Electrons and quarks (thought to make up protons and neutrons) posses a property called “spin”

Notes on Superforce by Paul Davies, Touchstone books, 1984

Chapter 1: The Unfolding Universe (p. 5-21)

Paul Davies: Superforce

The advances in theoretical understanding are made spectacular due to the rise of GUTs and supersymmery, which suggest that all nature is ultimately controlled by a “superforce. In the late 1960’s it was shown that electromagnetism can be mathematically combined with the weak force. The new theory predicted a new type of light, made up not of photons, but “Z” particles. In 1983, Z particles were produced at CERN in a subatomic particle accelerator.

It is from insights into the relationship between force fields, particles, and symmetry that there has come the conjecture that we live in an 11 dimensional universe. [1]

Chapter 2: The New Physics and the Collapse of Common Sense (p. 22-40)

“Mathematical modeling suggests that on a scale …[of] twenty powers of 10 smaller than an atomic nucleus, space becomes ‘foamy’ in structure, with violent, spontaneous growth and decay of curvature due to gravity. In the same way that a particle explores all possible pathways of motions available to it, space on an ultramicroscopic scale explores all of its available motions. …[for particles] …an army of ‘ghost’ particles, each following a different pathway. [for space]… an infinity of ‘ghost’ spaces co-exist, each representing the realization of some particular geometrical form.”

“If position is no longer well defined in the quantum realm, it becomes no surprise that angles are similarly afflicted. … it is no longer possible to treat direction and orientation naively….

Spin is a property possessed by most subatomic particles, and it is relatively unambiguous in a most unusual way: Experimenters have long accepted that the spin of a particle will always be found to point along whichever axis is chosen by the experimenter as his reference, defined in practice by an electric or magnetic field. If the experimenter readjusts he apparatus to a different reference angle, he will find that the spin will again point in the direction of the new reference angle. It is a property which completely undermine any attempt to make sense of the concept of direction in the quantum domain.

“If the spin of a particle is destined to follow forever the random choice of reference direction, the experimenter’s free will somehow intrudes into the microworld. …[This] … is suggestive of mind over matter. In chapter 3 we shall see that these subjective elements of quantum physic demand a complete reappraisal of the traditional concept of reality and the role of consciousness in the universe”

Observation: note that the orientation of spin axis following experimenter’s free will is not an effect resulting from a direct interaction with consciousness. In particular, the behavior of the spin axis depends on a realignment of the experimental apparatus, not on the experimenter’s instantaneous consciousness.

Only when an elementary particle is rotated two complete revolutions of 360 degrees, will it have properties indistinguishable from those of the initial particle.

This is called intrinsic spin.

In later chapters we shall see how the curious geometrical nature of spin could prove to be the key to unifying physics. [2]

“There is no doubting the strong mystical element that underlies much of the new physics.”

The pinnacle of Newtonian reductionism came with a statement by Pierre Laplace:

“An intelligence knowing, a any given instant in time, all forces acting in nature, as well as the momentary positions of all things of which the universe consists, would be able to comprehend the motions of the largest bodies of the world and those of the smallest atoms in one single formula, provided it were sufficiently powerful to subject all data to analysis; to it nothing would be uncertain, both future and past would be present before its eyes.”

The new physics… restores mind to a central position in nature. ….The act of observation in quantum physics is not just an accidental feature; ….the observer enters the subatomic reality in a fundamental way and the equations of quantum physics explicitely encode the act of observation in their description. [3]

“The act of observation in quantum physics is not just an incidental feature, a means of accessing information already existing in the external world; the observer enters the subatomic reality in a fundamental way and the equations of quantum physics explicitely encode the act of observation in their description . An observation brings about a distinct transformation in the physical situation.” [4]

Chapter 3: Reality and the Quantum (p. 41-49)

In his book Physics and Philosophy, Heisenberg recalled the early misgivings he had about the meaning of the new quantum mechanics: ;

‘I remember discussions with Bohr which went through many hours till very late at night and ended almost in despair; and when at the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in the neighboring park, I repeated to myself again and again the question: Can nature possibly be so absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments.”

Before quantum theory, the physical universe was regarded rather like a clockwork mechanism, its behavior legislated in every detail by unassailable logic. [5] EPR experiment; Bell’s Theorem. Alain Aspect proves theorem; non-locality. Although the two particles were “set up” in the Aspect experiment, particles in real life are continually interacting and separating. The non-local aspect of quantum systems is therefore a general property of nature, not just a freak situation manufactured in a lab. [6]

“The fuzziness of quantum uncertainty does not carry over into the actual observations we make, and so at some stage in the chain between the quantum system, experimental equipment, dials and meters, something must happen to dispel the fuzziness. In the absence of an observation a quantum system will evolve in a certain way. When an observation is made, an entirely different evolution occurs. Just what produces this different behavior is not clear, but at least some physicists insist that it is explicitly caused by the mind [ie consciousness] itself.” [7]

Chapter 4: Symmetry and Beauty (p. 50-69)

“Perhaps the greatest scientific discovery of all time is that nature is written in mathematical code.” This allows us to understand, predict, and control physical processes. [8]

Notes the relationship between the exponential and sine/cosine functions is an example of a kind of symmetry which physicists look for.

