User:Robert C. Wormus

The Ultimate Blackbody Catastrophe by Robert Castleton Wormus James Clerk Maxwell's seminal work on the unification of electricity, magnetism, and light clarified classical physic's understanding of electro-magnetic radiation; while plunging  scientists into a quest to discover laws of nature that were commensurate with observational findings. In the last 113 years, my beloved science of physics has undergone a tumultuous revolution. The very foundation of classical physics’ credibility, The Scientific Method, was seriously challenged, by the certainty that the mechanics of the quantum world introduces infinite probability into measurement; and wave collapse into reality.

In the last 113 years, my beloved science of physics has undergone a tumultuous revolution. The very foundation of classical physic's foundation, the scientific method was challenged by the failure of the Raliegh-Jeans equation to match observation, the certainty that the mechanics of a quantum state introduces infinite probability into measurements; and wave collapse into reality.

The discovery of Quantum Mechanics in 1900 by Max Planck, Special & General Relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905/1915, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, Pauli’s Exclusion Principle, Born’s rule, and Young’s Double-Slit Experiment, caused a great Rift in the credibility of classical physics; known as the ‘30 year Quantum war’ The intuitive classical physics of the twentieth century, ultimately, albeit hesitantly, ran head on into the modern counter-intuitive quantum physics of last century. The 1927 Solvay conference on Quantum Physics held in Brussels, by ‘invitation only, paved the way for a meeting of the great minds of the time; the world’s most imminent experimental physicists and the world’s only nine imminent theoretical physicists. Written and ramrodded through by the tenacious team of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, ‘The ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of Quantum Mechanics was ostensibly agreed upon by consensus. As controversial as this ‘Interpretation’ was, it was based on a wealth of incontrovertible clinically reproducible data, experiments, observations, and predictions, as well as impeccable mathematical elegance. Collectively, the conferees agreed that “Quantum theory is the most successful set of ideas ever devised by human beings. It explains the periodic chart of the elements and why chemical reactions take place. It gives accurate predictions about the operation of lasers and microchips, the stability of DNA, and how alpha particles tunnel out of the nucleus” All nine of the Theoretical Quantum Physicists involved in the Solvay Conference, subsequently were awarded Nobel Prizes for seminal work in quantum theory over the next 20 years The Quantum theory also predicts the existence of an actual external, weird, and alien, counter-intuitive reality, while simultaneously denying the validity of out mind’s intuitive-base construction of an illusion of reality. Stephen Hawking (2010) cut to the chase. “Though ‘Existence and Reality may be tempting viewpoints, what we know about modern physics makes them difficult to defend. For example, according to the principle of quantum physics, which is an accurate description of nature, a particle has neither a definite position nor a definite velocity unless and until those quantities are measured by an observer”. Brian Green, more recently in 2012, said, “It was a few years ago that string theory — the field that I work on — gave really strong evidence that the ’Holographic Principle ‘of black holes really might be correct. Now, the reason why that’s particularly interesting is because the space inside a black hole is not really fundamentally different — it isn’t governed by different laws than space outside a black hole, or space anywhere else, for that matter. So if we learn, as we have, that a 3-D object inside a black hole can be described by 2-D information on a surface that surrounds it, that lesson should be quite general. This means that 3-D objects, even the ones that we’re familiar with — you and me and everything around us — these 3-D objects may indeed be describable by information on a 2-D surface that surrounds us, a surface that in some sense is at the edge of the universe. Now, this starts to sound like a hologram; a hologram is a thin 2-D piece of plastic which, when illuminated correctly, yields a realistic three-dimensional image. The idea is we may be that three-dimensional image of this more fundamental information on the 2-D surface that surrounds us. Let me just point out, this is a hard idea even for physicists who work on it every day to fully grasp, but there are many who now take this idea very seriously, that Man’s reality may be a hologram. Albert Einstein, 1954	“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one”. “A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest; a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.”   http://www.sol.com.au/kor/11_01.htm The Anthropic Paradox: Fatal Denial    by Robert Castleton Wormus Modern humans have evolved through the Adaptive, Probabilistic, Evolutionary Process into an aggressive, highly intelligent, humanoid animal physiologically capable of decoding the two dimensional encrypted data of space-time, into a fabricated illusion of his own intuitively-derived, experience-based, instinct-driven subjective ’sense of reality’; while simultaneously being psychosomatically inhibited from accepting, by definition, quantum physics’ external, objective, counter-intuitive reality.

