Psychological interlude - Authority in Science

 Mistakes Were Made: Cognitive Dissonance

Carol Tavris, social psychologist, and Elliot Aronson, classified as one of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20^th Century, wrote in their bestselling book “Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)”¹

Cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs whenever a person holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent, such as "Smoking is a dumb thing to do because it could kill me" and "I smoke two packs a day." Dissonance produces mental discomfort, ranging from minor pangs to deep anguish; people don't rest easy until they find a way to reduce it.

“Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)”

They also wrote:

Naturally, not all scientists are scientific, that is, open-minded and willing to give up their strong convictions or admit that conflicts of interest might taint their research. But even when an individual scientist is not self-correcting, science eventually is.

It seems to me that our psychologists have made two mistakes here (though they can say: perhaps mistake were made, “but not by us”). First, when they wrote that science is “eventually self-correcting”, that was based on their wishful thinking, not on data. Some science is self-correcting, but there is no rational reason for believing that all science is such. Second, when they wrote about cognitive dissonance that “people don't rest easy until they find a way to reduce it”; that was also their wishful thinking plus lack of knowledge. They did not know about “Authoritarian Personalities”. Or they knew, but they suffered from cognitive dissonance and couldn’t deal with the idea that billions of people can hold contradictory ideas in their minds and feel no discomfort at all.

Right Wing Authoritarianism

Let me quote from the Cambridge Dictionary of Psychology²: “Authoritarian personality”, and “Authoritarian followers”. According to the dictionary:

Authoritarian followers have the psychological characteristic known as right-wing authoritarianism. This personality trait consists of authoritarian submission, a high degree of submission to the established authorities in one’s society; authoritarian aggression, aggression directed against various persons in the name of those authorities; and conventionalism, a strong adherence to the social conventions endorsed by those authorities.

Right-wing authoritarianism (“right” comes from “lawful”) is measured on so called RWA scale. The Dictionary tells us that:

…. persons who get high RWA scale scores quite readily submit to the established authorities in their lives and trust them far more than most people do. They supported Richard Nixon to the bitter end during the Watergate crisis. High RWAs also believed George W. Bush when he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and they supported the war in that country long after others had signed off. High RWAs also are relatively willing to let authorities run roughshod over civil liberties and constitutional guarantees of personal freedom. They seem to think that authorities are above the law. (Italics, mine.)

The Cognition of Authoritarian Scientists

It seems that quite a number of scientists would score rather high on the RWA scale. Bob Altemeyer, one of the champions in the psychology of authoritarians, notices³ that authoritarians are characterized by a certain specific cognitive behavior:

Compared with others, authoritarians have not spent much time examining evidence, thinking critically, reaching independent conclusions and seeing whether their conclusions mesh with the other things they believe. (...) They carry a list of ‘false teachings’ and rejected ideologies in their heads. But they usually learned which ideas are bad in the same way they learned which are good – from the authorities in their lives. Highs are not prepared to think critically.

The Neural Basis of Motivated Reasoning

Let us take a look at the neural mechanisms of the Authoritarian Personality:

A recent imaging study by psychologist Drew Westen and his colleagues at Emory University provides firm support for the existence of emotional reasoning. Just prior to the 2004 Bush-Kerry presidential elections, two groups of subjects were recruited - fifteen ardent Democrats and fifteen ardent Republicans. Each was presented with conflicting and seemingly damaging statements about their candidate, as well as about more neutral targets such as actor Tom Hanks (who, it appears, is a likable guy for people of all political persuasions). Unsurprisingly, when the participants were asked to draw a logical conclusion about a candidate from the other - 'wrong' - political party, the participants found a way to arrive at a conclusion that made the candidate look bad, even though logic should have mitigated the particular circumstances and allowed them to reach a different conclusion. Here's where it gets interesting.

When this 'emote control' began to occur, parts of the brain normally involved in reasoning were not activated. Instead, a constellation of activations occurred in the same areas of the brain where punishment, pain, and negative emotions are experienced (that is, in the left insula, lateral frontal cortex, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex). Once a way was found to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted, the neural punishment areas turned off, and the participant received a blast of activation in the circuits involving rewards - akin to the high an addict receives when getting his fix.