( the derivative of e to the x is e to the x; the fourth derivative of sin and cosine are the sine and cosine; the deep connection between e to the x and sine x is made explicite in the theory of complex numbers. ) [9]

Newton’s laws were completely reformulated by the French physicist Joseph Louis Lagrange and the Irish physicist William Rowan Hamilton in the 19^th century. Hamilton’s work contained an unexpected pointer to quantum theory. Hamilton found that the most succinct expression for the laws of motion were contained in a mathematical statement identical to the minimum time principle for light waves. Roughly, particles try to get from place to place along the easiest (which usually means the fastest) route possible. Thus, both material particles and light waves actually move in similar ways, mathematically. From this one might conclude that particles have a wave like property. [10]

The conservation laws follow directly from Newton’s laws of motion, but the reformulation of these laws by Lagrange and Hamilton reveal a deep and powerful connection between the conservation of a quantity and the presence of symmetry. For example, if the system is symmetric when rotated, then it follows from Hamilton’s or Lagrange’s equations that angular momentum will be conserved. [11]

Even though the mathematical symmetries may be hard, or even impossible to visualize physically, they can point the way to new principles in nature. Searching for undiscovered symmetries has thus become a major tool of modern physics.

If electric charge is conserved, the question naturally arises as to the nature of the symmetry associated with it. The energy required to lift a weight depends only on the difference in height it is raised; it is independent of route, and of the initial height. “There is a symmetry, therefore, under changes in the choice of zero height. A similar symmetry exists for electric fields. Here voltage is analogous to height. Height and voltage are considered gauge symmetries. It is precisely the gauge symmetry for voltages that assures the conservation of electric charge. [12]

Isotopic spin symmetry: [13] protons are interchangeable with neutrons as long as electric charge is conserved.

The concept of the field was invented by Faraday and Maxwell as an abstraction. The field is only manifest by the way particles interact. Although it is possible to formulate all equations in terms of the particles alone, without reference to the field, the resulting math is complicated and messy.

Nature is beautiful. Beauty implies utility. Successful theories are always beautiful. They are not beautiful because they are successful, but because of their inherent symmetry and economy. [14]

Chapter 5: The Four Forces (p. 70-79)

Although Gravity is extraordinarily weak; billions of times weaker then EM force; it is also universal. The weak force is much stronger than gravity, but much weaker than the EM force. The weak force is confined to individual subatomic particles, while gravity and EM are long range. The weak force results in spontaneous transmutations of atoms. It was discovered that, left to themselves, neutrons disintegrate after several minutes into a proton, electron, and neutrino. The weak force is responsible for this. The Strong force holds protons together; this force is stronger than EM, but like the weak force, is confined to a very short distance. Neutrons and protons are subject to the strong force, acting to hold them together, but electrons are not; nor are neutrinos or photons. In the 1960s, quark theory was proposed, which held that each proton and neutron is made of 3 quarks, held together by the strong force. This theory made the strong force easier to understand.

Chapter 6: The World of Subatomic Particles (p. 80-100)

The product of high speed particle collisions include several hundred types. These are not the “constituents” of the collided particles, but rather resultant debris created on site. In the 1960s, physicists were completely bewildered by the seemingly endless variety of particles being discovered in these accelerator experiments. “Today, (1984) there is no longer any doubt. There is a deep and meaningful order in the microcosmos” which we are only beginning to understand. The varying quantities are mass, charge, and spin, and lifetime. Particles with 0, 1, or 2 spin are called Bosons, after Satyendra Bose; ½ and 3/2 spin are Fermions. Big particles which couple to the Strong force are called hadrons; those which feel the weak force but not the strong are are called leptons (“light thing”) only a handful of Leptons, which include electron and Neutrino. Nutrinos feel neither the strong force nor the EM force, almost oblivious to matter they pass right through it. They are harmless so the neutrino experiments require no shielding. They are the most common objects in the universe, outnumbering electrons or protons by a thousand million to one: the universe is a sea of Neutrinos punctuated by other particles. Hundreds of types of Hadons. The decisive step in unraveling the hadron mystery came in 1963, when Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig invented the quark theory. Three flavors of quark are used; up, down, and “strange”. The strong force cannot change the flavour of quarks; only the weak force can do that. Without a flavour change to convert a strange quark to an up or a down, no particle decay an occur. In 1974 the simple version of the quark theory was dealt a sharp blow. A new particle (called psi) was discovered by two independent researchers. There was no room in the quark theory for this new particle. The situation was resolved by postulating a fourth quark flavour: “charm”. A rerun occurred in 1977, when a fifth quark flavour was postulated; bottom or beauty. The original quark theory was supposed to simplify, but we again have proliferation. [15]

All ordinary matter is made form the two lightest leptons (electron and neutrino) and the two lightest quarks (up and down), called the “top level structure”. All remaining quarks and leptons are unstable and rapidly decay into the top level structure. Why does nature bother with them? [16]

Viewed at the quantum level, two electrons in a collision path would result in a scattering event in which a photon is emitted by one electron and absorbed by another, and then the two particles diverge. Schematic diagrams may be used to represent this activity, and were first used by Richard Feynman to represent terms in an equation. The emitted photon can be thought of as a “messenger particle” It is important to note that this exchange is not observed in the interaction, it is only a conceptual way of thinking about it. This type of photon is called “virtual”.

