Post on 02-Feb-2023
(Scientific Revolutions)n
n = 0, 1, 2, 3
James E. Beichler, Ph.D.
St. Louis, MO APS Spring Meeting April 2008 History Forum
Abstract
Thomas Kuhn’s description and characterization of scientific revolutions set the standard for interpreting and understanding these events, but his characterization introduced an anomaly. Newtonian science was at the pinnacle of its success immediately prior to the Second Scientific Revolution. From an evolutionary point-of-view,
there were no crises to be solved just problems within the Newtonian paradigm, whereas the specific crises that initiated the
revolution are evident from everyone’s point-of-view after the revolution. This paradox is well recognized, but it seems not to be a problem and is just ignored as if it were not important or significant.
Yet this discrepancy strikes at the very heart of physics and the overall progress of science. Historical conditions currently parallel the period immediately prior to the Second Scientific Revolution indicating that a new scientific revolution is approaching. When a
comparison of the two periods is made, new characteristics of scientific revolutions are identified, the paradox is solved and evidence of a Zeroth Scientific Revolution emerges from the
historical record.
We now have ‘crises’ in Physics
It looks like science is on the verge of a new
scientific revolution, so it is time to revise our historical
outlook on progress in science
The idea of scientific revolutions is far older than normally thought: Scholars
knew there had been a Scientific Revolution by the end of the 18th century
A more accurate view of history would include the evolutionary
progress of science, but the concepts of evolution and
revolution have never been completely reconciled
The Scientific Revolution (17th
c) Two earlier views of Science History
– Science started with (Copernicus,) Galileo and Kepler (Machian or pre-Kuhnian revolutionary view)
– There were precursors in the work of Bradwardine, Cusa, Ockham, Oresme, Buridan and others (Duhemian or evolutionary view)
But all agree Newton’s Principia of 1687 was the highpoint or turning point of this episode in scientific progress
The Kuhnian Model
It is commonly thought that scientific revolutions derive from the solution of
‘crises’ that older paradigms are unable to solve. However, this model of
revolution introduces an anomaly since the previous paradigms are at the peak
of their success when the new revolutions occur.
The 2nd Scientific Revolution
Redefined motion under
extreme conditions
Aether and blackbody
To Einstein
The second revolution
Motion was redefined in three extremes
High speeds – SR 1905
Near large gravitating masses – GR 1915
At sub-micro levels of reality –Planck (1900), Einstein (1905), Bohr (1913), DeBroglie (1923), Heisenberg (1926), Schrödinger (1926)
Today Physics, especially QFT and the Standard Model
are highly successful
QT is the most accurate theory ever – accurate to 12 decimal places
Belief that QT will solve all problems
Belief in the eventual development of a TOE based on QT and the discrete nature of reality
DM and DE can be explained by WIMPs, MACHOs, neutrinos or some other Q particles
Parapsychology is growing
The study of consciousness is growing
The human genome project is changing Biology
*A parallel situation exists today*
Physics, especially QFT and the Standard Model, is highly successful
QT is the most accurate theory ever – accurate to 12 decimal places
Belief that QT will solve all problems
Belief in the eventual development of a TOE based on QT and the discrete nature of reality
DM and DE can be explained by WIMPs, MACHOs, neutrinos or some other Q particles
Parapsychology is growing
The study of consciousness is growing
The human genome project
So was Newtonianism in 1900
So was Newtonianism in 1900
Newtonianism would solve all problems as of 1900
Newton’s theory was thought universal in 1900 – It was in essence a TOE
Planck was just doing thermodynamics, while Lorentz and Fitzgerald solved the aether problem
Modern Spiritualism and the SPR
Emergence of Psychology from many different perspectives
Human evolution (Darwinism)
This not only implies that a 3rd revolution is
presently in progress, but a Zeroth Revolution also occurred more than two
millennia ago
A more precise interpretation is indicated as well as needed because ...
