May 9, 2020

CLIFFORD GOLDSTEIN

For decades I have been reading popularized books on quantum physics, relativity (special and general), and cosmology by young men brilliant enough to get doctoral degrees in mathematical physics or theoretical physics or theoretical mathematical physics or whatever, and also to write accessible books that sell in numbers I drool over.

However, as the years roll by (or whatever their physics teaches that time does), its finally dawning on these wunderkinds what the philosophical premises of their science mean for them, their families, their lifes work. After all, according to these premises, the universe that they have so deeply studied is (depending on the math in their equations) either going to tear apart, collapse in on itself, or just flat out burn out.

Enough to make even these demigods wonder, Whats it all about? Or if its about anything at all? Or is it all just as meaningless as their premises imply?

Take, for example, Brian Greene, a professor of physics and mathematics at Columbia University and renowned for groundbreaking discoveries in string theory. Greene has also authored such bestsellers as The Elegant Universe (1999) The Fabric of the Cosmos (2004), The Hidden Reality (2011), and his latest, Until the End of Time: Mind, Matter, and our Search for Meaning in an Evolving Universe (2020).

A plug for Until the End of Time says that through a series of nested stories that explain distinct but interwoven layers of realityfrom quantum mechanics to consciousness to black holesGreene provides us with a clearer sense of how we came to be, a finer picture of where we are now, and a firmer understanding of where we are headed.

Really?

Sure, Brian Greene has his conjectures, his speculations, some no doubt greatly influenced by his unchallenged expertise in mathematical physics. But thats all that they are, speculations and conjectures, which are also (Im afraid) exceedingly limited by his unproven philosophical claim that without intent or design, without forethought or judgment, without planning or deliberation, the cosmos yields meticulously ordered configurations of particles from atoms to stars to life.

How this happened, of course, is the big question; what it all means, the bigger one. Nevertheless, he claims that entropy and gravity together are at the heart of how a universe heading toward ever-greater disorder can nevertheless yield and support ordered structures like stars, planets, and people. He writes that by the grace of random chance, funneled through natures laws, that is, through gravity and entropythe universe, life, human consciousness all came into existence. (Gracethats the word he used!)

Everyones familiar with gravity, and with entropy, too, though it needs a bit of explaining. Entropy is a statistical principle that describes why cars rust, why our bodies fall apart, and why all things, if left alone, move toward disorder. (Dont put thought or energy into keeping up your abode, and see what happens to it.) Entropy (also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics) is the measure of that disorder: low entropy, order; high entropy, disorder, and our universe is moving, inexorably, toward higher entropy, higher disorder.

To use an image that Greene uses, imagine 100 pennies all heads up on a table. By comparison he writes, if we consider even a slightly different outcome, say in which we have a single tail (and the other 99 pennies are still all heads), there are a hundred different ways this can happen: the lone tail could be the first coin, or it could be the second coin, or the third, and so on up to the hundredth coin. Getting 99 heads is thus a hundred times easiera hundred times more likelythan getting all heads.

If you keep going, the ways of getting more tails amid heads keep rising. There are 4,950 ways to get two tails; 161,700 ways to three tails; 4,000,004 ways for four tails, and so forth until the numbers peak at 50 heads and 50 tails. Green writes that at this point, there are about a hundred billion billion billion possible combinations (well, 100, 891, 344, 545, 564, 193, 334, 812, 497, 256 combinations).

Now, lets move from coins to atoms, the stuff of existence (at least as stuff appears to us when we look at it). A bunch of random atoms are much more likely to remain a bunch of random atoms than to form, say, a cat or a copy of The Iliad, just as 100 random coins on a table are more likely to be in disarray than to be all heads (or tails) up, or even to get real close to either configuration. Things go from order to disorder simply because there are a whole lot more ways to be disordered than ordered.

Fine, but how does this law-like tendency for all things toward disorder, toward higher entropy, lead to all the ordered and organized structures that exist, everything from stars to human consciousness? Greene answers: its gravity. When theres enough gravityenough sufficiently concentrated stuffordered structures can form, he claims, then he spends a hunk of his book explaining how it happened.