In essence, the participants were not about to let facts get in the way of their hot-button decision making and quick buzz of reward. 'None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged,' says Westen. 'Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones'...

Ultimately, Westen and his colleagues believe that 'emotionally biased reasoning leads to the "stamping in" or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating the participant's "revisionist" account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data,' Westen says. Westen's remarkable study showed that neural information processing related to what he terms 'motivated reasoning' ... appears to be qualitatively different from reasoning when a person has no strong emotional stake in the conclusions to be reached.

The study is thus the first to describe the neural processes that underlie political judgment and decision making, as well as to describe processes involving emote control, psychological defense, confirmatory bias, and some forms of cognitive dissonance. The significance of these findings ranges beyond the study of politics: 'Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret "the facts."'⁴

1Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, “Mistakes Were Made (but not by me)”, HARCOURT, INC, 2007

2David Matsumoto, “Cambridge Dictionary of Psychology”, Cambridge University Press, 2009

3Bob Altemeyer, “The Authoritarian Specter”, Harvard University Press, 1996

4Cited by Barbara Oakley in “Evil Genes”. Study found here: 

To be continued

P.S.1. An example of non-authoritarian thinking

A Stanford University professor and renowned ufologist confidently declared that not only have aliens visited Earth, but they have “been here a long time.”

P.S.2. Worth repeating

P.S.3. 

Frankel ("Geometry of Physics" and "Gravitational Curvature") is good but not mathematically precise enough. Walking upon my rope I stumbled upon Georges de Rham, "Differentiable manifolds. Forms, Currents, Harmonic Forms." Walking along right now. So much to learn!

P.S.4. The monograph Gross, P. Robert Kotiuga - "Electromagnetic theory and computation_ a topological approach-Cambridge University Press (2004)" has a nice mathematical Appendix:

Mathematical Appendix: Manifolds, Differential Forms, Cohomology,

Riemannian Structures 215

MA-A Differentiable Manifolds 216

MA-B Tangent Vectors and the Dual Space of One-Forms 217

MA-C Higher-Order Differential Forms and Exterior Algebra 220

MA-D Behavior of Differential Forms Under Mappings 223

MA-E The Exterior Derivative 226

MA-F Cohomology with Differential Forms 229

MA-G Cochain Maps Induced by Mappings Between Manifolds 231

MA-H Stokes’ Theorem, de Rham’s Theorems and Duality Theorems 232

MA-I Existence of Cuts Via Eilenberg–MacLane Spaces 240

MA-J Riemannian Structures, the Hodge Star Operator and an Inner

Product for Differential Forms 243

MA-K The Operator Adjoint to the Exterior Derivative 249

MA-L The Hodge Decomposition and Ellipticity 252

MA-M Orthogonal Decompositions of p-Forms and Duality Theorems 253

To be read next.

P.S.5. Started writing "Notes on Aether Theory". Will be making them available, piece by piece. The idea is to write one page a day. First we need some tools. Here is the first page.

P.S.6. It came to my attention that some Readers trying to access my blog are getting the message

 "website blocked due to reputation... "

That means someone must have denounced my blog to the "authorities". Someone doesn't like my writings? Or some other reason?

P.S.7.  Robert Malone, The New Inquisition of Scientism

Quantum Magic - Incoherent Decoherence

In my speculations about future physics I will be talking a lot about quantum theory; therefore it would only be fair for me to introduce the subject properly right now, so that my position about the whole subject is clear. 

Can Adam Warlock actually use magic?

Though there are infinitely many ways in which theory can be introduced, I will choose a way that, I think, is somewhat unusual. I will start with making fun of a representative collection of papers published in a book “Decoherence and the Appearance of Classical World in Quantum Theory”. 

“Decoherence and the Appearance of Classical World in Quantum Theory”, 

K. Giulini, E. Joos, C. Kiefer, J. Kupsch, I.O. Stamanescu, H.D. Zeh, 

Springer, 1996

Although the book was published in 1996, not much has changed since then, especially when it comes to the confusion that accompanies the subject.

Erich Joos: Surely You are Joking?

