBSTRATE THEORY I: This issue of SHAPE Journal is the first in a two part bumper edition on Jim Schofield’s Substrate Theory, curated to mark the 10 year anniversary of this publication, and to finally bring together all of the crucial materials for this burgeoning physics.

Both issues feature photography series Alternating Current by Michael C Coldwell

This is a completely new approach to sub-atomic physics that hypothesizes the existence of as as-yet undetectable heterogeneous material substance, filling all of known space. Unlike its distant cousin, James Clerk Maxwell’s Aether Theory, this new Substrate conception can explain all Quantum phenomena, the anomalies of the Double Slit experiments, Wave/Particle Duality and its own strange illusivity.

Without wishing to sound hyperbolic, the ideas contained within these issues are nothing less than a revolution in science - a complete rethinking of contemporary physics from the ground up; commiting to the scrapheap of scientific progress much of the last century’s detour into a realm which we might call Quantum Ideality.

The near-total dominance of Mathematics in the field has lead us further and further away from the material reality we purport to study. The more advanced our technological solutions become, the more convoluted our route to truth, the more self-fulfilling our prophecies.

In Substrate Theory we see a genuine attempt to return physics to materialism, but also to try and explain materially, the many weird and wonderful phenomena we have observed at the Quantum Level. This is no simple return to the halcyon days of simpler classical physics, not a retrograde movement at all, but instead a new gesture towards a truly holistic study of the material universe - a methodology that eschews virtual particles, Quantum Entanglement and all manner of Mathematical constructions, which uniformally fail to explain the material causes of the most basic physical phenomena - gravity, the propagation of light across space, disembodied magnetic and electrical fields.

Saturation (2012) by Michael C Coldwell

While Substrate Theory certainly has the potential to upturn the entire apple cart of modern physics, the pieces of the puzzle still need assembling, even if all the elements have been devised.

This issue begins that process, collecting together various prior publications on the theory, and weaving them together into a coherent narrative. This is a somewhat difficult undertaking as the ideas are always evolving - the goal posts moving.

Our editorial solution to this problem is to split the task into two parts.

In the first installment, The Lepton Substrates, past papers on Substrate Theory are collected together in historical order, with some new editorial pointers mindful of when certain ideas were first published, at what point in the theory’s evolution certain assertions were made, and that some of the original ideas have been necessarily superceded, but are still required here to understand the theory in general.

All the foundation arguments and elements of Substrate Theory are explained and discussed here. From the original notion of ‘Empty Photons’ pervading all space we start to see what these entites might actually be. How pairs of mutually orbiting Lepton particles must be undetectable, but could easily pave ‘empty’ space. What those different Leptons are and how they can carry quanta of energy in orbits, passing them bucket-brigade across the universe. How quantised orbits may have a material explanation in a dialectical relationship between levels of the Substate.

Over the course of The Lepton Substrates the full picture begins to form and the unexplained contradictions of Quantum Theory start to fall like dominoes.

Imaginary Units (2012) by Michael C Coldwell

In the second part of this series, Towards the New Physics, we look beyond the nuts and bolts to the potentials, publishing Jim Schofield’s latest writing on Substrate Theory, which sees how the Universal Substrate can help tackle all the biggest questions in physics, from the Spacetime Continuum to the Uncertainty Principle, from Casimir Effect, Redshift, Time Crystals, Superfluids and Dark Matter, to Virtual Particles and the work of Frank Wilczek.

What becomes increasingly apparent in all this research is that even if this particular model of a Substrate is wrong, the basic premise that one exists is right. It has been the missing premise since 1927 - the invisible elephant in the room of an ever-more esoteric Physics. Substrate Theory explains far too much to be ignored any longer, in a discipline which has all-but abandoned explanation for the most obscure of Mathematical games.

New logo based on El Lissitzky's Red Wedge

Welcome to SHAPE

Subscribe for free books

Join our mailing list here

Join SHAPE Journal today and receive a free copy of Jim Schofield's new book The Real Philosophy of Science.

Members will be notified in advance of new journal issues before they are published and will get free access to all our eBooks and online publications. 

Once signed-up we will send you the first book as either a PDF or ePub - it's up to you.

Membership is free and you can cancel any time - all we need from you is your name and email address. These will not be used for anything else, or passed on to anyone else, and your details will be deleted if you revoke your membership. By completing this form you are opting-in to joining our mailing list. We will send you a maximum of one email a month.

SHAPE videos

Visit our YouTube channel to see documentaries and animations made by SHAPE Journal.

100 issues of SHAPE Journal!

