Some random comments on a couple of recent posts:

It has struck me that one of my recent posts may have been misunderstood and I need to clarify the point of that post: I posted some thoughts based a proposition that I don’t share that our universe may be the only one, nothing happened before the big bang 13.7 billion years ago and Hugh Everett III’s many world’s interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong, and every version of mulitiverse, of which there are a few, is no less wrong. There are some Scientists still argue that, which a few decades ago was the only idea taken seriously by virtually all physicists. This idea is no longer one I share. Martin Rees and others have argued, very persuasively, that denying the anthropic principle – and the notion of the multiverse which accompanies it – poses insuperable questions for those physicists not attracted to supernatural ideas, a divine, intelligent creator. I am on the same side as Martin Rees. Having said that, there remains zero proof of the existence of parallel universes. Many scientists believe uncovering proof of such parallel universes is in-principle impossible. If they are right, that would reduce the endeavor of speculating about such things to pointless time-wasting, no better than the supernatural ideas scientists are trying to put back into their box. If this is correct, then parallel universes are good for nothing. Well, they are good for nothing more than science fiction, but destined never escape the terrain of philosophy, maybe producing excellent literature, drama, art etc. Even if that is all these ideas gave birth to, it would still be a mighty creative force, one that physicists should embrace. As far as I am concerned, great works of drama have already appeared as a consequence of such ideas. But I do not share the pessimism of those who think parallel universes are in-principle impossible to access. This may be the case, but my gut feeling is that this is wrong. But my gut feeling was the big crunch was the most likely solution to the ultimate fate of our universe, and that has pretty much been exposed as false with the discovery of dark energy. I have a working hypothesis. Paul Davies has an alternative set of such hypotheses. He is clearly much more qualified than I am to speculate on such matter, grasping the maths in a way that makes me burn with jealousy. He has a very deep grasp of experimental results that are way beyond my understanding of the material. But he thinks the universe may be designed for life. I hope I am not putting words into his mouth. Could such an idea be on the right track? If so, then I think this has to create space for some deity. And I am not keen on introducing one of those. But if he is right, I wanted to explore the relationship between the DNA molecule and fundamental physics: four dimensional space-time, the relationship between particles that obey Pauli’s exclusion principle and those that don’t, particles that travel at the speed of light and those that cannot, particles that average out with a wave like appearance, even when the particles seem to appear on the scene in isolation from one another. What I identified is a set of coincidences that could be used as patterns. Could these patterns mean anything? What is the merit of such ideas? Almost certainly nothing. It is the kind of idea that Stephen Weinberg and Jim Al-Khalili would, quite rightly, dismiss as those sent to them by ‘a nutter’. I am cool with such politically incorrect language, although I appreciate why many are outraged at such language. However, unless I point out that I am with Jim and Stephen on such a skeptical approach, what I speculated about could be taken as evidence that I am ‘a nutter’. In other circumstances, that would be water off a duck’s back. I’d dismiss such an allegation with the contempt it deserves. However, as I have blogged about in great detail, I was illegally sectioned by those who had a verifiable motive to destroy my credibility. I want those behind having me sectioned brought to justice, including Dr Bennie and Maureen Beacom. I want them prosecuted. So I can hardly afford to do anything that plays into their hands by leaving on my blog anything that suggests I have taken leave of my senses. Therefore, for the benefit of the hard of thinking, my toying with the ideas of DNA being somehow intrinsically built into the fabric of reality in parallel with fundamental particles like electrons, quarks, neutrinos, photons, gravitons, higgs, let me remind everyone that I was exploring ideas that can have no more worth than the more speculative kinds of science fiction. The patterns I have explored may have a little more validity than those championed by astrologers, but not a great deal more.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s