The book is really funny (though being funny was probably not intended by the authors) from the very beginning. Right at the start of the introduction, written by Erich Joos, a theoretical physicist (PhD from the University of Heidelberg in 1983), one of the world champions of the “decoherence program, and the owner of the Decoherence Website “decoherence.de”, we see what this expert has to say about the most wonderful theory of all physics – the quantum theory:

Today there seem to be no phenomena which contradict quantum theory – perhaps with the sole exception that there are definite (“classical”) phenomena at all!

Was this intended to be a joke? What kind of a joke? A cruel one? A childish one? Or a silly one? Or, perhaps, all three together? On, the other hand, perhaps it is not a joke at all. Perhaps that is exactly what was in the author’s mind, and what is in the minds of the majority of physicists. I keep my mind open in this respect, but let us analyze the statement above starting with the word “phenomena”, or, more exactly “definite phenomena”. What are these? According to the New Oxford American Dictionary

A phenomenon (from Greek φαινόμενoν), plural phenomena, is any observable occurrence.

English Wikipedia adds to the above:

In scientific usage, a phenomenon is any event that is observable, however common it might be, even if it requires the use of instrumentation to observe, record, or compile data concerning it.

So, anything that occurs, anything that happens, any event, or collection of events, that is just observable, not even necessarily observed, is a phenomenon. And, once it has happened, it is certainly definite! Therefore, according to Erich Joos, literally everything in the Universe contradicts quantum theory, and yet he says that “Today there seem to be no phenomena which contradict quantum theory”!

How can a mind tolerate such a contradiction within? Are we dealing here with one of those (medically highly interesting) cases where the right brain is not communicating with left brain? Or, perhaps, this kind of incoherent reasoning is caused by “environmentally induced decoherence”? Or, maybe, we are dealing with a “cognitive dissonance” case?

"What is the simplest way to define cognitive dissonance?

Cognitive dissonance is a mental conflict that occurs when your beliefs don’t line up with your actions. It’s an uncomfortable state of mind when someone has contradictory values, attitudes, or perspectives about the same thing."

To be continued 

P.S.1 For some reason three of my own papers (two with Ph. Blanchard) are quoted in this funny book:

P.S.2. What is a "phenomenon"? Here is an example:

Glenn Gould plays a Mozart rarity

Here is another example:

“When you are grateful, fear disappears and abundance appears"

-

@TonyRobbins

Of course negative thoughts create ripples of negative energy. Evil creatures are then crawling out of the cracks in the Reality stuff. We are responsible for our thoughts as they affect the whole universe. This is a thought. 

P.S.3. Still trying to understand the "ohmic resistance of the aether (aka vacuum)". Reading to this end Post's  <a href="https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?"> "Mach's Principle in a Mixed Newton-Einstein Context.</a>. It is written in a way that I fail to understand. Went from there to study a beautifully written book by Theodore Frankel "The Geometry of Physics", Chapter 2.8. Orientation and pseudoforms. Post refers to de Rham instead. But de Rham is unnecessarily complicated. Frankel Ch. 2.8-2.10 and 3. Integration of differential forms, is much more clear and still mathematically precise.

P.S.4. I have finished my review of a book (by G. Koczan) for the publisher. Sent out on Saturday. Here is the conclusion (translated from Polish):

"3 Summary

In conclusion, I state that the monograph "Defense of Aristotle's Physics" has all the hallmarks of an original and profound study dealing with an important yet controversial topic. Chapter 6 of this monograph is worth publishing in specialized journals of international scope, where it will certainly find due resonance.

The additions recommended by me should also be taken into account in the preparation of the final version of the monograph, the publication of which I recommend in good conscience.

It is not necessary for me to comment on the changes and additions made, since my private 

private correspondence with the author shows that he accepts critical remarks willingly, and the recommended changes are immediately implemented. In doing so, I rely entirely on the author's competence, the competence of which the reviewed monograph, with rich source support, is a great proof."

P.S.5. For only 20 E I ordered from Amazon "Gravitational Curvature: An Introduction to Einstein's Theory", Frankel, Theodore. The book has the so much needed chapter:

9 Electromagnetism in Three-Space and Minkowski Space 99

Twisted Forms and the Vector Product 99

E, B, and the (Heaviside-) Lorentz Force in Three-Space 100

Electromagnetism in Minkowski Space 102

Integration of Twisted Forms 103

The Charge-Current Three-Form in Minkowski Space 105

The Hodge *-Operator 106

The Laws of Gauss and Ampere-Maxwell 108

Faraday's Law and the Absence of Magnetic Monopoles 112

Real Scientists Do Speculate!