Issues 1-50

Special Issues 1-50

SHAPE Journal is proud to announce it's 100th Issue!

Issue 50 - Logic and Emergence

Read the issue

Taking issues and specials together this journal has now published 100 editions of cutting-edge marxist theory and science, since we launched back in 2009. This one has been compiled to celebrate that achievement and to initiate the vital discussion about where we go next.

This journal has become the primary outlet for the radical theories of philosopher Jim Schofield, whose seminal work The Theory of Emergence was published by SHAPE in July 2010, as Special Issue 1. Alongside his latest work on Logic, this important thesis is included here again, to reveal the trajectory of this work over many years, but also to demonstrate fully the profound limitations of Formal Logic when dealing with change, or the emergence of the entirely new.

In this challenging new work Jim looks at the dialectical resolution of contradictory concepts, via their natural appearances in concrete reality, predominantly within emergences.

The Contradictory Processes of Stability & Development

Introduction

In addressing Stability effectively, we must understand four sets of processes:-

I: How it originally emerges
II: How it finds a self-maintaining-Balance
III: How it is undermined and finally collapses
IV: How it then recovers from a Nadir of Dissociation

Now, in posing it in the above way, we are really positioning our analyses well beyond the particular contents of these important occurrences. We are, in fact, going beyond the Physics or Chemistry of what is happening, to a more general meta-dynamical-level, indeed the famous Dialectical Level.

But, though Dialectics releases us from the misleading bounds of the usually entirely pluralistically-pursued disciplines, it presents us instead with the currently hard-to-employ, and very different, holistic approaches demanded by Dialectics.

Indeed, the required answers will still have to be revealed in the appropriate primary discipline levels. They can, with a great deal of study, be wrested from the old pluralistically-studied areas, but only by transferring our basic assumptions and premises, to a very different dynamical perspective.

For, while traditional disciplines find all their Ground in-Stability-alone, Dialectics focuses our attention upon the determining Dynamics-of-Change occurring in real multi-factor situations. And, this-alone allows the understanding of real qualitative developments - those involving significant major changes, and even actual Creative Emergences delivering the wholly New!

Now, in spite of consolidating a few concepts at the Dialectical Level, to remain at that level can easily turn any analyses into mere, if dialectical, descriptions alone. Dialecticians, like Slavoj Žižek, do indeed describe a wide range of real world situations dialectically, but he regularly falls short of explaining anything in many of the areas he addresses.

I must concede that he does get closer to the mark in his "explanations", when dealing with Psychoanalysis, due to his admiration for, and study of Lacan, but, that is eminently possible without making the necessary transition from Idealism to Materialism: in other words both Žižek and Lacan remain as purely Hegelian Dialecticians - as idealists!"

Psychoanalysis; Dialectics; Idealism
https://experpractice.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/2013/08/07/zizek-how-to-read-lacan-ch5/

Žižek recently included a chapter on Quantum Physics in one of his books, which, without-a-doubt, proves the above point emphatically. For, his evident ignorance of Physics allowed him to claim that the currently dominant tendency in Sub Atomic Physics (embodied in the ill-famed Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory), as being "on the same side" as himself and other "Marxists".

As both a professional physicistand a Marxist, myself, I couldn't believe it, so I undertook a detailed critique (published as Special Issue 50 of SHAPE Journal in April 2017 on the Web), which exposed that ignorance very clearly, and also demonstrated that he is far from being a Marxist.

The lesson for this paper was emphatically proved! It isn't sufficient to apply Dialectics to a serious discipline, without being an expert in that area of study too. Indeed, absolutely all the principles established in the Meta-Discipline of Dialectics were initially discovered within a single particular discipline: and though that was initially only in Thinking (by the idealist Hegel), Marx's transference of all the gains achieved in Dialectics, into the very different Materialist Stance, extended the possibilities enormously!

He was able to apply them effectively in his primary area of study and qualifications, namely History, but in then turning his attention to Economics, he effectively had to become a professional Economist to carry it through. It literally took him the rest of his life, to complete that vital process.

You couldn't just apply general principles, as Žižek does, you had, always, to actually re-discover them, and in so doing, greatly enrich them via every new area addressed. And, as with all Materialist Theory, these too must be verified within Reality itself, to be also be justifiably included into the Higher realm of Dialectics.

Now, this introductory short paper cannot deliver a full account of all that is involved. But the work has been undertaken, and will soon be made available online.