The description of electromagnetic activity in terms of virtual messenger photons is a highly sophisticated and detailed mathematical theory known as quantum electrodynamics (QED) This theory is consistent with the principles of both quantum theory and relativity theory(?). This theory allows a procedure for calculating the results of any interaction between photons and electrons, however complicated.

QED passed two decisive tests: [17]

According to QED, energy levels of the hydrogen atom ought to be slightly shifted from where they would be if virtual photons did not exist. Willis Lamb of U of Arizona conducted an experiment to look for the shift and measure its value showed the measured and calculated values matched exactly. The second test involved a small correction the magnetic field carried by the electron. Once again theory and experiment matched exactly. QED is the most successful quantitative theory in existence. QED became the model for the quantum description of the other 3 forces. For gravity a particle called the “graviton” messenger particle was invented, analogous to the photon. When two particles exert a gravitational influence on each other, they exchange gravitons. Photons and gravitons travel at the speed of light, so are “zero rest mass’ particles. The messenger particles which hold quarks together are called “gluons” gravitons are classed real and virtual. Weak force messengers are the Z and W particles. Z is identical to the photon except rest mass, and is a new form of light.

Scattering of two charged particles from a discrete mass perspective, and from a quantum perspective using a Fenyman diagram to indicate exchange of a virtual photon. [18]

George Keyworth, science advisor to the US president, at a lecture in Baltimore (1984?) said that the US had to regain her particle physics supremacy. A new monster accelerator was being planed by the US to dwarf CERN, called the “superconducting super collider”, or the “Desertron”. Keyworth’s address coincided with a wave of publicity over the Regan anti-missile project, also known as the beam weapon program. “Certainly most particle physicists found the idea both absurd and abhorrent, and reacted strongly against the presidents proposal. Keyworth castigated them… and appealed to each member of the physics community ‘to consider what part you can play in making beam weapons a working proposition.’ [19]

Chapter 7: Taming the Infinite (p. 101-116)

To quantum physicists attempting to model the electron mathematically, the vacuum, or Zero Point Field was seen as an annoyance which introduced infinities into their equations. In Paul Davies words: “The presence of infinite terms in the theory is a warning flag that something is wrong, but if the infinities never show up in an observable quantity we can just ignore them and go ahead and compute.” [20]

Sadly, of the four forces, only electromagnetism seemed to have the magic property of renormalizability. The messenger particles of the other three forces generated endless infinities that could not be swept away en masse, as in QED. [21]

Quarks, leptons and messengers completes the list of known subatomic particles.

When Maxwell initially wove the equations of electricity and magnetism together, he thought they looked unbalanced, He therefore added an equation to make the equations more symmetric. The extra term could be interpreted as creation of a magnetic field by varying an electric field. This turned out to actually exist. Inclusion of the second term allowed trig functions to be solutions to the equations, or electromagnetic waves.

Around 1900, Henri Poincare and Heinrich Lorentz investigated the math structure of Maxwell’s equations. The celebrated “extra term” turned out to give the EM field a subtle but powerful form of symmetry: a rotation not in space, but in space-time. The effect of rotating in space-time is to project some spatial length into time and vice-versa. It took Einstein’s genius to drive home the full implications. Space and time are not independent, but interwoven. The “rotations” Poincare and Lorentz found in Maxwell’s equations can occur in the real world, through motion. The key to the weird space-time projections lies in the speed of EM waves. Thus there is a deep relationship between EM wave motion and the structure of time and space.

The concept of symmetry can be expanded to include things other than time or space. There is a close connection between symmetry and conservation laws. One of the best established conservation laws is that of electric charge. What is the nature of the symmetry associated with conservation of electric charge?

The energy used to lift a weight depends on the change in height, weither measured relative eto sea level or ground level; there is a symmetry in changes measured from different heights. A similar symmetry exists for electric fields: voltage plays a role analogous to height. If an electric charge is moved from one point in an electric field to another point, the energy expended depends only on the voltage difference between the end points of its path. If a constant extra voltage is applied to the system, the energy expended does not change. This is an example of another symmetry of Maxwell’s equations. These examples illustrate “gauge symmetries”: the symmetries involve a “regauging” of height and voltage. These symmetries are not geometrical in nature. It is the gauge symmetry for voltages that ensures the conservation of electric charge.

Symmetry of the strong nuclear force that acts between protons and neutrons. The close similarity of proton and neutrons suggests a symmetry is at work. Nuclear processes would remain unchanged if we could swap the identity of all protons and neutrons. Strong nuclear force independent of identity transformation from proton to neutron and vv; this is called “isotopic spin symmetry.” These symmetry properties are closely analogous to those of intrinsic spin.

