[Tormod]

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

Obviously, if I didn't think there was value in his book, I wouldn't go through the trouble.

Let me put it this way: If you can't discuss his book, do you think people will think it is a good book? I don't.

K's post was very rude and not as logical as he'd like to think it was. On the bright side, another sword has been added to the army, eh?

Rude to who? K's post was a review of the first chapter of a book he read. If an author cannot take criticism (and even worse - if his readers can't take it) then he has a real problem.

Let's vote on it.

On what?

[Non-Luddite]

K - I appreciate your extensive comments. I surely hope you read the rest of the book because I will look forward to your discussion of the really challenging material you have not yet encountered.

Interestingly, I have yet to read a negative review from anyone who has read the whole book, only from those who have read the first portions.

[MikeSnell]

I may be late in the day delivering this. I have looked on amazon books and read 24 reviews. None seem to be from Phyicists, nor am I one.
The most thorough account of the book refers to all the perceived and well explained gaps in current theory arising from faulty scientific perception as far back as Newton.
The book is universally described as a very readable step by step explanation of the short-comings of present day science theory and goes on to explain how in a universe where everything is expanding (at all levels - cosmic and quantum) and being fed by new material these inconsistencies disappear.
I got the impression that the book could be described as a very lucid explanation of the problems being encountered by current theories. However, I did not get the impression that I would necessarily be convinced by the new theory, just that it was complete in its consistency and range.
I am going to attempt to find critical comment from an expert source before devoting a week of reading time (common comment by readers) to the book itself.

[Austin]

McCutcheon is certainly persistent and ambitious. Moreover, the concept of Expansion Theory is bold. And we all like 'bold'.

But in the final analysis, his whole book is founded upon the not-terribly-insightful observation that modern theories regarding gravity are clearly missing a grand underlying truth. Beyond that, the book clearly has major flaws in it.

My background: an honors graduate in computer science about 100 years ago at a major university (USC), I aced all the calculus based courses in physics. This is probably what led to my becoming, eventually, the chief engineer on a nuclear-powered attack submarine. Days gone-by now...but all true.

My overall take on McCutcheon's book: at almost $30/copy it is fundamentally dishonest.

Yes, he has one good idea in the form of Expansion Theory regarding its application to gravity -- but it's not even his idea. Moreover, he tries to coast the rest of the way by shucking and jiving, using hand-waving arguments instead of rigorous or complete thinking.

Note that there is not a single reference in the book to who originated Expansion Theory (or any other references, for that matter). McCutcheon isn't honest enough to state that an orignator of Expansion Theory -- well before McCutcheon's implied origination of it -- is Peter Bros, whose ideas were published in a series of books about Copernican concepts of the universe.

Frankly, I still like the boldness of the approach, even if it is wrong. Failing is a good thing -- it is the fastest and most courageous way to learn -- and we need to do it more often if we are to ever come up with a complete Theory of Everything that actually works.

So, I really don't have the desire for a complete skewering of McCutcheon's book. Courage is as courage does. But I will point out some of the most commendable ideas, blatant falsehoods and (intentional?) oversights:

(1) The Good -- The best and brightest in this book is captured in the first two chapters on Expansion Theory as it pertains to gravity and orbital mechanics in the form of (though he doesn't use this term) non-linear dynamics. This is good stuff, and should be followed up by a modern-day von Neumann to give it the mathematical rigor that it clearly needs.

(2) The Bad -- The author has a pedantic, petulant writing style at times that can mask or obliterate his own circular arguments, even if they were true...and often they are not. He gets lost in the minutiae at times and sometimes just plain "loses it" both emotionally and factually. For example, he goes completely aground in his discussion as to how (by his misperception) a horizontally fired object can't _ever_ go into a circular orbit by Newtonian theory ("Gravity based circular orbits are impossible"). This is stuff and rubbish -- a horizontally fired projectile can clearly go into a circular orbit when fired with sufficient velocity provided that there isn't a looming mountaintop somewhere in the projectile's future. But he doesn't stop there with that one mistake -- he goes on and on and on about it (his mistake, that is) until the reader can only continue slogging through the reading by taking an interlude to write "stupid!" in the margin...e.g., as I resorted to on page 116. Seriously folks, this is blatantly stupid stuff. At a bare minimum, as this paragraph points out, it is at least nothing more than one of McCutcheon's emotional rants about his own misinterpretations. Either way, it's more than a little bit sad.