Past relevant Issues of the SHAPE Journal already available are:-

Special Issue 1: The Theory of Emergences
Special Issue 3: The Theory of the Double Slit
Special Issue 48: The Limits of Žižek
Special Issue 50: Žižek's Ontology of Quantum Physics

It also might interest readers that we are imminently publishing the 100th Issue of SHAPE Journal
after eight years since our launch of

SHAPE Journal, SHAPE Blog & SHAPE Youtube Channel.

What is missing in Žižek’s Marxism?

When attempting to deal with someone like Žižek, you are constantly trying to cope with, both a way of thinking, and a whole consequent vocabulary, that are saturated, nay determined, by his still-idealist premises. He claims, of course, to be a Dialectical Materialist - a Marxist, but that is evidently just the coat-and-hat that he feels it necessary and comfortable to wear.

And, it is made even more difficult, when there are parts of his stance that you not only agree with, but would have to defend alongside him, against the massive consensus, which takes a very different position upon these shared premises.

The most evident shared premise is, of course, Dialectics. But, much more basic than that, is the shared subscription to the Principle of Holism, rather than the consensus belief in the exact-opposite - the Principle of Plurality.

The trouble is that Marxism, or more correctly Dialectical Materialism, was not totally and finally defined by Marx, for he had a Social Revolution to prepare-and-organize for, and much still had to be done to maximise the reach and power of this revolutionary attempt, to ultimately unify both Philosophy and Science, into a single coherent, comprehensive and consistent stance.

For, in spite of Michelet’s brilliant History of the French Revolution, the task not only required the full participation in such an epochal Event, but also the professional Knowledge and Understanding of a scientist, to be able to move towards a generalised, indeed, a true comprehensive stance.

And, the main trouble is with crude, basic Holism!

For Holism and Plurality are a Dichotomous Pair of alternative concepts - indeed, the extremes generated as the result of incomplete premises as Hegel himself had crystallised in his Dialectics - the more real-and-active alternative to Formal Logic, in dealing with Abstractions. Indeed, “Ultimate Holism” as embodied in “Everything affects everything else”, is true, but totally unusable, in almost all circumstances: for absolutely Nothing is fixed, and in its most basic application - absolutely everything changes along with everything else, all the time.

How could any sort of Reasoning be possible on that basis? And the answer is, “None!”.

The possibilities of a kind of Reasoning were, however definitely achievable with the opposite concept of Plurality. But, Plurality - as it is usually defined, is yet another crude concept, for it assumed that all elements to be used, in any way, MUST be fixed: so that they don’t change at all!

The cornerstones of Plurality are the ideal-fixed-forms of Mathematics, and the eternal Natural Laws of Physics. So, as long as these incorrect assumptions are made, some progress in dealing with complex mixes seem possible.

And, it certainly was in Mathematics, for a great deal of purely formal complication was, indeed, possible: a whole world of Pure Mathematics could be built.

But, it wasn’t our World!

Major “engineering” was necessary to make our real world fit-in with Plurality. In what became known as Science, literally nothing was possible, historically, until Mankind learned how to control, modify, and maintain limited situations to approximate to a pluralist state , but only for a given sought-for relation.

And, that wasn’t all! The Greeks not only gave us Pure Mathematics, but also Formal Logic - again made possible by making Statements fixed and unchangeable too!

Now, any thinking about these crucial areas had to be by Reasoning, and so it too was severely hog-tied by Plurality.

As before, it worked in “maintained circumstances”, where things were constant, but failed miserably, when things naturally changed into something else.

Now, the reader can imagine that these ideas could be pursued comprehensively, and we could and indeed would go a very long way, if I was to carry on with it.

But, this isn’t a treatise upon Epistemology, but merely “The trouble with Žižek”, and that is difficult enough!

Clearly, for him, and everyone else, crude Holism is a major problem, and his total solution, as you might expect, is Hegelian Dialectics. But, in dealing with quantum physicists, he cannot oppose them, as he should, with ‘The Full Monty’, so he uses a combined approach with Engels’ Dialectics of Nature methods of revealing resonances between Dialectics and unavoidable opposites in the Copenhagenists’ researches and theories: the “look we are the same” technique, while, at the same time accepting their idealist retreat from Materialism!

He can do it because that is his real position too - retreating from materialism into idealism at every turn!

Not himself being a real scientist, he cannot intervene, as a Dialectical Scientist would, by resorting to concrete Reality. He cannot do that because his Holism is of the crude type. He hasn’t had to, as a true Dialectical Materialist scientist would have to do, develop holism into a new Level involving long standing Stabilities, involving multiple processes, systems of processes and self-maintaining super systems that can then act, as if they are independent of context for long periods, but ultimately are, at first, just sorely-threatened, and then defeated by Crises, with an ultimate inevitable Collapse towards Chaos.