 In 1962 an interesting book appeared: “The Scientist Speculates: An Anthologyof Partly-Baked Ideas”, of David Bohm, Arthur Koestler, Michael Polanyi, Harlow Shapley, etc.; edited by Irving John Good, Alan James Mayne, John Maynard Smith. The book contains a lot of “partly baked ideas” from all domains of science. In particular, we can find there “The Dimensions of Consciousness” (Dennis Gabor), “Clues to an Understanding of Mind and Body” (Michael Polanyi), “Mind and Consciousness” (Cyril Burt), “Speculations concerning Precognition” (I. J. Good), “The Generation of Psychic Phenomena by 'Intelligent Networks'“(Michael Watson), “On the Threshold of a Transcendental Science” (A. K. Talbot), “A Possible Application of Extrasensory Perception in the Determination of Crystal Structure“ (S. C. Wallwork), “Precognition and Reversed Causality” (Alan J. Mayne), “A Proposed Topological Formulation of the Quantum Theory” (David Bohm), etc.

I am quoting so many examples in order to show that scientists, I mean real scientists which I define as those that are curious, do not refrain from speculations. All discoveries start with speculations, and one should not condemn a scientist when she/he speculates. But, of course, it is always good, though not always practically possible, to distinguish between a bona fide scientific contribution and a speculation. Moreover, speculations come in different qualities, though it is next to impossible to tell in advance which speculation will lead to progress, and which ones miss the target.

Eugene Wigner: The Mind-Body Question

One of the papers published in the book came from a Nobel Laureate in Physics,Eugene P. Wigner. Its title was “Remarks on the Mind-Body Question”, and the paper was addressing the question of whether human consciousness is somehow intrinsically and deeply related to quantum physics, whether it is unavoidable in the future development of physics. In short, Wigner concluded that consciousness may have an effect on physical phenomena, that this effect may be hard to detect, though many scientists would discard such phenomena. However, Wigner writes:

… every phenomenon is unexpected and most unlikely until it has been discovered-and some of them remain unreasonable for a long time after they have been discovered. Hence, lack of success in the past need not discourage.

These speculations of Wigner’s played an important role in the development of physics. They were even noticed by the U.S. military, probably because of their possible applications for artificial intelligence (see e.g. Howard E. Brandt, “Deconstructing Wigner’s density matrix concerning the mind-body question", Foundations of Physics Letters, Volume 15, Number 3, 287-292) They were also important for the path I chose myself, But to discuss them, to think about them, to use them as an inspiration for a scientific research, open-mindedness and curiosity are needed. And as we have seen, not all those employed by scientific institutions exhibit and use these important qualities.

René Descartes' illustration of mind-body dualism. 

Primas and Esfeld: Constructive Criticism of Wigner

Wigner’s paper about mind-body problem has been thoroughly scrutinized (practically: destroyed) in a long critical paper, “A Critical Review of Wigner's Work on the Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Theory” by Hans Primas and Michael Esfeld. Hans Primas, physical and theoretical chemist from ETH, Zurich, and Michael Esfeld, professor of philosophy at the University of Lausanne, analyzed Wigner’s paper from the point of view of mathematics, physics and of philosophy. The main objections, summarized in their conclusion, include:

It is difficult to understand why Wigner never used his deep knowledge of the underlying mathematical structure of quantum theory to overcome the serious limitation of the Hilbert-space formalism of the traditional codification of quantum mechanics. It is hard to believe that Wigner did not recognize the importance of the many possible physically inequivalent representations of the canonical commutation relations and the associated symmetry breakings for our understanding of molecular, mesoscopic, and macroscopic phenomena.

From our present point of view, most of the so-called paradoxes which Wigner discusses are not deep conceptual problems, but simply technical challenges for the mathematical physicists. The "measurement problem" as formulated by Wigner is ill-posed. Von Neumann and Wigner did not discuss measurements in physical terms.”

From a fundamental point of view, the open question is not the state reduction but the derivation of the statistical expectation-value postulate from an individually formulated fundamental quantum mechanics in an ontic interpretation - a problem never mentioned by Wigner.