We must recognize that understanding mind and consciousness is also an essential driving force in both science and physics
To understand this, we must look at revolutions in terms of both MIND and MATTER, not just MATTER, as defined by physics
But then the period from Thales (~600BCE) to Aristotle (~350 BCE) emerges as a Zeroth Scientific Revolution
Revolutions are really dual purpose events within this larger context, even when limited to physics alone
Circumstantial evidence
There is always a second person in the background behind the main figure in each revolutionary period
This person plays an antithetical (evolutionary or intuitive) role compared to the traditional (revolutionary or logical) scientific role of a Newton or Einstein
Plato (0th), Descartes (1st) and Mach (2nd)
Consciousness
Consciousness just explodes onto the scene in science in the late
19th century. It is accompanied by
related mitigating factors (development of non-Euclidean geometries) that enhance the
process and the imagination as Newton’s Physics totters toward its inevitable date with ‘crises’
Science Reacts The emergence of mind and consciousness
– Modern Spiritualism – a cultural reaction that is anti-
established religion and pop-scientific – human consciousness survives death as spirits
– Scientific reaction to Modern Spiritualism – SPR
– The Unseen Universe by Tait and Stewart – survival according to thermodynamics
– Transcendental Physics by Zöllner – spirits survive in 4D space and mediums produce experimental evidence
– Mach and logical (empiricism) positivism provide a middle-road interpretation of MIND versus MATTER
– The birth of Psychology – Fechner (psychophysics), Freud (psychiatry), Wundt (experimental psychology), James (consciousness and philosophy), and Mach
Then came the clash of theories In general, when human logic is applied to
nature, it will eventually lead to a logical impasse
because our logic does not perfectly duplicate
the logic of nature
This impasse occurred in the late 19th century
EM and matter don’t mix well
– Failure to detect the aether
– Blackbody radiation
New Discoveries
– Xrays
– The electron
– Radioactivity
Mach’s legacy and influence
The science of mind is just as important as physics, but this fact is hidden by the adoption of Mach’s positivism
The emphasis changes to ‘sensations’ and the middle- road – We cannot directly know either mind or reality
New positivistic QT masks the central problem of science and reality (MIND and MATTER) by convincing everyone that determinism and indeterminism are the central issue
QT thus renders itself progressive as opposed to relativity, which it calls classical, as if classical is old fashioned and bad
Yet QT still needs MIND in the form of consciousness to collapse the wave packet – to create material reality – pushing consciousness outside of Quantum paradigm
And new paradoxes are born
Quantum theory is incomplete in its most fundamental assumptions and aspects, but this remains unknown
Others only sense the ‘incompleteness’ of the quantum model of reality – Solvay, 1927
– Einstein’s arguments
– O. Klein talked out of his 5-D model of the quantum
– DeBroglie talked out of his theory of the ‘double solution’
The new quantum paradox is better defined
– EPR in 1935
– Schrödinger’s cat and ‘entanglement
But these are only seen as minor irritants and the Copenhagen Interpretation of the quantum prevails
But, but, but, ...
The positivist takeover at the beginning of the 2nd
revolution doomed it to only a partial completion, at best
The whole rise and takeover of the quantum idea by statistics and the Copenhagen Interpretation was pure positivism, and thus incomplete by definition
Space-time curvature implies a new fundamental definition of matter, but Einstein capitulated to positivism and reduced curvature to an ‘intrinsic’ property of the space-time continuum
Yet Higher-D space-times have still become popular
The 1913 turn of Psychology to behaviorism by Watson sealed the fate of that new science and Psychology ‘lost consciousness' (perhaps it even lost its MIND) until at least the 1970s
Rising fortunes and a new attitude
toward Relativity Theory
GR and SR are impractical before the 1960s
1960 – The third of Einstein's GR predictions is confirmed at Harvard –Pound-Rebka experiment
Even the successes of GR in Cosmology in the 1920s and 30s are not enough for relativity to challenge the priority and fundamental status of the Quantum paradigm because
– Cosmology IS FAR AWAY from everyday life
– QT is up close and useful for the atom
Relativity only begins to challenge the Quantum paradigm for dominance in the 80s just as unification becomes a popular subject to Q theorists
The Dark Side The existence of DM, suspected since the 1930s and
completely obvious since the discovery of spiral galaxies, is confirmed in the 70s
Until the 70s, science was blind to the modified speeds of stars that form galactic arms and imply DM
DE is discovered in 1998
The ‘crises’ for modern science have thus been identified and they have been recognized as revolutionary, i.e, that either modification of old theories or a new theory will need to be developed to explain them - DETF
In any case, people now realize that a revolution will
come in the form of a new theory of matter
Yet experience has taught us that a theory of matter can be
neither had nor complete without considering the role of
the consciousness that perceives matter and material
reality
To Present
New definition of matter unifies physics
and the relationship between consciousness and the
material world is defined
but also
New multidisciplinary studies in consciousness lead to a
theory of consciounsess