In other words, he should have further developed Dialectical materialism, first to explain why Stabilities occur, and then, how the major transformers of such seemingly permanent states - major changes usually termed Emergences, or in Social Organisation - termed Revolutions, can transform things radically!

How can I say this?

It is because I personally have done just that, via my:-

Truly Natural Selection
The Theory of Emergences
The Physical Theory of the Double Slit
The Theory of a Universal, yet undetectable, Substrate and my demolition of The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory via A Physical Explanation of Quantized Orbits
An Explanation of Energy Propagation though “Empty Space”
An Explanation of so-called Quantum Entanglement and Pair Creation and Pair Dissociation

That is what a real dialectical materialist scientist can do!

This paper is from our latest special issue of the Journal

Christmas Bumper Edition

Merry Christmas readers!

Here are TWO new issues of the journal for December.

Special Issue 47 - The Essential Universal Substrate

This issue is a discussion of the philosophical principals behind a new kind of 'aether theory' - one that is staunchly materialist but that transcends the pitfalls of classical physics. 

Issue 47 - Big Bang Dilemmas

Here is a new collection of papers examining some fundamental problems with the Big Bang theory, and the flawed philosophy of physicists that lead to it.

The Imperatives & Trajectory of Writing

A Muse by Scientist and Philosopher 

Jim Schofield

Having been a full-time writer, initially, of directed academic papers, and, thereafter, individual essays, for a developing period of almost nine years now, I am, in retrospect, interested in the unplanned trajectory that I have been directed upon by that experience.

Initially, my topics were extremely varied, not only coming from my later career in Further and Higher Education - as a Lecturer and Researcher in Computing, but also from many, much earlier phases, when I was involved in teaching Physics, Mathematics, Biology, Music and even Revolutionary Politics.

Though, I occasionally also wrote upon Art, it was as a practicing Sculptor that I put in the hours there, and though I did write extensively for a time, on Music, it was as a rather incompetent performer, and perhaps a somewhat better analyst, that I spent my time in that area.

Writing was an intellectual activity, and initially, was limited by my own current inadequate knowledge, though I always found that I had something to say upon the latest News, and upon articles in Scientific Magazines, the results initially were invariably just critical one-offs.

But, being aware of those inadequacies, I resolved to attempt to overcome them, and read a great deal to that end. And, crucially, as a life-long teacher, what gains I made for myself, I wrote up as if I was teaching a class - so my style was never very literary - with the none of the usual abundance of quotes, references and examples of relevant experience.

I saw writing as teaching, and delivered accordingly, as if I was there in front of a class (though I had to imagine for myself any puzzled expressions and probable consequent questions).

I invariably got an inordinate number of criticisms from "professionals", who felt it necessary to dismiss my "style", punctuation and incorrect language, as betraying clear unprofessional inadequacies. But, as a highly successful teacher for over 40 years, I felt that I knew better.

I was never attempting to earn a place in Academia, but merely to teach what I had learned.

Now, as a qualified computer expert, I had managed to land my perfect job - helping Higher Education researchers (across the whole range of disciplines), by both devising and delivering computer programs to help them with their work.

I wrote tailor-made and usually completely original software aids for research in disciplines as widely different as Engineering, Taxonomy, Control of complex testing and analysis machines, Nursing Care Plans, Mathematical Chaos, and I finally won a British Interactive Video Award, for The Dance Disc - a multimedia aid for the teaching of Dance Performance (all of these were, of course, only achieved along with top experts in the discipline-field involved).

The language I used, when talking with my co-workers, was exactly how I wrote, and, it always seemed to work very well.

What I am keen to communicate here, is how my writing changed over the years.

From the outset of the current, writing-only phase, I worked 7 days-a-week, 12 months-a-year for a minimum of 4 hours a day ( and often a lot more), and quickly reached the level of output of a "Paper-a-Day". I began to fill 80 page display books with printed versions of my work, which rapidly grew to over 150 volumes, at which point, I switched to much more capacious A4-size polythene boxes.

A current estimate of my writing is around 6 million words, and after only a couple of years into this phase, I (with the help of my son, Michael Schofield) had set up three dedicated websites, where my work was published.

The most important site was SHAPE Journal, which, by October 2016, had published 91 Issues, each containing around 6-10 original papers. It didn't take long for us to, in addition, publish what we called Specials, which were originally conceived as SHAPE Issues dedicated to a single theme.

Now, from the very beginning of this endeavour, I had been losing my sight: so changes to my writing facilities were regularly necessary.