The human mind, with its highly developed brain, capable of abstract reasoning, language, introspection, self-awareness and problem solving, was thought to be the most complex fete of Evolution. Research in neuroscience has irrefutably proven that the mind actually augments the crude two-dimensional, blurred afferent images, sounds, smells, and context clues, stimulating our sensory receptors into the sharp, clear, crisp ‘fabricated’ images our minds intuitively project as reality. Like an artist, the human mind, cleverly uses form, dimensionality, animation, colorization, and shadowing to virtually ‘paint' a picture’ that satisfies it’s intuitive whims, while simultaneously refusing to accept the weird, bizarre, alien, counter-intuitive external reality endorsed by modern physics. As extraordinary, as this may seem, it’s not, especially when we consider the accelerated computing power of the human brain.

Adaptive Probabilistic Evolution is one of the great wonders of Cosmic-complexity. The dawn of man, began approximately 200,000 million years ago, with man’s brain mass reaching 400 grams. But, “In the last 1.5 million years ‘modern man’s brain’ has developed into the most complex phenomena in the known Universe at a mass of greater that 1600 grams.” 1 Evolutionary biologists attribute “Much of the expansion to the part of the brain called the cerebral cortex, especially the frontal lobes, which are associated with executive functions such as self-control, planning, reasoning, and abstract thought. The portion of the cerebral cortex devoted to vision is also greatly enlarged in humans.” According to the Journal of the Human brain, “this unprecedented spurt in evolution increased modern man to 100 billion neurons, and an equal or slightly greater number of glial cells which serve to support and protect the neurons. Each neuron may be connected to up to 10,000 other neurons, passing signals to each other via as many as 1,000 trillion synaptic connections, equivalent to a computer with a 1 trillion bit per second processor. Estimates of this modern brain’s capacity vary wildly, but can approach 1,000 terabytes. (As a comparison, the U.S. Library of Congress’ with its 19 million volumes is estimated at 10 terabytes.)” So how did the human brain become so complex in what amounts to about a second in astronomical time? Neuroscientists are perplexed by how we learned to communicate. How we became so intelligent. Why are we the only animals that are self-aware? Quantum scientists are not as naïve; humans de-crypt the two dimensional encrypted quantum data of ethereal space. (Personally, I think we need to retrace our linage? Modern humans evolved from stardust, just like all life forms, but who’s to say our direct linage didn’t split off from a distant visitor?) Diabolically, Man’s brain, then evolved an elaborate survival mechanism to protect its own version of reality. By creating and deploying, in effect, its own Armory; the Human psyche’s insurmountably powerful defense mechanisms; first, and most formidable, denial and then, as necessary, rationalization, repression, regression, and disassociation, affectively close off Man’s mind to the external input of an alternate counter-intuitive reality, concept, or change.. Cognizant of our specie’s bias for intuitive reasoning early on,, the scientific community was, non-the less blindsided by the shear tenacity of the human psyche.

In the bizarre world of quantum mechanics, the ‘conserved parity’ of these perceptions between humans of like universes, as well as the astounding revelation that a weird, alien counter-intuitive physical reality exists,(‘outside the mind’s eye’) is posited, but then,  viscerally delegated to the abstract, obscure realm of Theoretical Physics, with its pathetic  ‘It’s only a theory’ Apathy. An incapacity to accept the counter intuitive explains why most of last centuries great scientific discoveries,, namely, quantum mechanics and general relativity, with their immense prognostic implications, took years to be recognized, were minimally applauded, insufficiently funded, and then, also, delegated to the obscure realm of ‘Modern Theoretical Physics’. Fatal Denial explains the inexplicable: mankind’s blatant disregard for his environment, his gluttonous misuse of natural resources, his failure to properly identify universal survival threats, and most cataclysmic, his globally-wide failure to embrace the two great, prophetic, revolutionary theories of the twentieth century; relativity and quantum mechanics. The implications of this are staggering!. Denial explains the budget cuts affecting our nation’s science programs, the alarming decline in math and science scores, our exit from the active space program, the transplant of Fermi lab, the cancelation of the Web telescope and fusion research. Mankind’s fate, in light of our Central Nervous System’s ruse, barring intervention from the scientific community, may lead to the eminent and unelectable human ‘Extinction Event’.