Wigner's confusion of conceptual and mathematical problems is due to misplaced physical idealizations (like the idealization of instantaneous observations, the neglect of the effects of the environment, a narrow positivistic view) and to inadequate mathematical codifications (like the inadmissible use of the uniqueness theorem by Stone and von Neumann). (Italics, mine.)

Yet, in spite of all these hard words, Primas and Esfeld did not act in a pure destroying capacity, they were not politically motivated, their criticism was a genuine one, it was motivated by their search for Truth as indicated by these further comments:

Wigner showed much courage in relating the then unresolved questions of the measurement problem to the much deeper problem of consciousness. Many of Wigner's papers on mathematical physics are great classics.”

Nevertheless, Wigner's discussions of the measurement problem was historically important. He could not give a generally acceptable solution. Yet to see a problem is much more difficult and important than to give a solution. Wigner was the leading scientist who always insisted that there is a problem, and that it is important to see the problem. (Italics, mine.)

In other words: even if Wigner was wrong, badly educated in some domains, and also if he was using inadequate or wrong arguments, nevertheless he had the courage to start a discussion of an important and unresolved problem, and he was not slandered and defamed, but treated with honesty and respect.

Primas and Esfeld were also constructive, and not exclusively destructive. Wigner’s ideas and mathematical methods were inadequate to the problem, but, especially Primas, had a several original ideas about how these problems should be dealt with – mainly through the rethinking of the fundamental postulates of quantum theory, and by using somewhat more flexible and more powerful mathematical apparatus than the one coming from the standard textbooks, including von Neumann’s “Mathematical Foundations ofQuantum Theory” - on which Wigner relied.

But Primas gave just hints – he did not develop his ideas much further. I think his hints were, and still are, very important. Certainly they were important for me, as I used them in my own work, though in certain details not exactly the way he was expecting. 

P.S.1.

The most typical and, at the same time, detrimental error in human thinking that I have stumbled upon is this: jumping to wrong conclusions, and acting upon them. It happens in both men and women. 

P.S.2.

From: The Prodigy / a Biography of William Sidis, America's Greatest Child Prodigy

"It is possible to construct figures of the Fourth Dimension with a hundred and twenty sides called hecatonicosihedrigons, or figures with six hundred sides called hexacosihedrigons. I attach great value in the working out of my theories to the help given by polyhedral angles of the dodesecahedron which enter into many of the problems. Some of the things that I have found out about the Fourth Dimension will aid in the solution of many of the problems of elliptical geometry."

— william james sidis, age 11, 1909

P.S.3. Unconscious Intelligence

William James Sidis

Appendix IV, Symptomatology, Psychognosis, and Diagnosis of Psychopathic Diseases  by  Boris Sidis, Ph.D., M.D. Boston: Badger, 1914, 432-439. (Note: W.J. is not listed in Table of Contents as author).

"The subject we are to deal with here is the explanation of certain psychological facts on the basis of logical methods. Certain actions have been observed which seem to indicate intelligence, but which are supposed not to be phenomena of consciousness. In order to pass a decision on such statements (in which I must assume the facts claimed by both sides to be correct) we must get a general idea of the methods we are going to use.

        The first of these methods is the method of isomorphism. This depends on the supposition that, if in two hypotheses the consequences are the same, the two hypotheses may be considered as identical for all purposes of further reasoning. In other words, there is no use in drawing arbitrary distinctions where none really exist. When we reason from a hypothesis, its consequences come into play at every step of the reasoning; and if those consequences are the same, all reasoning will be the same, and therefore no difference can really be drawn. Again, a question of decision between two theories whose consequences are and must be the same must necessarily be one where no evidence is obtainable, and is therefore a question which cannot be discussed at all. It is like the old question of the man and the monkey: "If a monkey is on a pole, constantly facing a man who walks around the pole, has the man gone round the monkey?""

P.S.4. From William James Sidis "The Animate and Inanimate"

"The latter part of the work, which deals with the theory of the reversibility of time and the psychological aspect of the  second  law  of  thermodynamics  itself,  is  a  purely speculative  section,  partaking  more  of  the  metaphysical than of the scientific. However, even in that section, it is to be hoped that there will be found a basis for putting the theory of the nature of time on a scientific basis and for taking it finally outside of the domain of metaphysics. "

Perhaps one of my Readers, interested in the subject,  will find time to read through  this book and extract for me what is really essential and needs a further development? 