Initially, I wrote on paper with a pen, but soon had to switch to a more readable fibre-tip marker, and enlarge my manuscripts. The second stage was always to type from the MSS into my computer, but, then, the text on screen became too small to see, so a bigger screen became a regular update. And latterly, I couldn't even read my own manuscripts, so I switched to direct-typing-in, using a truly mammoth screen.

Another development in method was also derived from teaching, for I frequently changed course within a lesson, as a response to evident problems and questions - and, following an unresolved question, I even made sure I had cracked it by the next lesson.

So, when writing, I had to be my own sternest critic, particularly during a reading of what I had just produced, so necessary additions were then carried out, and inserted within the prior text. Many times, it was incomplete premises, assumptions, or prior ideas that were mistaken or even missing, so resolving these, produced Prefaces and Introductions, and topics often stretched into series of related papers. 

Perhaps the most important development was the Necessary-Interruption-Technique - where I realised the need for a necessary area of work. So, I immediately suspended the current writing, and diverted to researching the as yet unresolved question that was required, before I could complete the prior paper. But, most directly-available information was rarely an Explanation, so I regularly had to sit down and think it through for myself.

Brief notes helped guide my later writing, but clearly the Thinking Sessions were becoming more and more vital. The gathering of mere Knowledge was clearly insufficient!

In the present World Knowledge has, indeed, become the main objective, but that is surely NOT the main purpose of Education: that is now, and always has been, the Understanding of phenomena.

In addition to "How?", we have also know "Why?"

Instead of the mere dissemination of prior Knowledge, the emphasis changed markedly to explaining why things behaved as they did, and my writing became Original Theoretical Research.

As a qualified physicist, I tackled the infamous Double Slit Experiments, in Sub Atomic Physics, and managed to arrive at a comprehensive Explanatory Theory, at variance with the now consensus Copenhagen Interpretation.

In research into the work of the philosopher GWF Hegel, and his famous student Karl Marx, I finally arrived at an original Theory of Emergences.

And, elsewhere, also managed enhancements to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, as well as significant improvements in Stanley Miller's famous Primeval Atmosphere Emulation Experiment, which had naturally generated the absolutely vital amino acids in less than a week.

Having had a very wide experience over a long career, I was able to not only write, but also make original contributions across a range of disciplines, and despite my increasing blindness (I have advanced Macular Degeneration), I have accelerated my rate of production considerably.

In the coming Summer (2017) we will celebrate with the 100th Issue of the SHAPE Journal online, which will be a Special - composed entirely of the Illustrations, Montages, Diagrams, Graphic Art and even YouTube videos - all selected or created by my son and colleague, Michael Schofield, who is currently studying for his Ph.D. in Photography at Leeds University, England.

It will be quite an issue!

Marxism & Physics POSTSCRIPT

Comrades wishing to equip themselves with the current developments in the Marxist method are directed to view Professor Richard D. Wolff's weekly and monthly updates on Economics - available on YouTube.

For more general philosophical coverage consult this blog, and the 7 years (84 Issues) of SHAPE Journal - an e-journal, all issues of which are available for free online.

SHAPE is very wide-ranging, with a great deal upon current developments in Marxist Philosophy, including the recent Theory of Emergences (i.e. Revolutions!).

JS

We're on Facebook

Selling books and joining Facebook whatever next... Don't worry we're not selling out to the man! Hopefully we'll reach out to some new people and get some interesting discussions going on our new Facebook page Shape Forum.

The Atom and the Substrate (book for sale!)

A limited edition, high quality print version of my Atom and Substrate work is now available to buy through Blurb books.

What if space isn't really empty? What if the entire universe is actually full of many different types of particles that we can't detect, even inside the atom itself? Jim Schofield's controversial new theory postulates that such a substrate exists and that its presence can explain the propagation of light through space, magnetism and even gravity. This publication is a print-to-order edition of the Shape Journal, compiling Special Issues 36 & 37 in one book.

The Atom and the Substrate by Jim Schofield | Make Your Own Book

Buy the book

Big Blip: Seeking Answers in the Knacker’s Yard

The Rejuvenated LHC?

In yet another celebration of the Large Hadron Collider, on the occasion of its resuscitation after a two-year refit, New Scientist (3022) recently proffered an article by Elizabeth Landau entitles The Big Blip.

It is a muse about what may be discovered by the updated device, and the possible questions posed on the consensus standard model of the collection of “fundamental particles" in the Sub Atomic realm, the by the confidently expected “new evidence”.