Six years ago I introduced ‘An Anthropic Paradox ’ a gloom and doom, highly prophetic, paradox about Nature’s Adaptive, Probabilistic Evolutionary Process going terribly awry in humans, leading to a high probability of Species Failure; the Human Species Extinction Event. At first, it was meant to be taken tongue and cheek, but factoring in the last six years of research and development in climate control, world politics, economics, ecology, quantum mechanics, neuroscience, experimental psychology, and evolutionary biology, along with the forecasts of pending doom from eminent scientist’s the likes of James Hansen, NASA, and Nobel laureate Al Gore, maybe my ‘Anthropic Paradox’ might deserve a second look. I call on the Scientific Community for help; further research into tweaking Nature’s handiwork with a little of our own ‘biogenetic engineering’ may be in order to open Man’s mind to the counter-intuitive nature of the Quantum World. www.rcwormus

A little about Robert Castleton Wormus:  I’ve been involved in science for over 50 years. Board Certified, and licensed in California in Audiology and Speech Pathology, (The doctoral fields responsible for the assessment, evaluation and habilitation of  human auditory, speech, language and voice disorders) My educational background in Audiology and Speech Pathology, with its concentration on acoustics, audiology, speech, language, and voice sciences, as well as neuropathology neuroscience, anatomy, and psychophysiology of human consciousness and perception has uniquely positioned me for my ongoing postdoctoral research in the counter-intuitive psychophysiological dichotomies of human consciousness and perception