P.S.5. Started reading "The Animate and Inanimate". I am done with the first four chapters. Written in an rather old style (1920), but it forces me to really think about Reality! We have the paradox of irreversibility in a microscopically reversible world. In the past I thought that the solution is in the "quantum measurement" process. That that is where elementary irreversible events (collapses of the wave function) happen. These are not described by reversible Schrodinger' evolution. That is how and why EEQT was created. But since EEQT is not satisfactorily developed to its conclusion, the problem remains open. Continue reading. Perhaps this old book will inspire my thinking constructively....

P.S.6. Hexagram 58 • Joy • Tui, Lines 1,2

The image of Lake over Lake.

When you feel and express joy others will want to be in your presence.
You learn by talking with friends and sharing in discussion.
There is double joy when people interact and replenish each other.
Give a party to celebrate and share joy.

Nine in the first place

It is wonderful when joy is not dependent on anything outside of your self.

Nine in the second place

Find joy and pleasure in ways that do no harm to your body, mind or spirit.

Alternative rendering (Sam Reifler, I Ching. A New Interpretation For Modern Times):

Line 1: Your capacity for pleasure arises from your saintly lack of desire. Nothing tantalizes you, nothing compels you, nothing disappoints you - everything pleases you.

Line 2: While you enjoy your pleasure, do not act in any way that might embarrass or discourage others.

P.S.7. MUST watch. Scary.

“Covid-19 was an act of biological warfare perpetrated on the human race. It was a financial heist. Nature was hijacked. Science was hijacked.”

P.S.8. Laura brought to my attention an interesting condition:  Hyperthymesia:

"(...) Although people showing a high level of hyperthymesia are not regarded as autistic, certain similarities exist between the two conditions. Like autistic savants, some individuals with hyperthymesia may also have an unusual and obsessive interest in dates. As the first documented hyperthymestic, Jill Price was quite different from the famous case of mnemonist Solomon Shereshevsky (as documented by psychologist Alexander Luria).^[12] Shereshevsky could memorize virtually unlimited amounts of information deliberately, while Price could not – she could only remember autobiographical information (and events she had personally seen on the news or read about).^[12] In fact, she was not very good at memorization in general, according to the study published in Neurocase.^[1] Hyperthymestic individuals appear to have poorer than average memory for arbitrary information.^{[citation needed]} Another striking parallel drawn between the two cases was that Shereshevsky exemplified an interesting case of synesthesia and it has been suggested that superior autobiographical memory is intimately tied to time-space synesthesia"

Persons with this condition are unable to forget past painful events, their memory is always vivid. They need special care. As for me, I probably have the negation of this particular condition: I do not remember anything painful - I am a lucky man in this respect.

P.S.9. While writing a review of a monograph about the defense of Aristotle's physics I had to came down to the earth. From the book "A SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY, CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECTS IN WARFARE OF THE PROJECTILE – THROWING ENGINES OF THE ANCIENTS" by Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey I have learned that

"Diodorus tells us that the engines were first seen about 400 B.C ., and that when  Dionysisu  of  Syracuse  organized  his  great  expedition  against  the Carthaginians (397 B.C .) there was a genius among the experts collected from all over  the  world,  and  that  this  man  designed  the  engines  that  cast  stones  and javelins."

From another book, "Military Ballstics. A Basic manual" by C.L. Farrar and D.W. Leeming I have learned that the theory of these machines had to wait until Newton:

Which reminds me of the situation with paranormal phenomena, where we have "geniuses among the experts", but no theory.

Finally I had to read the paper by Elya Courtney, Amy Courtney, Michael Courtney (the whole family?) entitled "Experimental Tests of the Proportionality of Aerodynamic Drag to Air Density for Supersonic 

Projectiles", with nice illustrations, like this one below

P.S.10. Incredible!