A major concern seems to be about matter and antimatter – indeed concerning a purely theoretical concept of their differences and origins. In what has become the usual theoretical route, these were defined to match known evidence, but without any idea as to why they came to be.

And, using this prodigious machine, an experiment has been devised to reveal more evidence, and enable its encapsulation into yet more formalist relations - NOT, I must emphasize, as any sort of physical explanation, but merely as a set of formalisms which can be massaged (via the usual methods) to fit the revealed evidence.

It is important to consider such events and their purposes, knowing that explanation in general had long ago been abandoned as mere self-kid. (In 1927 at Solvay the significant turn was made). And, thereafter, the only accepted, reliable encapsulation of what was found, were a zoo of fundamental particles, and various formalisms about them embodied in mathematical equations.

And, with such a “revolution”, the means for further study unavoidably narrowed into a series of ever more powerful Accelerators (Colliders), of which the LHC is the latest and most powerful version. In addition, the methodology was also similarly restricted solely to smashing up such entities to see what they might be made of.

Indeed, such a History has produced a unique realm of concepts and rules, which are worked out by very competent mathematicians on blackboards – effectively working exclusively in abstractions. It has produced a compelling realm, which is necessarily compilation in its own realm, and is situated a very long way from the believed basis of the preceding Classical Physics.

The main imperative has been to reveal the Origins of Reality itself solely in terms of these ultimate, descrete and abstract entities – to supposedly lay bare the true determining basis for absolutely everything.

It is, of course, a lost cause! And, the reason is that it has become no longer a study of Reality, but something very different indeed. It is a study of abstract concepts, elicited from certain phenomena, but most definitely NOT a comprehensive and meaningful extraction, but, on the contrary, a selection according to a set of formal criteria, leaving absolutely everything that doesn’t so conform behind. Consequently it necessarily becomes a study of an entirely Formal World with the narrowest of connections with Concrete Reality.

Indeed, if you are to subscribe to this approach, you will no longer be investigating Reality-as-is, but, instead, only addressing a selection of simplified and idealised extractions, which are usually ONLY obtainable from intensively-farmed Domains within Reality. So, clearly, what is then studied in current Sub Atomic Physics is a version of that very same Formal World – the realm of Pure Form alone, which is termed Ideality, and served by its methodology, which we call Mathematics!

Yet, in spite of truly gigantic amounts of funds, resources and competent mathematicians, all invested into experiments such as those on the LHC, it certainly cannot be said that the original source, Reality itself, has been clearly defined.

On the contrary, the only way that the theorists involved have coped is by the adoption of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, due initially to Bohr and Heisenberg, which embraces a supposed Reality with Wave/Particle Duality at its very heart, and Formal Description, which is deemed to be more profound and even determining than any attempted Physical Explanation.

Indeed, a “New World” is said to exist down there, which cannot be dealt within any other way, and most particularly not in the “old ways” applied universally before the quantum! And, this essentially different realm must henceforth be dealt with solely according to the bases, assumptions and methods of Copenhagen.

Of course, it is also true that many of the premises and principles of Classical Physics were, indeed, wholly inadequate in these deeper investigations of the nature of Reality. Yet, instead of solving the evident shortcomings of that established approach, the denizens of Copenhagen turned the other way, and “on principle” looked solely to Forms as the true essential drivers of absolutely everything.

But, clearly such things are ONLY abstractions from Reality, mostly carefully arranged-for, to enable reliable predictions in given contexts, and which are totally unable to explain properties and causes.

Indeed, without a moment’s doubt, equations are now seen as the actual “causes” of phenomena, rather than being merely formal descriptions of them. Clearly, Copenhagen and its whole consequent realm is entirely an idealist retreat!

In the next few weeks, two new Special Issues of the SHAPE Journal will be published, which explain Quantization in a very different, physical and materialist way. 

Part I of The Atom and the Substrate is now available.

Why Do Models Work?

“The Cognitive Art of Feynman Diagrams” by
Edward Tufte - installation at the Fermilab art gallery

Why Analogistic Models Contain Significant Content

Without a doubt the actual content of analogistic models has to be the key to their relevance in scientific explanation. For though they are clearly never fully accurate descriptions, and certainly also are always less than totally accurate explanations of the phenomena they are used to tackle, they are also never totally arbitrary inventions, they must contain something objective about the modelled situation.

Let us attempt to reveal what their contained objectivity can be.

Now, though we can, and do, insist that they are analogues for what we are investigating, they are not, and could never be, 100% accurate – containing a full set of one-to-one mappings, they are intrinsically similar situations, and they, therefore, reflect the common sequences, and kinds of entities and properties found throughout Reality quite naturally.

