Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A new paradigm for physics?, October 9, 2006
Reginald Cahill is attempting nothing less than a revolutionary paradigm shift in physics. It is to be accomplished by modeling time as a process instead of as a geometric line. The old geometric model captures some aspects of time, such as the notion of events in an order and the quantitative "length of time" between events, but it is unable to capture the fundamental distinction between the past and the future. "The past is fixed and at best partially recorded, while the future is undecided and certainly not recorded" (p. 12). The failure of physics to model time as a process led eventually to Einstein's conception of time as the fourth dimension of spacetime, the block universe whose future popped into existence as soon as the universe was formed, and gravity as a curvature of spacetime. Perhaps Cahill's most startling claim is that "the Einstein curved spacetime construct is without experimental support, that it actually never was confirmed by the key and celebrated experiments...," but it persists in the face of contradictory evidence because "the non-process paradigm has acquired the status of a belief system, as distinct from a science..." (10-11). Process physics does support the relativistic effects of special relativity (time-dilation and length contraction), but places them within a different theory of time, space and gravity. Cahill says that quantum effects also emerge naturally from process physics.
Process physics models reality as a "self-organizing semantic information system," whereas non-process models are merely syntactical. For example, a Turing computing machine is a syntactical system in the sense that the information held by the machine is meaningless to the machine itself. My word processor doesn't understand what I write, although hopefully I do! A syntactical system is just a set of objects acted upon by other objects, and such a system can be modeled with a set of symbols to represent the objects and a set of rules describing their interactions. As biologist Robert Rosen has written, "the formalist position, that the universe of discourse needs to consist of nothing more than meaningless symbols pushed around by definite rules of manipulation, is exactly parallel to the mechanical picture of the phenomenal world as consisting of nothing more than configurations of structureless particles, pushed around by impressed forces" (Life Itself, p. 7). Rosen has argued that this framework is inadequate for understanding living systems, let alone human minds. Now Cahill is arguing that it is inadequate for understanding reality in general.
If one takes seriously the notion that the future is less defined than the past, then one may regard reality as a process of ongoing self-definition, with each "now" an occasion of self-definition. We need a model of an information system that can actively use the information within itself to further define itself, continually constructing its future out of its past. Thinkers in the humanities and social sciences have described human minds and cultures this way. Cahill is trying to model all of physical reality as such a semantic system. He models it mathematically as a stochastic neural network whose nodes are sub-networks of the same kind, ad infinitum (no "bottom" or beginning of reality being supposed), and whose iterations within a nonlinear dynamic process capture the notion of process time. The fundamental equation describing the matrix iterations includes a noise factor that "limits the self-referential relational information but, significantly, also acts in such a way that the network is innovative in the sense of generating semantic information...." (p. 24). So the system never stops defining itself. From this mathematical foundation, he proceeds to reformulate and extend fundamental physics, including a new theory of quantum gravity.
I am not a physicist, so I can't evaluate Cahill's physics as such. I am a sociologist interested in paradigm shifts, and I give Cahill high marks for addressing the problems with the prevailing scientific paradigm. How well his work will stand up to scientific scrutiny remains to be seen. Time (what else?) will tell.
|
|
|
3.0 out of 5 stars
Making Light Matter of Dark Matter, January 29, 2007
As we discovered reality physics, we discovered several barriers:
One of these was the LACK of effects of "Dark Matter".
Some of our experiments did not support existence of "Dark Matter".
We came across a leading-edge physics and science book in Process Physics that offered a possible reason for this:
Dark Matter could be a false hypothesis that misleads the "educated" away from flaws in accepted scientific theory.
This provided a possible explanation for results very different to those suggested by "leading" scientists.
Extreme Example :
If nothing travels faster than the speed of physical light, then how did some people accurately view portions of the 911 event of 11 September 2001 before it happened in the Earth physical plane ?
In context, implications of PP perspectives can suggest a history of science where, in the 19th century, the Theory of Darwin was all the rage in England and throughout the Commonwealth Empire (even as nuclear theories are widely specified in today's accepted scientific thought and investigation) yet scientific views are often contradicted, as if imagination, the "stuff dreams are made of", is the real substance of Creation, the real basis for Reality !
PP is probably a book Galileo would have been proud of, and perhaps, faced death threats, or termination of salary support, from the ruling religious elite of that day, or the ruling Czars of today's physical materialist science.
PP helped some of us break through some of the barriers laid down by the Thought Police of modern "science".
This book is perhaps best understood by scientific investigators, academics or students with adequate backgrounds in mathematics related to physics and quantum mechanics.
PP yields some very interesting, and mathematically challenging exercises, a revealing paradigm for examining the enigmatic Laws of Nature and inconsistencies of "popular science".
With the help of Process Physics, it can be conjectured that much of "modern science" is perhaps a religion of extreme physical materialism.
|
|
|
|
Visit our huge selection of magazine subscriptions often to see the latest special offers and bonuses. Check out magazines like
The New Yorker,
Wired, and
Vanity Fair. 