P.S.11. Useful:

Why Forgiving a Narcissist Will Backfire On You

Trinh Xuan Thuan - "The Quantum and the Lotus" - Part III

 John Archibald Wheeler vs. Thuan

John Archibald Wheeler, the renowned American physicist, is well known for his “delayed choice experiment” and “participatory universe”. The message of Wheeler can be interpreted the way Thuan would like to see it only by someone who did not really study any discussion by the experts. In his autobiographical book “Geons, Black Holes & Quantum Foam”, Wheeler states explicitly:

Reasoning like this has made me ask whether the universe is a “self-exciting circuit” – a system whose existence and whose history are determined by measurements. By “measurement” I do not mean an observation carried out by a human-designed instrument – or by any extraterrestrial intelligence, or even by an ant or an amoeba. Life is not a necessary part of this equation. A measurement, in this context, is an irreversible act in which uncertainty collapses to certainty. It is the link between the quantum and classical worlds, the point where what might happen – multiple paths, interference patterns, spreading clouds of probability – is replaced by what does happen: some event in the classical world, whether the click of a counter, the activation of an optic nerve in someone’s eye, or just the coalescence of a glob of matter triggered by a quantum event.

Wheeler could not have said more clearly: “Life is not a necessary part of this equation.”

John Wheeler is also known for his graphic representation of “quantum reality”:

The picture is endowed with this perplexing caption: “Does looking back “now” give reality to what happened “then”?” Certainly, looking only at the picture, and not reading the text that accompanies the discussion, it is easy to make an error. But in his written text, Wheeler states it clearly:

“The eye could as well be a piece of mica. It need not be a part of an intelligent being.”

Thuan Misrepresents Quantum Theory

Why is Thuan misrepresenting the state of affairs in his discussion of the implication of quantum theory? Again my guess is that the reason is that he is not expert in this domain, that’s why. But there are many experts that are around, and many papers and books written by experts. John Wheeler, who is a coauthor of several well-known advanced books, including “Gravitation Theory and GravitationalCollapse” (1965), “Einstein's Vision” (1968), “Gravitation” (1973), “Frontiers of Time” (1979), “Quantum Theory and Measurement” (1983), and who was awarded the Niels Bohr International Gold Medal in 1982, is certainly such an expert.

Of course I am taking into account the possibility that Thuan would disregard Wheeler’s expertise for political reasons – Wheeler, at least according to Encyclopedia Universalis – which, as we already know, may be true or may be not true - was rather actively engaged in the American war machine while Buddhists are, as a rule, though not always, of a peaceful nature. But if that is the case - one should not covertly mix politics and Science. Moreover, there are other experts that came to the same conclusion as Wheeler did.

Thuan Misleads His Readers About “The Observer”

To summarize this part of my argument: there is nothing in quantum theory that would force us to consider an “observer” as a necessary part of our description of the observed phenomena. There exists formalisms and interpretation in which no “observer” is necessary.

John Bell and Measurement

John Bell, a recognized expert, was explicitly criticizing even the use of the very term “measurement” in quantum theory. 

Note: As for myself, perhaps I should not call myself “an expert”, nevertheless I received Humboldt award for my work on one such alternative formulation.

He was stressing that it leads to confusion, and he was advocating a formalism that could serve as a possible alternative to the orthodox formulation of quantum theory. Thuan is misleading his readers by showing one particular interpretation of quantum theory without discussing in depth all the issues involved. I would not be surprised seeing this type of twisting in a paper by a theologian, but from a scientist I would expect a more objective presentation of the “lessons from quantum theory”.

Thuan is Confused

Now, before giving a final whistle to this subject, I would like to remind you, dear Reader, that I am writing all of this only to demonstrate how easy it is to criticize someone’s hard work – if one wants to. I am simply skipping all the good parts of Thuan’s popularizing work, and I am concentrating on selected points, those points that could be easily fixed by the Author or by a reviewer, but, for various reasons, were left far from being optimal.

After saying the above I will use as my last example – two statements in two different works of Thuan, one contradicting the other.

In “Quantum and the Lotus” Thuan explains the conversion of matter into energy. He writes:

Inversely, matter can be converted into energy – this is what makes the sun shine, for example. By converting a tiny fraction of its mass of hydrogen (0.7 percent) into light (photons), our star allows life to exist on earth.

It is logically implied in the above statement that, for Thuan, light (photons) represents energy and not matter. But in the article the story is different. Thuan writes there:

Thus, the particles we call photons and electrons, as well as all the other particles of matter ….