Physicists now believe that all forces exist simply to enable nature to maintain a set of abstract symmetries. What has force got to do with symmetry? In broadest terms something is symmetric if it remains unchanged under a certain operation. The laws of electricity are symmetric under reversal of positive and negative charge. Symmetries used in dealing with the four forces are called gage symmetries. Gauge symmetries haave to do with re-gauging the level or scale or value of some physical quantity, and a system possesses gauge symmetry if the physical nature of the system remains unchanged under such an alteration. [22]

Here is a deep principle of nature: physics in a curved path around a planet (in a spacecraft, for instance) is the same as in a straight path in deep space. The reason is that the gravity of the planet exactly neutralizes the effect of curving of the path of the spacecraft. The conclusion:

The laws of physics can be made symmetric even under local gauge transformations in distance provided a gravitational field is introduced to compensate for the place to place variations. Or, the gravitational field is natures way of maintaining a local gauge symmetry. A freedom to regauge the scale of distance arbitrarily from place to place. With gravity, we can change to any shape of path whatever without changing the physics. The symmetry here is the invariance of physics under arbitrary changes in the shape of the path of motion. Viewed this way, gravity is simply a manifestation of an abstract symmetry-a local gauge symmetry. Not just gravity, but all four but all four forces can be treated in this way: they can all be regarded as gauge fields. In a quantum description of gauge fields coupled to particles of matter the concept of a gauge change must be widened further and related to the phase of the quantum wave which describes a particle. Nature exhibits a number of local gauge symmetries and is compelled to introduce several force fields to compensate for the gauge changes involved. The EM field is a manifestation of the simplest known gauge symmetry that is consistent with the principles of special relativity. The gauge transformations involve changes in voltage from place to place.

It is intriguing that the existence of electromagnetism could be deduced from two requirements:

The simplest local gage symmetry and the so-called Lorentz-Poincare symmetry of special relativity. [23]

Gauge symmetry is the key to constructing quantum theories of the forces that are free of the destructive infinite terms discussed previously. [24]Note this in discussion of zpf

One of the characteristics of gauge fields are that they are long ranged. The weak force is very short ranged. In quantum language, the graviton and photon are massless, but the weak force messengers are very massive. [25]

Chapter 8: A Grand Trinity (p.117-135)

Still, in the 1970s Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam proposed that the EM and weak forces are two parts of a single force, the electro-weak force. The essence of their theory is a description of the weak force in terms of gauge theory. To treat the weak force as a gauge field theory we assume that that all particles which feel the weak force act as sources of a new type of field- a weak force field. Weakly interacting particles, as electrons and neutrinos, carry a weak charge, which couples these particles to the weak field. As originally proposed, isotropic spin symmetry describes the strong nuclear force between protons and neutrons. The gauge change was a theoretical exchange of identities of protons and neutrons. Weinberg and Salam adapt the idea of isotropic spin symmetry to the weak force particles. WS proposes that a neutron encounters a neutrino. The neutron is transmuted into a proton by a messenger particle W-, which changes the flavor of one quark in the neutron from down to up, the W- then combines with the neutrino to form an electron. Net result is one proton and one electron. Three new force fields are required: W-, W+ and Z; that is, electrons can scatter neutrinos by an electrically neutral messenger particle, Z. Experimental evidence for Z was obtained at CERN in 1973. still, gauge fields are supposed to be long range, and the messenger particle is massless. In WS, W and Z carry a huge mass. How to obtain gauge symmetry as well as messengers with a mass? WS resolved this with the idea of “spontaneous symmetry breaking.” Their claim is that “the underlying gauge symmetry is still present in the fields, but the fields cannot normally exist in a state which reflects this symmetry, because such a state is unstable. Therefore the field ‘sinks’ into a stable state which breaks the symmetry and bestows upon the messenger particles a mass. “ WS introduced another field, a Higgs field, after Peter Higgs at the U of Edinburgh, who had already studied spontaneous symmetry breaking in the context of particle physics. As an a Mexican hat, where a ball placed on top, the position of highest symmetry, is unstable; the ball rolls to the brim because it is the position of lowest energy. Likewise, the Higgs field is such that its lowest energy state is one of broken symmetry. [how do we prove the lowest energy state is one in which the messenger particle has mass?]

By using the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking then were able to combine EM and weak force into a single gauge theory. Four fields present: EM and three weak force fields. Higgs field causes spontaneous symmetry breaking. Initially W and Z are massless, but some Higgs particles coalesce with W and Z (Wand Z eat Higgs particles). the photon is left untouched. WS explains why weak force so weak: it is weak because of symmetry breaking: W and Z are so massive. (about 90 protons)

Is theory renormalizable? Would the infinity removing method of QED work? Gerhardt’t Hooft of U of Utrecht took this up in the 1970s. Aided by computer, he confirmed that all infinities cancelled exactly. W and Z were discovered in 1983. W&S got Nobel prize in 1979. [26]

In quantum field theory of gravity: graviton messenger transmits gravitational force.

