From: Alexanian, Moorad (alexanian@uncw.edu)
Date: Fri May 09 2003 - 12:36:20 EDT
In the 60's, Geoffrey Chew was an advocate of the bootstrap theory of
particle physics, which attempted to unify quantum mechanics and
relativity theory. Chew was an adamant opponent of quantum field
theory, which is the only relativistic quantum theory we had at the time
and in the past thirty years has been preeminent in high energy physics.
I remember hearing a lecture from Chew in Berkeley on the rho-meson and
he indicated some features that were necessary to explain the
experimental data. After the lecture, I had just done my PhD thesis and
was not bold enough to ask a question in the lecture, I approached Chew
and said that I had obtained that result in my thesis. He asked me how I
did it and when I said that I had used quantum field theory, he ended
the conversation. The following is a short summary of the Bootstrap
Theory:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bootstrap (or Nuclear Democracy) Theory
http://bohm.anu.edu.au/units/public/phys1007/s3303815/bootstrap.htm
The Bootstrap (or Nuclear Democracy) theory was the most widely accepted
theory of elementary particles during the 1960s. It provides an
alternative to the Standard Model. According to this theory, reality
consists of elementary particles that are made up of all other
elementary particles in a self consistent way. The Bootstrap theory
arose from problems with the use of Feynman diagrams in field theories
of the strong interaction. These diagrams are essentially graphs of with
position and time as axis. One reaction to this failure was to reject
Feynman diagrams and instead direct emphasis towards the transition
probabilities themselves. The entire set of the probabilities between
all conceivable initial and final states was known as the
Scattering-Matrix (S-Matrix). Chew, from the University of California,
expounded the anti-field theory 'bootstrap' philosophy. No one could
solve the infinite set of coupled non-linear differential equations that
arose from the analytic structure of the S-Matrix. Chew proposed a
unique solution, through the requirement of self consistency. This
solution stated that the S-Matrix determined everything about hadrons.
This theory was difficult to evaluate because the infinite set of
equations could not be solved. If this one self consistent theory was
true, it would imply that all particles are made of all others and would
end the reductionist program. It is inconsistent with the current
Standard Model, and therefore is an alternative (and currently
unpopular) theory.
For further information, consult "Constructing Quarks: A Sociological
History of Particle Physics" by Andrew Pickering, available in Hancock
QC793.5.Q252P54.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter I published in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith
Index: Vol. 54:4, December 2002---"Physical and Nonphysical Aspects of
Nature" (54, no. 1 [March 2002]: 2-21), 54:4, 287, D 2002-----I quoted
the following poem "Flower in the Crannied Wall" by Alfred Lord Tennyson
who wrote:
Flower in the crannied wall,
I pluck you out of the crannies,
I hold you here, root and all, in my hand,
Little flower -- but if I could understand
What you are, root and all, and all in all,
I should know what God and man is.
It seems to me that evolutionary theory attempts to be all-encompassing
in that it explains local evolution in terms of global, environmental
behaviors. The latter would correspond to a simultaneous description of
the whole of the universe and so it would be some sort of bootstrap
theory. I also believe along the lines of the Bootstrap Theory except
that the scientific element has to be extended to the whole of reality
and that would bring the nonphysical aspects of nature, viz., human
consciousness and rationality.
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Josh Bembenek [mailto:jbembe@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 10:31 AM
To: jarmstro@qwest.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Evolutionary rate
Jim said:
"The argument concerning the evolution of things of "irrreducible
complexity" seems to embody the notion of a rather linear evolution
process.
But the remarkable "processors" of nature are HIGHLY parallel and, taken
with the environments in which they occur, are extremely (unimaginably)
rich
and redundant with respect to materials, processes, and instantiations
of
things of a given kind and slight variations thereof (e.g., a given
protein). Equally important is the fact that they are also rich with
respect
to the huge numbers of potential interactions among them and their
products.
The result is essentially EXTREME parallel processing with arguably
exponential outcome possibilities."
-Can you elaborate on this? This seems to be pure imagination. One can
just as easily imagine that all combinatorial interactions of gene
products
generates important barriers to system function as one can imagine that
all
the combinatorial interactions are favorable and produce further
functionality. There may be a billion fold increase of interactions
that
are completely destructive with respect to function compared with those
that
increase function in biology. How can a computer performing functional
algorithms answer this? Biology is highly specified and exquisitely
regulated, I don't see this rich potential, at least any evidence of it.
What are you basing this on? Also, in terms of parallel processing, I
don't
exactly follow your thoughts here. Are you saying that nature has
sampled
all possible combinatorial mutations of all proteins and discovered
those
that are functional? I don't fully understand the relationship between
parallel computer processing and rm&ns. For example, the only samples
that
ever matter are gametes that are passed on. Perhaps I simply cannot get
my
mind around the relevance of these computer models, help me out.
"It would be rather surprising if "processors" and environments such as
these did NOT produce improvements of existing entities and functions,
new
entities and functions, and notably new ensemble functions. With respect
to
the latter, the second URL reference contained the following
observation: "
The crystalline proteins that make up the lens of the eye, for example,
are
related to those that serve enzymatic functions unrelated to vision. So,
the
theory goes, evolution borrowed an existing protein and used it for a
new
function ...that's a lot easier than inventing something entirely new."
I
think that nicely summarizes the point of the experimental simulation
results."
-And herein lies the biological problem. Catalyzing reactions and
carrying
out biological activities is nothing like completing a computing
function.
Whose to tell us the number of possible biological functions for any
given
protein? The examples of protein function co-option are few compared to
specific protein families performing specific functions. There's no
justification in saying that sequences can be awarded incremental
favorable
selection values, especially prior to them adopting a particular
function
(no function equals no selection).
Josh
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri May 09 2003 - 12:36:29 EDT