(3) The Ugly -- Many, many instances of exculpatory evidence exist against 'The Final Theory'. McCutcheon is clearly overreaching with respect to Expansion Theory. Notably, the author either does not bring these disproofs of his ideas up or glosses over them. Examples include:

(a) Energy consumption: The energy required for expansion is just another form of 'magic' (as McCutcheon calls it) to replace existing, magical matter-attraction theories of gravity. This was a gloss-over; the author asserts that he'll prove this isn't the case, then fails to do so.

(b) Laws of Life: While he was apparently awake during high school discussions on Laws of Thermodynamics including 'entropy', McCutcheon does not discuss 'consciousness' at all. As this is core to understanding probability waves and modern quantum theory & mechanics, I can only presume that he doesn't have much of a grasp on these subjects.

(c) Electron diffraction: The author blatantly ignores the experimentally observed effect that a *single* photon put through a diffraction process will exhibit wave diffraction. This is profound -- and widely available -- knowledge. That the author would ignore it does not speak well for his arguments. (Ref.: "Quantum Reality" by Nick Herbert)

(d) Wave/Particle Nature: As with the parabolic descent nonsense, the author's style is to misconstrue or obfuscate the current thinking regarding the observed wave/particle nature of photons. It's simple: non-observed 'matter' is a probability/possibility wave. Observed matter exhibits its particle nature. Yet the author conspires to confuse the reader (or himself) on this foundatational point. "Quantum Reality" is a must-read in this regard...it is truly not to be missed, and is a highly pleasurable read.

(e) Bell's Theorem: Completely missing-in-action. The Quantum Fact that all reality is non-local is kind of a big deal. Again...see "Quantum Reality" if you prefer enlightenment over diatribe.

(f) Muon time-compression: Also readily available info the author ignores, the fact is that muon's at near light speeds decay more slowly than the ones that are not travelling that fast.

I could go on and on and on myself...but it all comes down to this: were Einstein, Oppenheimer, Heisenberg, John Bell, David Bohm, Neils Bohr, von Neumann, Max Planck, etc., etc. all out to lunch...or is McCutcheon?

Sorry...I've done my homework, and it's not the former. McCutcheon overreaches...and misses the mark of Truth.

A much better book to read (and much more tolerable): "Einstein and Buddha". I recommend it highly. Especially to McCutcheon.

[Austin]

BTW, a superb dialogue on Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics is available for free (no $30 fee) via:

http://www.integralscience.org/ConsciousQM.html

[Tormod]

Thanks for that thorough review, Austin, and welcome to Hypography!

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by Austin

BTW, a superb dialogue on Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics is available for free (no $30 fee) via:

http://www.integralscience.org/ConsciousQM.html

I don't get the connection. Quantum theory is a scientific theory, not a philosophy.

[Austin]

Read the article on Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics...then we can talk. It'll be tough to have a dialogue otherwise.

[paultrr]

Speculation that quantum mechanics and consciousness are linked is based on the principle that the act of measurement, which involves a conscious observer, has an effect on quantum events. Part of the center of the argument here is how real is the wavefunction(See: Bohm versus say Bell). Another not often looked at issue is nature its own observer. If nature is, then in essence consciousness is not a requirement for the wavefunction to collapse.

Quantum approaches to consciousness are sometimes said to be motivated simply by the idea that quantum theory is a mystery and consciousness is a mystery. That opinion betrays a profound misunderstanding of the Nature of quantum mechanics, which consists fundamentally of a scientific solution to the problem of the relationship between mind and matter. There are two kinds of descriptions that jointly comprise the foundation of science.