The idea that the strong force might be unified with the electroweak force came quickly. The strong force can be pictured in terms of the exchange of gluons which serve to bind together quarks into pairs or trios to form hadrons. Each quark possesses an analog of electric charge which acts as the source for the gluon field. This “charge” is called “color.” The EM field is formed from one sort of charge, but the gluon field requires three sorts of charges, arbitrarily called red green and blue (not real color) The demand for local gauge symmetry requires the introduction of force fields to compensate. Eight new compensating force fields are required. The messenger particles are gluons, and we would expect eight different types of gluon. When quarks emit a gluon, they change color. Gluons also carry color. At any given time, the “sum” of all three quark colors must be red + green + blue. The quantum theory of color is called quantum chromodynamics (QCD) from the standpoint of QCD, the strong force is nothing more than nature’s insistence on maintaining an abstract symmetry: in this case that all hadrons are red + green + blue regardless of internal color changes

tHis is reductionism !!! and is an inadequate explanation. One caveat: isolated quarks have never been observed, even using the most powerful accelerators to try to break apart protons. William Fairbank of Stanford has carefully examined small samples of natural minerals, to try to find any natural quarks (with an electric charge of 1/3 or 2/3. He has reported success, but his results have not been duplicated. There is the growing feeling that quarks can exist only in hadrons. [27]

According to Paul Davies, in 1973, Sheldon Glashow and Howard Georgi published a theory in which the new electroweak force was merged with the strong gluon force to form a “grand unified force,” the first Grand Unified Theory [28]

There are now several condending GUTs, but they are all based on the same idea. Any GUT must be described as a gauge field with a symmetry elaborate enough to contain the symmetries of QCD and Weinberg-Salam. There is no unique symmetry which will work, thus the proliferation of theories.

The Sheldon Glashow Howard Georgi GUT is simplest, requiring 24 unified force fields. 12 are already known: the photon messenger particle (EM); two Ws and Z (weak); eight gluons (strong) the other 12 are unknown, so called X. The mass of this X messenger particle is calculated to be 10 to the 14^th power proton masses.

The reader may be wondering how a proton can contain within itself messenger particles that are 10 to the 14^th power heavier than it is. The answer is provided by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The X esists for only a minute duration. For such a minute duration, energy, hence mass, will have enormous uncertainty. The uncertainty principle links together energy (mass) and distance. A scale of mass defines a scale of distance. The mass of X gives a distance scale (through which it would travel) of 10 to the -29 cm. this is its range.

The EM force gets stronger at shorter range; while the strong force gets weaker. The distance at which all three forces come together is 10 to the -29 cm., the length associated with the X mass.

10 to the 14^thproton masses is called the “unification scale” A clue? [29]

Chapter 9: Superforce glimpsed? (p. 136-149)

The current GUTs predict proton disintegration. The average life of a proton, according to the GUTs is 10 to the 31 years, much longer than the age of the universe. A proton disintegrating would support the GUTS. So far no proton has been seen to disintegrate. [30]

The only other experimental handle we have that might provide a glimpse of physics at the unification scale is the detection of the magnetic monopole: magnetic monopoles are considered an inevitable consequence of GUTs.

Maxwell’s EM equations are not quite perfect. The equations are lopsided in their treatment of electricity and magnetism. Electric fields are produced either by electric charges or by changing magnetic fields, while magnetic fields are produced by changing electric fields only. The magnetism of a common bar magnet is produced by electric currents circulating at the atomic level. All known magnets are dipolar; ie, they have a north and a south pole. Magnetic monopoles, if they exist, are exceedingly elusive. No magnetic charge (magnetic monopole) has ever been discovered. This has led many physicists to believe that they do not exist, and that magnetism is always a by-product of electricity. This would mean that nature is unbalanced between electricity and magnetism.

In 1931, Paul Dirac found a place definitely exists in quantum physics for magnetic monopoles. He related the existence of magnetic monopoles to the phases of quantum waves, and in so doing found a connection between electric and magnetic charges.

Cosmological calculations indicate a super abundance of grand unified monopoles (GUMS). However, stringent limits have been set on the number of possible GUMS from observing the magnetic field of the galaxy. (none have been observed. [31]

Gravity is nature’s odd man out. The other three forces of nature can all be represented by fields of foces extending through time and space, but gravity IS space and time. Einstein’s General Theory describes gravity as a field of curvature in the geometry of space time; it is distorted emptiness. For decades, Einstein’s general theory has resisted all attempts at a consistent quantum formulation. Although it is a gauge field, the difficulty is with infinite terms which arise whenever closed graviton loops occur. Once a powerful gauge symmetry was built in, the weak force became renormalizable, and the infinities fell away. Physicists are now searching for a new more powerful symmetry which would make gravity re-normalizable. They came up with supersymmetry. The central idea of supersymmetry centers on spin. There are two distinct classes of Spin. Bosons do not spin (spin =0); or have a whole number unit of spin. Photon, W and Z have one unit of spin; graviton has two units of spin. The other class are fermions, which have half integer spin values. Quarks and leptons are fermions, with spin ½. The fermion spin has the double rotation property. [32]

Fermions, which include electrons, with half integer spin, do not get too close together.

