NOTE: The following post was also submitted to the Hydrino HSG group.
*************************************************************
Recent conversations between Dr. Zimmerman and rvirkus2000 on modeling molecules bring to mind the vast chasm of perception that can exist in the definitions of how reality is theoretically defined. Of course, such schisms in human perceptivity are nothing new. A recent highly-entertaining if not occasionally exasperating debate conducted on Larry King Live between two conservative Christian theologians and two gay activists (one of them a former mayor) concerning the merits (or lack of) of the award winning movie "Broke Back Mountain" make that crystal clear.
I had always enjoyed what I perceived as a certain level of vagueness in how SQM seems to have assembled the fundamental building blocks of nature. I think it leaves lots of wiggle room for different interpretations of both scientific and philosophical inclinations. Many aspects of SQM, that is, those aspects that I could comprehend, always appealed to the deepest recesses of my being where TAOist and eastern philosophical tendencies lurked. "Pop" physics books written for the mathematically challenged (that includes me!), titles such as "Dancing WuLi Masters", by Gary Zukav and "The TAO of Physics", by Fritjof Capra, took advantage of vagaries that probability and statistics seemed to suggest. It seemed to me that "Bell's Theorem" was a venerable gold mind allowing many a philosopher and occultist to pontificate that the universe must exist in the guise of a "multi-dimensional" creature, and that every part of the universe must simultaneously "know" what the rest of its quantum twitching body is doing. Everything is "singular". We are all ONE. Oh, what a warm fuzzy feeling that gave me!
Then, comes along a gadfly who has the audacity to suggest that we can replace huge chunks of a sacred century's worth of accumulated statistical curve fitting, replacing them with a number of fundamental mathematical models. And all hell breaks loose. Critics of the "new order" have been quick to retaliate, explaining what they perceive are countless flaws in the gadfly's fundamendalistic equations. According to many those alleged mathematical flaws prove that the new order attempting to explain the building blocks of reality are fatally tainted. After all, how much confidence can one put in a model of an orbitsphere that appears to be as unstable as Larry Niven's gigantic RinglWorld, where a gigantic spinning band of real estate circles a distant star and huge ram jets affixed at the edges are the only thing keeping it from careening into the sun it orbits, and in the process exterminating a gaggle of harmless (and not-so-harmless) life scuttling about on the surface.
Why would I want to buy into a brand spanking new theoretical model of the universe that on the surface may turn out to be as rigid and fundamental in its interpretation of nature as listening to the two conservative Christian theologians pontificate on Larry King Live that only bad things will come to America if we don't get back to following the Divine Laws laid down in the Bible and, instead, succumb to the temptations of learning "acceptance" and giving the same fundamental rights to individuals who practice alternative life styles. I realize many SQM proponents (and perhaps some CQM proponents as well!) may detest my crass attempt associate the ongoing HSG debate with the preservation of "Family Values" versus evil "Alternative Live Styles." After all, which side of the fence am I on!
Meanwhile, the gadfly has recently claimed that his band of dedicated followers are "...currently hosting third-party validators and duplicating our systems so other scientists can run the cells in their labs." There was also a recent article which stated "...calorimeter boxes [at BLP labs] are running at commercial power intensities right now, generating over 100 times the energy of combustion of hydrogen gas." Is any of this true? Will I be forced to abandon my cherished beliefs in the freedom of statistical probabilities, or the possibility of alternative universes, or being -one- with an all-knowing "singular" quantum-twitching universe? Where will I get my warm fuzzy fix?
Somewhere in the Book of CQM, there also exists a grandiose explanation describing the fate of the universe, where I learn of a vast never-ending Grand Cycle. We learn of an accelerated expansion followed by a contraction phase - like the slow swinging pendulum of a grandfather clock. How long does it take this fundamentalistic universe to breath in and out? Apparently, gazillions and bazillions of years! Fortunately for me Judgment Day, if it ever comes, is a tad distant. That should give me ample time to safely continue my reverie of the advantages of statistical curve fitting and being -ONE- with the universe without fear of reprisals from the coming CQM Judgment Day. Looks like I might be able to hold on a bit longer to the warm fuzzies while wiggling my exposed toes next to the radiant heat receiveth from my K-Mart BLP space heater.
Hot chocolate anyone? I'll get the marshmallows.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
With apologies to Dr. Mills & BLP, aka the gadfly.
References:
http://forums.biodieselnow.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=10749
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCQM/message/63
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