References [edit] 1.	^ Oerter, Robert (2006-09-26). The Theory of Almost Everything: The Standard Model, the Unsung Triumph of Modern Physics (p. 2). Penguin Group. Kindle Edition. 2.	^ F. Reif (1965). "Statistical Description of Systems of Particles". Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Dynamics. McGraw-Hill. pp. 47ff. ISBN 07-051800-9 Check |isbn= value (help). 3.	^ R. Eisberg, R. Resnick (1985). "Solutions of Time-Independent Schroedinger Equations". Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. pp. 214–226.ISBN 0-471-87373-X. 4.	^ F. Reif (1965). "Quantum Statistics of Ideal Gases – Quantum States of a Single Particle".Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Dynamics. McGraw-Hill. pp. vii–x. ISBN 07-051800-9 Check|isbn= value (help). 5.	^ R. Eisberg, R. Resnick (1985). "Photons—Particlelike Properties of Radiation". Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. pp. 26–54. ISBN 0-471-87373-X. 6.	^ R. Eisberg, R. Resnick (1985). "de Broglie's Postulate—Wavelike Properties of Particles". Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. pp. 55–84.ISBN 0-471-87373-X. 7.	^ F. Reif (1965). "Quantum Statistics of Ideal Gases – Identical Particles and Symmetry Requirements".Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Dynamics. McGraw-Hill. pp. 331ff. ISBN 07-051800-9 Check|isbn= value (help). 8.	^ F. Reif (1965). "Quantum Statistics of Ideal Gases – Physical Implications of the Quantum-Mechanical Enumeration of States". Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Dynamics. McGraw-Hill. pp. 353–360.ISBN 07-051800-9 Check |isbn= value (help). 9.	^ S.L. Glashow (1961). "Partial-symmetries of weak interactions". Nuclear Physics 22 (4): 579–588.Bibcode:1961NucPh..22..579G. doi:10.1016/0029-5582(61)90469-2. 10.	^ S. Weinberg (1967). "A Model of Leptons". Physical Review Letters 19 (21): 1264–1266.Bibcode:1967PhRvL..19.1264W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.19.1264. 11.	^ A. Salam (1968). N. Svartholm. ed. Elementary Particle Physics: Relativistic Groups and Analyticity.Eighth Nobel Symposium. Stockholm: Almquvist and Wiksell. pp. 367. 12.	^ F. Englert, R. Brout (1964). "Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons". Physical Review Letters 13 (9): 321–323. Bibcode:1964PhRvL..13..321E. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321. 13.	^ P.W. Higgs (1964). "Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons". Physical Review Letters13 (16): 508–509. Bibcode:1964PhRvL..13..508H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508. 14.	^ G.S. Guralnik, C.R. Hagen, T.W.B. Kibble (1964). "Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles".Physical Review Letters 13 (20): 585–587. Bibcode:1964PhRvL..13..585G.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585. 15.	^ F.J. Hasert et al.; Faissner, H.; Krenz, W.; Von Krogh, J.; Lanske, D.; Morfin, J.; Schultze, K.; Weerts, H. et al. (1973). "Search for elastic muon-neutrino electron scattering". Physics Letters B 46: 121.Bibcode:1973PhLB...46..121H. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(73)90494-2. 16.	^ F.J. Hasert et al.; Kabe, S.; Krenz, W.; Von Krogh, J.; Lanske, D.; Morfin, J.; Schultze, K.; Weerts, H. et al. (1973). "Observation of neutrino-like interactions without muon or electron in the gargamelle neutrino experiment". Physics Letters B 46: 138. Bibcode:1973PhLB...46..138H. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(73)90499-1. 17.	^ F.J. Hasert et al.; Kabe, S.; Krenz, W.; Von Krogh, J.; Lanske, D.; Morfin, J.; Schultze, K.; Weerts, H. et al. (1974). "Observation of neutrino-like interactions without muon or electron in the Gargamelle neutrino experiment". Nuclear Physics B 73: 1. Bibcode:1974NuPhB..73....1H. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90038-8. 18.	^ D. Haidt (4 October 2004). "The discovery of the weak neutral currents". CERN Courier. Retrieved 8 May 2008. 19.	^ "Details can be worked out if the situation is simple enough for us to make an approximation, which is almost never, but often we can understand more or less what is happening." from The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol 1. pp. 2–7 20.	^ S. Braibant, G. Giacomelli, M. Spurio (2009). Particles and Fundamental Interactions: An Introduction to Particle Physics. Springer. pp. 313–314. ISBN 978-94-007-2463-1. 21.	^ F. Englert, R. Brout (1964). "Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons". Physical Review Letters 13 (9): 321–323. Bibcode:1964PhRvL..13..321E. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321. 22.	^ P.W. Higgs (1964). "Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons". Physical Review Letters13 (16): 508–509. Bibcode:1964PhRvL..13..508H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508. 23.	^ G.S. Guralnik, C.R. Hagen, T.W.B. Kibble (1964). "Global Conservation Laws and Massless Particles".Physical Review Letters 13 (20): 585–587. Bibcode:1964PhRvL..13..585G.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585. 24.	^ G.S. Guralnik (2009). "The History of the Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble development of the Theory of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Gauge Particles". International Journal of Modern Physics A 24(14): 2601–2627. arXiv:0907.3466. Bibcode:2009IJMPA..24.2601G.doi:10.1142/S0217751X09045431. 25.	^ Lee, Benjamin W.; Quigg, C.; Thacker, H. B. (1977). "Weak interactions at very high energies: The role of the Higgs-boson mass". Physical Review D 16 (5): 1519–1531. Bibcode:1977PhRvD..16.1519L.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.1519. 26.	^ "Huge $10 billion collider resumes hunt for 'God particle' - CNN.com". CNN. 11 November 2009. Retrieved 4 May 2010. 27.	^ http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-discovery-of-the-higgs/higgs-discovery-is-it-a-higgs 28.	^ "CERN experiments observe particle consistent with long-sought Higgs boson". CERN. 4 July 2012. Retrieved 4 July 2012. 29.	^ "Observation of a New Particle with a Mass of 125 GeV". Cms.web.cern.ch. Retrieved 2012-07-05. 30.	^ "ATLAS Experiment". Atlas.ch. 2006-01-01. Retrieved 2012-07-05. 31.	^ Video (04:38) - CERN Announcement (4 July 2012) Of Higgs Boson Discovery. 32.	^ Overbye, Dennis (July 4, 2012). "A New Particle Could Be Physics’ Holy Grail". New York Times. Retrieved July 4, 2012. 33.	^ http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2013/03/new-results-indicate-new-particle-higgs-boson 34.	^ BABAR Data in Tension with the Standard Model (SLAC press-release). 35.	^ BaBar Collaboration, Evidence for an excess of B -> D(*) Tau Nu decays, arXiv:1205.5442. 36.	^ BaBar data hint at cracks in the Standard Model (EScienceNews.com). 37.	^ Bagdonaitel, Julija; Jensen, Paul; Henkel, Christian; Bethlem, Hendrick L.; Menten, Karl M.; Ubachs, Wim (December 13, 2012). "A Stringent Limit on a Drifting Proton-to-Electron Mass Ratio from Alcohol in the Early Universe". Science (journal) 339 (6115): 46. doi:10.1126/science.1224898. Retrieved December 14, 2012. 38.	^ Moskowitz, Clara (December 13, 2012). "Phew! Universe's Constant Has Stayed Constant".Space.com. Retrieved December 14, 2012. 39.	^ "CERN Press Release". Press.web.cern.ch. 2010-05-31. Retrieved 2012-07-05. 40.	^ S. Weinberg (1979). "Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes". Physical Review Letters 43 (21): 1566. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.1566. 41.	^ P. Minkowski (1977). "mu --> e gamma at a Rate of One Out of 1-Billion Muon Decays?". Physics Letters B 67 (4): 421. Bibcode:1977PhLB...67..421M. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(77)90435-X. 42.	^ R. N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovic (1980). "Neutrino Mass and Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation".Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (14): 912–915. Bibcode:1980PhRvL..44..912M.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.912. 43.	^ M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in Supergravity, ed. by D. Freedman et al., North Holland (1979).

Robert Castleton Wormus Palos Verdes Shores 2275 W 25 St., San Pedro, CA. 90732 310 953-5939 www.rcwormus.com