Pauli’s exclusion principle forbid any 2 electrons from sharing he same quantum state (in an atom); it explains why electrons do not all seek out the lowest energy state. Bosons can be crammed together.

There are no exclusion principles for Bosons. Because of this cooperative effect, vast numbers of Bosons can act in orchestration and produce macroscopic effects. For example, photons can merge coherently to build up a well defined EM motion such as a radio wave. Fermions could never do this. All messenger particles are bosons; quarks and leptons are fermions. That mean Bosons are associated with force, and fermions are associated with matter. Supersymmetry unites bosons and fermions into a single theory.

Mathematically, a supersymmetry operation resembles taking the square root of the lorentz-Poincare symmetry, which is the basis for the theory of relativity. Physically it corresponds to changing a fermion into a boson, or VV.

Supersymmetry is closely related to geometry. If you carry out two SS operations in succession you get a simple geometrical operation like shift in spatial position. SS math has been called the square root of geometry. Gravity, being purely curved geometry, receives natural expression thru the language of SS, which breaks out its gauge field mature in a more powerful way. Since the graviton has spin 2, a SS version, which unites particles od spin 0, ½, 1 and 2 would predict a particle of spin 3/2, and has never been observed. Supergravity assumes the graviton is assisted by a “gravitino” of spin 3/2. [33]

String theorists claim that Supersymmetry is related to geometry. [34]

Chapter 10: Do we live in eleven dimensions (p.150-

Much of the fascination of physics lies in the fact that it frequently explains the world in terms of things we don’t see, and may not be able to visualize.

Einstein’s general theory not only swept away Newton’s gravitation and mechanics, but also the notion of gravity as a force. Gravity is a field of geometrical distortion. Gravity is reduced to geometry. Where there used to be a force is now “spacewarp.”

Polish Theodor Kaluza was inspired by the power of geometry to describe gravitation, and he wanted to extend Einstein’s work to include EM, while keeping Maxwell’s equations. He realized there was no way Maxwell’s equations could be turned into geometry as we know it. His solution was to expand geometry enough to fit Maxwell’s equations. Kaluza showed that EM is a kind of gravity of an unseen dimension of space.

The gravitational field in this five dimensional space-time behave just like ordinary gravity plus Maxwell’s EM field. What he was saying was that if we expand our vision of the universe to five dimensions, there is really only one force field, gravity. Kaluza’s theory amalgamates EM and gravity, and also provides a geometrical formulation for both. This means in his theory, an EM wave in our world is a ripple in the 5^th dimension. Viewed in this way, there are no forces at all; only warped 5-D geometry, with particles meandering through structured nothingness. One problem: we do not see the 4^th dimension. Where is it? The space of our perception is unalterably 3 D.

Riemann and other mathematicians developed a systematic study of higher dimensional spaces. The basic problem was a satisfactory definition of dimensionality. Finally, LEJ Brouwer, Rene Lesbesgue and others established a satisfactory definition of dimensionality; a procedure for comparing two spaces and determining if they had the same dimensionality.

Why is our perceived space 3D? Paul Ehrenfest wrote a paper on this topic, looking at stable orbits and the inverse square law. As early as 1747 Kant recognized the deep connection between this law and the three dimensionality of space. It turns out that electrons have no stable orbits in spaces of greater than 3 dimensions, and without stable atomic orbits, chemistry, and thus life, would be impossible. it is also impossible to transmit well defined wave signals in spaces of even numbers. How does this square with Kaluza’a 4 D space theory? Kaluza Klein theory.

In 1926, Oscar Klein proposed that we do not notice the extra dimension because it is rolled up to a very small size. He calculated the size to be 10 to the -32 power, about 10 to the -20 power of the size of an atomic nucleus. Somehow the th space dimension resides within the atom. This theory has been wheeled out of the mothballs recently by GUT theorists. GUT success hinges on the ability of forces to be described as gauge fields. The central property of gauge fields is the presence of abstract symmetries. The revitalized KK theory the gauge field symmetries become concrete: they are the geometrical symmetries associated with the extra space dimensions. The fact that there are three forces to accommodate demands several additional dimensions. A simple count of the number of symmetry operations in a grand unified force would require sefven extra dimensions. The modern KK theory postulates an eleven dimensional universe. For seven dimensions, the range of topologies is enormous. Which shape would be correct? One popular choice is the 7-D analog to the sphere, known as the seven sphere. If this theory were correct, each “point” in space would be a minute 7-D hyperball. In this theory, all the forces of nature are treated as a manifestation of space time structure. Gravity is a warp in four spacetime dimensions, while the other forces are reduced to higher dimensional spacewarps. All the forces of nature are revealed as “nothing more” than hidden geometry at work. There is a deep compulsion to believe that the entire universe is in realty convoluted nothingness; a self-organized void.

In the early 1960’s John Wheeler attempted to build a complete theory based on the geometry of empty space time. He called this geometrodynamics. It seeks to describe both particles and forces in terms of geometrical structures. This theory failed to account for spin 1/2 and the neutrino. In recent years Wheeler has adopted the position that any theory which assumes spacetime cannot explain spacetime.