The reader who is paying attention to both of Thuan’s statements is justified in being confused. Are photons “matter”, or are they “energy”? Evidently Thuan’s is not able to make up his mind concerning this subject. When it is convenient to him, he considers photons as energy – when his aim is to give an example of an application of Einstein’s mass-energy conversion formula. But when his aim is different, then he calls photons “matter”.

Is physics so fuzzy indeed? It is supposed to be an exact science after all Don’t physicists know what matter is, and what is energy? Or is it only our unfortunate author, Trinh Xuan Thuan, who has a problem with definitions?

As is always the case, the fact that other authors of popular physics books (and, perhaps, even textbooks) may be similarly confused and confusing should not be an excuse for a scientist. Contradiction is contradiction. Scientists should avoid making contradictory statements, and when they make them – these contradictions should be pointed out – in the name of Science. Or so I think.

P.S.1. To demonstrate how Real Physicists approach the "dogmas" (in a dramatic contrast to Thuan, as discussed in my recent posts, let me quote from a paper by Willis E. Lamb, Jr  (Nobel Prize in Physics 1955). The paper entitled "Super Classical Quantum Mechanics:  The Interpretation of Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics " published in Zhizhan Xu  Shengwu Xie Shi -Yao Zhu  MarIan  O.  Scully (Eds.) , "Frontiers of laser Physics and Quantum Optics ", Springer 2000.

5  Historical Misunderstandings 

One of the advantages gained by our treatment is that one can forget  (and, or,  forgive?)  many  of the  fuzzy  ideas[15,16]'  that  cluttered  the  path  from Classical Mechanics to Quantum Mechanics.  These include:  Planck's theory of black  body radiation,  Einstein's photon and treatment of the photoelectric  effect  of  1905,  Bohr's  1913  quantization,  Bohr's  1918  Correspondence Principle, de Broglie's waves of 1924, Heisenberg's matrix mechanics of 1925, Schrodinger's  wave  equation  of 1925,  Dirac's  Quantum Mechanics  of 1926, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of 1927, Bohr's Principles of Complementarity and Wave-particle Duality,  Dirac's and von Neumann's notions of the Collapse of Wave Packets, and the excessive use of Hilbert Space.  We  might have  been  spared  much of the  agony  needlessly suffered  with the Two  Slit Diffraction Pattern Paradoxes, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradoxes,  and the  Schrodinger  Cat Paradox[17,18].  Also  unnecessary  were  Bohm's  Quantum Mechanics and Hidden Variable Theories, and Bell's Inequalities. Other variations abound in the pages of Physics Today[19]  and Physics World[20]: DH  (Decoherent Histories), with words like  "reality"  and  "non-locality", SL (Spontaneous Localization), and BQM (Bohmian Quantum Mechanics). It is widely rumored that the Editors of the Physical Review find  that papers on measurement theory are too troublesome to edit. 

Delayed Choice Experiments[21] have never been adequately discussed using any systematic theory of Quantum Mechanical Measurement.  The same can  be  said  of Quantum  Computers  and  Quantum  Cryptography[22].  The bulk of papers on these subjects lack any understanding of the intrinsic probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics.  Papers on teleportation are beneath contempt. 

As you can see, no sacred cow was spared in these paragraphs written by an expert scientist! Of course the public wants to believe that a least physicists will tell them the "truth". The public should forget it! The public should keep in mind what Bertrand Russell wrote:

The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: 

 (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; 

(2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and 

(3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgement.

Sceptical Essays, Routledge 2004

It follows in particular that one should always look for the second, third, 100th expert's disclosure. Do all experts agree on a given subject? Or, perhaps, they jump to each other throats at the conferences? Relying on a journal with a reputation is not a good idea, as these journals do everything possible to avoid confrontation and to present themselves as "reliable".

Pay attention to this sentence in the above quote:

It is widely rumored that the Editors of the Physical Review find  that papers on measurement theory are too troublesome to edit. 

P.S.2. Studying now: Bernard Jancewicz, Premetric Electrodynamics (2008). 

P.S.3.  "JA, JA, JA,,,,,,, you are modest, you would never become politic...." What reminds me:

How to get rid of pride? 5 proven ways

P.S.4  Also useful to know:

How to Discipline a Child for Spitting

P.S.5. Sunday's Special - More from Confucius: