It Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time!

“You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension: a dimension of sound; a dimension of sight; a dimension of mind. You are moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You’ve just crossed over into ‘The Twilight Zone’”* where something is always screwy somewhere. Perhaps our land of shadow and substance, often referred to by “The Twilight Zone” as the fifth dimension, is just my postulated simulated landscape, a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe entirely the creation of a mortal, fallible computer programmer who had to create the various virtual laws, principles and relationships of physics to enable our virtual selves to survive and thrive. Alas, not everything quite goes to plan and anomalous ‘oops’ and unanswerable ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions arise and so perhaps a favorite expression of our Supreme Programmer is ‘it just seemed like a good idea at the time’.

There are lots of things in high school science that are rammed down our throats, but at the time we never seem to question the why and the how and ask the Big Questions about what do these things actually mean. For just a few examples:

We are taught that the cosmic speed limit, the speed of light (in a vacuum) is 186,000 miles per second. What is never explained is why that speed and not some other speed. Why isn't the speed of light 176,000 miles per second, or 196,000 miles per second? What fundamental principle makes it 186,000 miles per second? Who knows? Who can explain it? Maybe it just seemed like a good idea at the time.

We are also taught that an electron can absorb a photon and jump to a higher energy level. We are then taught that an electron can give off that photon and jump back down to a lower energy level. How does that happen? What fundamental principle makes an electron give up the photon? Who knows? Who can explain it? Maybe it just seemed like a good idea at the time.

Even more puzzling, we are taught that an electron can be in this 'orbit' (energy level) around an atomic nucleus, or in another 'orbit' (energy level) around an atomic nucleus, but not be anywhere in-between. In-between energy levels are forbidden territory or no-go areas for electrons according to the rules and regulations of quantum physics. The Big Question is, when an electron quantum jumps from one energy level or 'orbit' to another energy level or 'orbit', where is the electron? The apparent answer is nowhere or in "The Twilight Zone" or some such. What fundamental principle is at work here that makes the electron vanish between energy levels? Who knows? Who can explain it? Maybe it just seemed like a good idea at the time.

For some reason I've never seen explained, there are three generations of the fundamental particles, only one of which plays an active role in what we consider to be the stuff of the cosmos. Why there should be three generations of particles instead of just the one, or why three instead of two or four (or more) is I gather virgin territory. I certainly don't profess to understand the why of this facet of our reality. Maybe it just seemed like a good idea at the time.

Wave-particle duality happens to be just one of those given anomalies in quantum physics that happen to vex us. Physicists, I suspect, need to go beyond the current state of textbook descriptions to come to terms with how a particle (with mass/energy) can shape-shift into a wave with associated wavelength and frequency, and then shape-shift back into a particle again. The double-slit experiment is a case in point. Again, maybe it just seemed like a good idea at the time.

We are all taught that an electron has an equal and opposite electric charge to that of a proton. Why is this so? Why should it just happen to be the case that their charges are exactly opposite to as many decimal places as you care to measure when in all other respects they are a different as apple and oranges? I've seen all manner of general science, physics, and chemistry texts state this; I've never seen an explanation. Maybe it just seemed like a good idea at the time.

There are four fundamental forces that rule the cosmic roost. There is gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force. There is also a trilogy of symmetries. There is the symmetry of time (forward or back).There is parity (mirror or left-right symmetry) and there is charge (plus or minus). Now one would expect all four forces to operate equally and be symmetric with respect to all three symmetries. Alas, there is the odd one out. The weak nuclear force shows a bias when it comes to parity. Why? Who knows? But there has to be some deeper meaning somewhere down the line. Or maybe it just seemed like a good idea at the time.

All violations of conservation laws need to be fully explained. Glib statements like "it just happens that way" or "first there was nothing and then there was something" just doesn't cut the scientific mustard IMHO. For example, the accelerating expansion rate of the Universe is quite an anomaly although it is apparently quite straightforward in that there’s considerable observational evidence that the expansion rate of the Universe is accelerating (albeit alternative explanations are possible). However, logic dictates that because of the overall gravity that the Universe has, the expansion rate of the Universe should be decelerating. The ‘antigravity’ energy required to accelerate the Universe’s expansion has to come from somewhere, and in ever increasing amounts to keep on keeping on the ever increasing rate of acceleration, yet, the Universe, almost by definition, already contains all there is and ever will be. If extra ‘antigravity’ energy is being created, it’s being created out of nothing. Something from nothing is a clear violation of the basic conservation laws and principles that form the bedrock of modern science. This accelerating Universe is akin to you driving faster and faster uphill with your foot off the gas pedal. Maybe this too just seemed like a good idea at the time. Perhaps violations in the conservation laws in general just seemed like a good idea at the time.

Lack of causality in a process really bothers me. For example, take radioactive decay. The standard scenario goes that one has an unstable atom or unstable atomic nucleus actually. To achieve greater stability, the atomic nucleus spits out various bits and pieces – alpha particles, beta particles and/or gamma rays. The problem is, there is no rhyme or reason to exactly why and when, especially when, those bits and pieces get spat out. You can take two identical radioactive atomic nuclei. One might go ‘poof’ after a few seconds; the other ‘decides’ to hang tight for several millions of years before undertaking that change of pace. Physicists argue that if there is no rhyme or reason why both don’t behave in identical fashions, seeing as how they are identical atomic nuclei, then causality doesn’t operate. There is no external trigger. There is no overriding cause-and-effect in operation. Nuts to that! If an atomic nucleus goes ‘poof’, there is a cause-and-effect reason. If two go ‘poof’ at different times, there is a cause-and-effect reason for this too. While the two atomic nuclei might be identical, their surrounding environment isn’t, IMHO. That’s the hidden variable. Take two identical human twins; one stays at home safe and sound while the other goes off to war, bullets flying around him. Though identical, one goes ‘poof’ before the other. There is cause-and-effect in operation. And so it is with unstable atomic nuclei. A ‘bullet’ hits one; no ‘bullet’ hits the other until much, much later on down the track. What that ‘bullet’ is, is open to question, but there’s a ‘bullet’ out there somewhere. Unstable atomic nuclei don’t decay or go ‘poof’ for absolutely no logical reason at all. There is a trigger. Radioactive decay, with no causality attached, is IMHO an impossibility of physics. Perhaps violations in the operation of cause-and-effect also just seemed like a good idea at the time to our Supreme Programmer.

Then there is the 120 order of magnitude difference or discrepancy between the observed experiment value of the vacuum energy and the calculated theoretical value. It's the largest oops in physics and apparently no physicist knows why. This oops needs to be resolved. Maybe this too just seemed like a good idea at the time.

Einstein never accepted the weirdness, the uncertainties, and the resort to probabilities that seemed to be part and parcel of quantum physics. He was convinced that there were hidden variables that would restore quantum physics to the clockwork universe status that classical physics had. The idea of hidden variables has long gone out of fashion, but I'm still of the opinion that eventually, by going beyond the beyond, quantum weirdness will eventually give way to the sort of certainty that Einstein fully expected would ultimately prove to be the case. Quantum weirdness, like that ‘spooky action at a distance’ that vexed Einstein so much was just another one of those it just seemed like a good idea at the time software subroutines.

These are just a few of the many puzzlements about physical reality; puzzlements that can only be explained by going beyond, but beyond what, I haven't a clue. Physicists will be gainfully employed for decades to come with these sorts of puzzles yet to be addressed.

*The original introduction to the original “The Twilight Zone” TV series which started in 1959 and ran for five seasons.