What is the evidence of a KK 11-D universe? It may be possible to demonstrate the existence of the other dimensions physically. How much energy do we need to “get inside” the seven sphere and explore (confirm) the extra dimensions? According to KK theory we need to go to the unimaginable energy of 10 to the 19 proton masses. Only at this energy would the extra dimensions manifest themselves directly. The value 10 to the 19 proton masses is called the “Plank scale”.

In the unified theory of forces there are three crucial energy thresholds: Weinberg-Salam energy at 90 proton masses, unification energy at 10 to the 14 proton masses, and Plank energy at 10 to the 19 proton masses. The “big bang” provided enough energy to unleash the Superforce.

Chapter 11: Cosmic Fossils.

Chapter 12: What Caused the Big Bang? (p. 183-205)

The BB exploded with just the right violence: a little less violent and gravity would very soon have reversed the expansion, engulfing he cosmos in a catastrophic implosion, like a black hole. A little faster and the cosmic material would long ago have entirely disbursed. How delicately has the rate of expansion been “fine tuned” to fall on the narrow dividing line between two catastrophes? If at time one second (by which time the pattern of expansion was already firmly established) the expansion rate had differed from its actual value by 10 to the -18, the delicate balance would have been thrown off.

In the traditional version of the big bang, we are asked to accept not only that it just happened, but that it happened in an exceedingly contrived manner.

The rate of expansion is only one of several apparent cosmic “miracles”: The large scale uniformity of the universe continues to be preserved as the universe expands. It follows that the expansion itself must be very uniform. It was a highly uniform explosion of exactly uniform vigour in every direction. Davies says that the size of the universe “at that time” (after one second) had to be at least 10 to the 14 km across. If light was traveling at “c”, the scientifically accepted speed of light, then there must have been 10 to the 27 causally separate regions, all coordinated to expand at the same rate. How was this possible?

Both Newton and Einstein were troubled by the enigma of why the universe did not collapse. Einstein believed that to keep the universe from imploding under its own gravity there had to be another force to counteract gravity. He found that his gravitational field equations contained an optional term which gave rise to such a force. It was called the cosmological constant. He included this term, which amounted to a negative pressure. When Hubble, in 1927, discovered that the universe was expanding, Einstein threw out this term. It is now thought that a huge cosmic repulsion is an inevitable byproduct of the Superforce.

In the late 1970s it became apparent that the unification of the four forces required a drastic re-appraisal of the physical nature of the quantum vacuum. The new theory postulated that the vacuum could be excited and adopt a number of different energy states. These energy states would exert negative pressure. The new “explanation” of what caused the big bang asserts that originally the universe was an excited vacuum state (no matter. This caused the expansion or big bang. the runaway expansion speed has been called “inflation” by Alan Guth of MIT, who invented the idea in 1980. as with all excited quantum systems, the vacuum is unstable, and decays to a lower energy level. This ends the inflation phase of the big bang. The energy of the excited vacuum in decaying to a lower energy state is dumped in the form of radiation which heated the universe to 10 to the 27 k; hot enough for GUT processes to occur.

Chapter 13: The Unity of the Universe (p. 206-222)

Machs principle: linking the large and the small:

Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach’s work on the nature of inertia, dignified with the title Mach’s principle, has proved to be one of science’s most enduring speculations. Newton discussed “absolute space”, without relation to anything external. Leibniz declared “There is no space where there is no matter.” Newton believed he could prove the existence of absolute space scientifically, by referring to inertial effects. The equatorial bulge due to rotation of the earth shows that the earth rotates not relative to stars, but relative to absolute space. George Berkeley countered that if a globe were in the middle of an empty universe, no motion could be conceived of it, including rotation. Mach agreed with Berkeley. Mach postulated that inertia has its origin in the far depths of the universe; “the fixed stars” really cause centrifugal force. If this explanation, known as Mach’s principle, is accepted, then Newton’s absolute space can be discarded, and all motion treated as relative. How could stars cause inertia? According to relativity, a gravitational disturbance can only travel at the speed of light, so a delay in inertia would be expected. Einstein believed he found a way to overcome the time delay problem by formulating Mach’s principle as part of his cosmological investigations. He could only get it to work only if the universe is not infinite, but spatially closed (a hypersphere). There is still confusion and debate today as to what extent Einstein’s general theory includes relativity. Some effects predicted by GR have a Machian flavor. [35]

Signals from the future:

The one-way character of wave disturbances extends to all kinds of wave motion and imprints on the universe the “arrow of time”. We can think of out going waves as traveling into the future, and incoming or converging waves as time-reversed. The former are called “retarded” because they arrive after they are sent, and the later are called “advanced”, because they arrive in advance of their transmission. Ever since Maxwell, it has been believed that advanced EM waves are possible; they are logically permitted by the theory. Most scientists have been happy enough to reject advanced waves as irrelevant. Notable exceptions were John Wheeler and Richard Feynman. in the 1945-50 period they published a paper which attempted to demonstrate why retarded waves are the norm, and to explore the possibility that advanced waves might exist. Assuming an opaque universe, and a hypothetical transmitter which transmits equally retarded and advanced waves, they found that the advanced waves propagated into the past caused echos which sent retarded waves forward into the future, and that these retarded echos canceled out the advanced waves from the original transmitter. [36]