Perhaps surprisingly though, even artificial analogistic models can also be profitably constructed to aid in the understanding of newly addressed phenomena, as long as the constituents involved are taken from concrete evidence of possible components occurring elsewhere in concrete Reality. The method then is to involve such initially unrelated elements into a model, expressly to deliver the actually noticed properties of the thing that you are attempting to explain. Indeed, even more surprisingly, it is often these kinds of analogistic models that deliver the most profound insights, and can also demolish false assumptions dramatically. I will definitely include the mention of such a model later in this paper.

So, let us start by looking at a series of valuable examples of various kinds of analogistic models. James Clerk Maxwell’s famous model of the Ether (that was then presumed to fill all of the Empty Space in the Universe) was just such an informed and creative construct. He knew about many kinds of phenomena, which he had to explain, and the usual simple (and magical) Ether was just too vague to explain anything adequately for him. So, knowing what he wanted to produce from his model, he brought together (without any evidence) the sorts of constituent that might, if appropriately organised, deliver what hew knew was necessary. He adventurously constructed “vortices” and “electrical particles” into an analogistic model, and from this he managed to deliver his famous equations of electromagnetic radiation.

His model did not by any means reveal the actual form of the Ether, and his constructs didn’t exist as such, but his model delivered a great deal more than any of its predecessors, and even more than he designed it to deliver. His resultant Equations were revolutionary. Now, before we explore why such “fictitious” models worked, let us look at some others. Einstein’s Space-Time continuum was also an analogistic model. Once again, no one could prove such a thing actually existed, but it did deliver what Einstein knew were properties that needed explanation. His famous Theory of Relativity was based upon this model, and many things, in addition to what he consciously put into it, which came out of his constructs have since been confirmed in Reality.

Even Niels Bohr’s original model of the structure of the atom with a central positively charged nucleus, surrounded by orbiting electrons in an entity which was mostly empty space, was taken from the Planet-moon systems observed in our Solar System. It was not a true description of it, but yet another analogistic model.

Once again, it defined far more than the models that it replaced, and that was again because it contained more real features within its conceived-of forms.

Even later, when confronted with a confusing maze of “fundamental particles”, Richard Feynman devised his famous Feynman Diagrams – they were, of course, the most abstract of analogistic models, and delivered what no other models could, namely what was called Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) – the most accurate and useable way of dealing with this amazing Particle Zoo.

And, there is, perhaps, the most audacious version of an analogistic model produced by Yves Couder in his attempt to find a new way of revealing the secrets of the sub atomic world, by modelling it in the Macro World out of unbelievable components. He revolutionised experimental physics by devising and constructing a model entirely out of silicone liquid and various vibrations, resonances and crucial recursions. He managed to create his famous “Walkers” entirely from the above, which was a kind of self-maintaining entity with properties closely comparable to those within the atom.

Finally, the author of this paper, confronted the anomalies of the famed Double Slit Experiments, decided to devise an undetectable Paving of Empty Space composed of undetectable particles – in fact mutually orbiting pairs, each consisting of one electron and one positron, which, because of their opposite matter types and electrostatic charges, became undetectable in this joint form. Yet, this paving actually fully explained the anomalies of the Double Slit Experiments without any recourse to the flights of fancy delivered by the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, when that is used as the sole dependable source for dealing with all sub atomic phenomena.

All the anomalies fell away! Nothing of idealist philosophy was needed to make sense of what occurred, the new materialistic, analogistic model of Empty Space did it without difficulty. [It was both as analogistic, and as artificial, as Maxwell’s model of the very same thing].

Needless to say, a barrage of criticism followed, either from the mechanical materialists of the old school, or from the idealists of the new school, with, as a banker, the fact that no such Paving had been physically detected! But, of course, that isn’t the point, is it? What is important has to be whether this analogistic model explained a great deal more than anything else could. Now, how can we explain these relative successes clearly based upon non-existing constructs?

Their value is that they are determined by the features in Reality to be explained – and, initially, at least, this can only be achieved by organising what is generally known into a purposely constructed model, aimed by using real features from elsewhere, into an amalgam, which delivered what was required. Such a model would never be the Absolute Truth, but it can be both intelligently and intelligibly constructed to contain more Objective Content – elements, parts or aspects of the Truth, than what it replaces. And in doing so, it makes the actual real phenomenon more understandable: and also by crucially revealing things that were absent previously, makes further developments more likely, if only by establishing a whole new kind of model, which allows us a great deal more to consider with some aspects real, and others intelligent placeholders for what has yet to be revealed. But, why should these analogies even be available? Why should such similar (though possibly also profoundly different) resonances occur in such different contexts? The answers must be contained in what it is that is similar in all phenomena, and hence possible everywhere in one way or another?