1.) Accounts of psychologically experienced empirical findings, expressed in a language that allows us to communicate to our colleagues what we have done and what we have learned.

2.) Specifications of physical properties, which are expressed by assigning mathematical properties space-time points, and formulating laws that determine how these properties evolve over the course of time.

Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, and their colleagues discovered a way to connect these two kinds of descriptions by causal laws, and their discovery was extended by John von Neumann from the domain of atomic science to the realm of neuroscience, and in particular to the problem of understanding and describing the causal connections between the minds and the brains of human beings. According to quantum physics, as it is both practiced and taught, our human choices play a key dynamical role in our scientific description of nature. This injection of observer/participants into the basic causal structure of physics was the radical revision in the conception of science ushered in by the founder’s of quantum theory.

The quantum conception of the relationship between the psychologically and physically described components of scientific practice was achieved by abandoning the classical picture of the physical world that had ruled science since the time of Newton, Galileo, and Descartes. The building blocks of science were shifted from descriptions of the behaviors of tiny bits of mindless matter to accounts of the actions that we take to acquire knowledge and of the knowledge that we thereby acquire. Science was transformed from its seventeenth century form, which effectively excluded our conscious thoughts from any causal role in the mechanical workings of Nature, to its twentieth century form, which focuses on our active engagement with Nature, and on what we can learn by taking appropriate action.

The altered role of conscious agents is poetically expressed by Bohr’s famous dictum:

“In the great drama of existence we ourselves are both actors and spectators.” (Bohr, 1963, p. 15: 1958, p. 81)

Further, it is even more expressed in statements such as:

"The freedom of experimentation, presupposed in classical physics, is of course retained and corresponds to the free choice of experimental arrangement for which the mathematical structure of the quantum mechanical formalism offers the appropriate latitude." (Bohr, 1958, p. 73}

The switch in thought between classical mechanics and quantum mechanics is summarized in Heisenberg’s famous assertion:

“The conception of the objective reality of the elementary particles has thus evaporated not into the cloud of some obscure new reality concept, but into the transparent clarity of a mathematics that represents no longer the behavior of the particle but rather our knowledge of this behavior.” (Heisenberg, 1958a)

Heisenburg and others tended to see the wavefunction as a mathematical construct to understand the knowledge of behavior at the quantum level which is the background in which all existance takes place. Bohm and others tended to see the mathematical construct we call the wavefunction as real in itself. Ever since that point it has depended upon one's quantum interpretation of events weither consciousness really is involved in this or not. To some it is and to some it is not. Today there are positions in between these two extremes.

Either way one stands here is the crux of the problem. We exist as part of nature. On a quantum level that makes us active when it comes to trying to measure anything. The role of observer then by nature has an effect upon the outcome. The two cannot be divorced enough to actually determine just how important consciousness is in all this. But in essence nature itself is involved in all quantum process and events. As such nature itself holds a position as observer/participant and few would attribute conscious acts of will to nature itself. So even if one takes the position of the wavefunction being real there is no absolute reason or evidence to assume that everyhting depends upon consciousness.

I would however, go as far to suggest that quantum mechanics does play a role in consciousness as we understand it. But the actual evidence out of science is not at all in favor of say, our consciousness creating everything that is no matter which camp one finds oneself in.

[paultrr]

No, I have not read the book in question here, "A final Theory." But, if I was to actual go by the few who have here I would suggest that the book is not so much real hard science at all. It seems like its one persons interpretaion of things and as such is more presenting the Author's own worldview. That's fine in and of itself. We all tend to have a certain worldview and many books could be written on just that. Interpretations of quantum reality abound also. The problem is once one departs into the area of presenting one's own worldview scientific methods tend to get cast to the side. Our own personalities color the picture one is trying to present. One then enters the realm of popular science presentation that often can leave out aspects of hard science that are important to understanding what science actually has discovered about this universe and reality. Such presentations are never to be construed as anything approaching a real final theory about everything. In the best case they can try and explain what a final theory really ought to be to laymen. In the worst case they can tend to present a distorted picture.