UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Nov > Nov 7

Re: Can't Stop Seeing UFOs

From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:15:39 -0000
Archived: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:32:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Can't Stop Seeing UFOs

>From: Gerald O'Connell <goc.nul>
>To: post.nul
>Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 01:07:00 +0000
>Subject: Re: Can't Stop Seeing UFOs

>>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:50:48 -0700
>>Subject: Re: Can't Stop Seeing UFOs


>If you'll forgive me straying into even deeper waters, another
>aspect of Godel's theorem that has intrigued me for some time
>has been what it has to say about the consistency of axiomatic
>systems. We take for granted (as a hidden assumption, a kind of
>'meta-axiom') the need for consistency in our mathematical and
>scientific thinking, and it goes against the grain to question
>this. I've thought about this issue from time to time, and
>wondered about the effects on our ability to describe the world

>a) we demand that our descriptions are consistent, and

>b) the world actually turns out to be inconsistent.

The world is inconsistent, according to quantum theory. It is at
bottom (or at top, depending how you look at it) random without
any possibility in principle of predicting one local particle
state from another. This breaks the classical principle of
contiguous and antecedent cause radically. It isn't a formulation
that appeals to everybody, and may indeed be superseded (I tend
to think so). But the history of QM is proof that science can not
only handle radical inconsistency but has developed the most
sophisticated and accurate mathematical theory in history to do
exactly that job.

>It's just a thought, and a wild one at that, but has Godel
>unwittingly uncovered a clue as to what we might need to give up
>in order to match our description to the world? Evidence
>suggesting that the laws of nature might vary across space and
>time hasn't helped me get this troublesome thought out of my

I think this talk of "the laws of nature varying" belongs in a
tabloid headline.

It used to be a law of nature that mass was conserved until
Einstein showed that mass varies with velocity and that the
"true" conserved quantity (so far) is the total mass-energy.
These absorptions of constants into redefined categories is part
of the normal process of physics I think.

There's really nothing scary or new in principle about the idea
that alpha might vary. It's widely understood that so-called
natural constants have restricted areas of applicability. For
example the speed of light is supposedly a universal constant,
but the numerical value of c varies all over the place depending
on the medium - it's only the supposed vacuum limit case that we
isolate as being universal. - but even this is not an
unassailable fortress, rather a value that emerges as a
classical FAPP approximation out of a much more complex and as-
yet-not-inderstood situation in the quantum vacuum.

Even classical-type variable speed of light (VSL) cosmologies
have quite a long and respectable history, and have been popular
in some qaarters in recent years, although one has not yet
succeeded in supplanting the standard model. Of course a VSL
theory is automatically a variable alpha theory because alpha is
defined in e and c (but a variable alpha is not necessarily VSL
and could be a variable e [electron charge] theory).

The gravitational constant G is presumed on general simplicity
principles to be universal; but everyone knows that there is no
direct proof of it and variable G theories also have an
increasingly respectable history.

In quantum theory the idea of false vacuum states is
commonplace, and the zero-point energy is a familiar case
whereby the average or expectation value of the energy of empty
space is zero, but the actual instant value can be positive or
negative - indeed infinitely so for infinitesimal lengths of
time (if such exist). The idea of a "constant of varying norm"
is quite a useful one to adopt generally. If any of these
constants does vary across spacetime then the relationships
among the different local norms simply becomes the next data-set
for another "law of nature".

Martin Shough

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com