We really have to address the question, “What is common throughout all possible phenomena that always guarantees that such analogies will certainly exist?” It must be that they are all – every single one of them, always produced as the result of many different, simultaneous factors, which will always come together into overall situations of Stability (if only temporary). Form the possible results of such complexities, when the factors present are NOT separable, eternal laws, but on the contrary, mutually interacting and modifying arrangements, which will finally settle into a selfmaintaining overall stability.

Clearly, features will become present which are a result of this higher level of stability, and hence about how such mutually modifying factors arrive at such a state. Such properties will be true, at least at the abstract level, of all such systems. Indeed, when you think about it, it is likely that all phenomena are such! The search for fundamental particles and their basic eternal laws is therefore a pluralist myth. No matter which “law” you choose to address, it is certain to be the stability reached by multiple factors at an even lower level! The aims of pluralist Sub Atomic Physics are impossible to achieve, with the assumptions and principles that underlie the entire area of study.

The Principle of Reductionism is clearly based entirely upon Plurality, and hence assumes that Analysis will be always possible, all the way down to its targeted Fundamental Particles. These suggested analogistic commonalities seem to indicate very different relations could be expected to get to such stabilities in very similar ways. Such things as spins and orbits are likely to occur at all levels, as are things like vibrations, resonances and recursions. It is very likely that this is what we are settling upon with our analogistic models. Not ultimately Absolute Truths, but commonly occurring natural resonances, which we term as Common Objective Contents.

This article has been taken from the new special issue of the Shape journal Analogistic Models III

Excuse me, I think you have it the wrong way round!

Göbekli Tepe

According to the editorial in a recent New Scientist (3014), it seems that I am what it calls a "secularist", and one who invalidly imposes an economic imperative onto the evolution of mankind.

Whereas in the opinion of this editor the discoveries at Göbekli Tepe, along with more recent Mayan findings, "prove" that what we call civilisation was a direct result of changes in religion. In that very short piece absolutely zero reasons are provided as to why all the achievements of the Neolithic revolution - from Farming, Animal Husbandry, Pottery, Weaving, Writing and all the rest, could have come solely from some religious imperative. What rubbish!

Nobody can doubt that ancient hunter/gatherers would have had some sort of religion, and that such beliefs would have given them confidence when shared with others, certainly aiding their survival. But to make such a cerebral change the reason for the emergence of civilisation is actually laughable. In those days there were almost as many languages as there were tribes, so social belief systems across significant populations (religions) could not develop. And to say that such beliefs were the causes and mainsprings of civilisation, and the above-detailed revolution, is to say the least, amazingly ignorant of real processes of qualitative development. Something else was needed to make larger social groupings viable, in order for such things to develop.

Primarily you have to be able to explain why human beings could economically remain in one place, and not only survive, but actually prosper. The density of population possible with hunter/gatherers was very low indeed, for there simply wasn't enough food in any single place for a collection of peoples to settle. Exceptions to this norm did exist, but they were both rare and temporary. 

Lascaux

In the south of France following the last Ice Age, herds of animals moved north through a narrow valley to summer pastures and returned the same way in autumn. Here it was possible for hunter/gatherers to exploit this bounty and remain in one place and flourish. The cave paintings at Lascaux demonstrate this - an always-travelling group could never have achieved such a wealth of images in one place, they wouldn't have been anywhere long enough to develop such rituals.

But such things are not only exceptional cases, they never lead to the larger populations required for civilisation. When we address the development of mankind in general, we simply cannot establish such revolutionary changes, as are embodied in a universal concept like civilisation, upon such rare exceptions.

The gains had to be long-lasting, and in the modern parlance, sustainable. 

So, the only general explanation for static villages, and ultimately cities and civilisation, was agriculture. The most important settlements were always near rivers, allowing possible irrigation (or flooding), replenishing the fertility of the land. 

May I roundly condemn such an editorial in a supposedly scientific magazine as positively reactionary?! To say that religion lead to these developments is, at best, confusing cause and effect. This so-called "secularist" prefers his own, more accurate self-description - a scientist.

I have written about Göbekli Tepe before, as it is certainly a very important site in these matters. The piece appears in Special Issue 24 of Shape Journal and offers a critique of the philosophy and method of contemporary archaeologists who seem to have rejected an economic imperative for social development (see V. Gordon Childe) in exchange for a more idealistic, cultural cause.