Judith,
I agree that “relational effects”
can explain some phenomena. In my view, it remains to be proven that the
missing explanation in these cases is due to such relational effects and not
due to other causal factors (such as ‘dark matter’). While I agree
that ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ are suspiciously
ad hoc, the burden of the proof still remains for an assertion that relational
effects are in fact the causes of these phenomena.
Regards,
Tim
From: ROSEN Forum
[mailto:*** On Behalf
Of Judith Rosen
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 9:36
AM
To: ***
Subject: Re: What science doesn't
know...
(This is delayed due to my preoccupation elsewhere recently.)
How do you see that 5,9,7 "can easily be explained by
principles of relational causality"?
Both "dark matter" and "dark
energy" are attempts to explain phenomena that are outside previously
observed behavior of the universe. Let's assume, for the moment, that these
phenomena are being interpreted correctly and aren't simply the result of
flawed models, mental or otherwise, or flawed instrumentation, etc. In that
case, what they are actually reporting is that the behavior of the system is
not explainable via an analysis of all the components and all forces
learned from investigation of those components. My response is that what these
observables derive from are interactive relational effects. We know that
interactions can cause new phenomena to "emerge" as observable
behaviors, right? Such interactions are merely revealing entailments that we
didn't know existed.
Life cannot be explained via an analysis of all the
components, etc, either, and it doesn't require us to invent something called
"dark matter.dark energy" to explain life. It only requires an
understanding of relational causality. How could anyone predict that sodium and
chlorine will interact and the result will be salt? Salt is as different in
properties and behaviors from sodium as chlorine is-- and vice, versa!
The third subject; "tetraneutrons", is a
similar situation, although once again I suspect at least part of the problem
has to do with the models and the modes of analysis. According to the
description of the experiment (all three descriptions are copied in, below), I
can come up with several explanations for their results. One is that
"neutrons" aren't single entities, but are subsystems which behave as
if they were single entities when the system is intact.
5 Dark matter
TAKE our best understanding of gravity,
apply it to the way galaxies spin, and you'll quickly see the problem: the
galaxies should be falling apart. Galactic matter orbits around a central point
because its mutual gravitational attraction creates centripetal forces. But
there is not enough mass in the galaxies to produce the observed spin.
Vera Rubin, an astronomer working at the
Carnegie Institution's department of terrestrial magnetism in Washington DC,
spotted this anomaly in the late 1970s. The best response from physicists was
to suggest there is more stuff out there than we can see. The trouble was,
nobody could explain what this "dark matter" was.
9 Dark energy
IT IS one of the most famous, and most
embarrassing, problems in physics. In 1998, astronomers discovered that the
universe is expanding at ever faster speeds. It's an effect still searching for
a cause - until then, everyone thought the universe's expansion was slowing
down after the big bang. "Theorists are still floundering around, looking
for a sensible explanation," says cosmologist Katherine Freese of the University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
"We're all hoping that upcoming observations of supernovae, of clusters of
galaxies and so on will give us more clues."
One suggestion is that some property of
empty space is responsible - cosmologists call it dark energy. But all attempts
to pin it down have fallen woefully short. It's also possible that Einstein's
theory of general relativity may need to be tweaked when applied to the very
largest scales of the universe. "The field is still wide open,"
Freese says.
7 Tetraneutrons
FOUR years ago, a particle accelerator in France detected
six particles that should not exist. They are called tetraneutrons: four
neutrons that are bound together in a way that defies the laws of physics.
Francisco Miguel Marquès and colleagues at
the Ganil accelerator in Caen
are now gearing up to do it again. If they succeed, these clusters may oblige
us to rethink the forces that hold atomic nuclei together.
The team fired beryllium nuclei at a small
carbon target and analyzed the debris that shot into surrounding particle
detectors. They expected to see evidence for four separate neutrons hitting
their detectors. Instead the Ganil team found just one flash of light in one
detector. And the energy of this flash suggested that four neutrons were
arriving together at the detector. Of course, their finding could have been an
accident: four neutrons might just have arrived in the same place at the same
time by coincidence. But that's ridiculously improbable.
|