The whole and its parts

The Wheeler-Feynman theory is Machian in the sense that it seeks to link the local and global in a network of influence, and suggests that we may understand individual systems only by proper reference to the whole. There is general agreement that the absence of advanced waves in nature, and the arrow of time are both cosmological issues. David Bohm writes, in his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, “The quantum theory has a fundamentally new kind of non-local relationship, which may be described as a non-causal connection of elements that are distant from each other”. Bohm draws an analogy between order in the quantum universe and order in a hologram: the whole is in every part.

We can define the position of a quantum particle only within the framework of a macroscopic measuring system.

Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli collaborated on proposing a non-causal connecting principle which they calle synchronicity. A popular account of these ideas has been given by Arthur Koestler in his book The Roots of Coincidence. An element of paradox runs through these ideas, reminiscent of Zen, and also of the “strange loops” discussed by Douglas Hofstadter in his Godel, Escher, Bach.

We need the universe before we can give concrete reality to the very atoms which make up the universe! The tidy old reductionist idea tof the universe as simply the sum of it parts is completely discredited by the new physics.

Chapter 14: A Cosmic Plan? (p. 222-243)

A rational universe

Steven Weinberg once wrote: “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” His remark is typical of many made by scientists, who infer from their work that the universe must be considered as a vast and meaningless accident. Other scientists, surveying the same data, arrive at other conclusions. To them, nature is too subtle; too profound. To them, our scope of vision is far too narrow to grapple with deep issues of meaning and purpose. A few scientists are more bold; more positive. They are sufficiently impressed by the way that the law of nature hang together that they feel compelled to believe there is something behind it all. Fred Hoyle said “The universe is a put-up job.” The evidence goes beyond unity. Every advance in fundamental physics seems to uncover yet another facet or order.

The harmony of nature

The second law of thermodynamics states, essentially, that disorder can never spontaneously give rise to order. No violations of this law have ever been observed. Even black holes, which bring together gravity, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics, follow the second law of thermodynamics.

Natural genius

Design in the universe

If nature can exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity; and if the world’s finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, is that not persuasive evidence of intelligent design behind the physical universe? One of the most articulate proponents of theological intelligent design is William Paley. Attempts to deduce intelligent design form the working of nature has been attacked. Three rebuttals still used today are: 1) that we impose order on the world to make sense of it; 2) that the reasoning is flawed; 3) that any order which exists in nature is the product of blind chance and not design. 1) is not convincing when applied to science. It is sometimes objected that the existence of design in the universe is based on the fallacy of a posteriori reasoning, or “thinking backwards”. Davies notes that “thinking backwards” has its pitfalls, but that it is not always fallacious. How do we know when “thinking backwards” is likely to lead us astray in looking at the order in the world. This brings him to the objection 3).

The key in using “thinking backwards” is to distinguish between two distinct forms of order. One meaning of order is complex organization, as for example living organisms. For biologists, the theory of evolution provides a satisfactory explanation for living organisms. Complex organization can therefore arise spontaneously, without the need for any preplanning. Evolution, however, can only work given millions of organisms and millions of generations. A second type of order is symmetry and simplicity. The atomic crystal lattice and simple harmonic motion are examples. Neither spatial or temporal order is merely an incidental feature of the world. Both are built into the underlying laws. It is the laws which encapsulate the astonishing orderliness of the world, rather than the actual physical structures.

Is there a meaning behind existence?

How finely must the laws of physics be “tuned” to allow complex structures to exist? In a famous article in the journal Nature, British astrophysicists Bernard Carr and Martin Rees concluded that the world is extraordinarily sensitive to even minute changes in the laws of physics, so that if the particular laws we have were to be altered in any way the universe would change beyond recognition. They found that the existence of complex structures depend on the numerical values of the “fundamental constants”, including the speed of light and masses of subatomic particles. astrophysicist Brandon Carter has studied stellar evolution, and finds an almost unbelievable delicacy in the balance between gravity and EM within a star. Calculations find that changes in the strength of either by only one par in 10 to the 40 could spell catastrophe for stars like our sun.

In Davies’ book The Accidental Universe, he made a comprehensive study of all the apparent ‘accidents’ and ‘coincidences’ that seem to be necessary in order for complex structures to exist. The sheer improbability that these concurrences could have been the result of a series of lucky accidents has prompted many scientists to agree with Hoyle’s statement. The supreme example of complex organization is life itself. If we agree that life requires the existence of heavy atoms such as carbon, then stringent limits can be placed on some of the constants. The upshot to the studies is that had the universe been created with slightly different laws, not only would we not be here, but it is doubtful if there would be any complex structure at all.

Davies last sentence: “If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggest strongly to me that the purpose includes us.”