(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 Scientific Revolution

Defined the Laws of Motion,

measured matter as mass

To Newton

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

It’s déjà vu all over again

*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)

To Aristotle

Defined Physics as

Matter in Motion

but also

First distinction of

conscious activity

Calendar and collisionTo

Newton

Defined the Laws of Motion,

measured matter as mass

but also

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

Aether and blackbody

To Einstein

Redefined motion under

extreme conditions

but also

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

We are there! Now!

Welcome to the 3rd

Scientific Revolution