How successfully Greene make his case, readers of Until the End of Time can decide for themselves. I want, instead, to look at something he wrote about entropy that, I humbly suggest, presents a major flaw in his thinking. Its whats known as The Past Hypothesis.

Lets go back to the 100 coins on the table, but now in a high entropy state, a state of high disorder. Suppose, as you were studying why the coins were like that, you developed a theory which required that at first these coins were in a low entropy state, all heads up, say. Fine. But this leaves open the simple question: How did they get that way? The answers obvious: some intelligence deliberately arranged the coins into that low-entropy state. How else?

But suppose that an unproven philosophical premise behind the science investigating the coins is that their existence, however it began, did so without intent or design, without forethought or judgment, without planning or deliberation. You, therefore, would need another explanation for this hypothetical low-entropy, highly ordered state of 100 heads up coins as an initial condition. (In fact, you probably would have never theorized an intelligence behind it because your philosophical presupposition, from the start, forbade it.)

Lets again move from coins to atoms, the atoms in our universe, which are in a high entropy state, and getting higher. The problem comes from The Past Hypothesis, which teaches that the universe started out in a state of low entropy.

A hundred pennies with all heads, writes Greene, has low entropy and yet admits an immediate explanationinstead of dumping the coins on the table, someone carefully arranged them. But what or who arranged the special low-entropy configuration of the early universe? Without a complete theory of cosmic origins, science cant provide an answer.

Who (perhaps a Freudian slip of the computer keys?) or what arranged the special low-entropy configuration of the universe? If 100 coins heads up, a fairly simple configuration no matter how unlikely, needed someone to arrange them, then what about the early conditions of our universe, which must have been much more complex than a mere 100 heads up coins? To paraphrase Greene, Who or what arranged it that way?

In a line from his book (the line that prompted this column), Greene just shrugged his shoulders at this question and said: For now, we will simply assume that one way or another, the early universe transitioned into this low-entropy, highly ordered configuration, sparking the bang and allowing us to declare that the rest is history.

One way or another the early universe just happened to be highly ordered? If, in seeking to understand the origins and nature of the 100 coins on the table, you just shrugged off their low-entropy beginnings with, Well, lets just assume that, somehow, the 100 coins all got heads up, youd be sneered at. Yet Greene does that with something astronomically more complicated than 100 heads up coins, the low-entropy state of the early universe.

Too bad Greene, echoing Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton, cant say something like: Look, I am a scientist. I study only natural phenomena, which means that even though, obviously, some intelligence must have created the low-entropy state of the early universe, I dont deal with that but only with what comes after, or the like. Of course, even if inclined to say that, he would be derided, ridiculed, and tarred-and-feathered as the intellectual equivalent of a flat-earther or Holocaust-denier.

Theres a tragic irony, however, in not acknowledging the obvious. Until the End of Time reflects Greenes attempt to come to terms with the fact that, according to his science, every memory of him and of everything that he accomplished, along with the memory of everyone else and of everything that they accomplished, are all going to vanish into eternal oblivion as if never existing or happening to begin with. Yet he wrote about how, in a Starbucks, it hit him that when you realize the universe will be bereft of stars and planets and things that think, your regard for our era can appreciate toward reverence.

It can? For most people, every conscious moment in our era is overshadowed by the certainty thatbecause they unfold in a universe that one day will be bereft of stars and planets and things that thinkthese moments ultimately mean nothing. So how much reverence does nothing deserve? The Hebrew Scripture says that God has put olam (eternity) in our hearts (Eccl. 3:11), and as long as we can envision an olam that steamrolls every memory of us into the dirt as it moves on without us, we are left to flail about in a search for meaning amid a universe that, according to Greenes unproven presuppositions, offers none.

Its painful, because the low entropy state of the early cosmos points to the only logical past hypothesisa Creator. This Creator and His gracenot the grace of random chance, funneled through natures laws, which, after supposedly creating us, destroy us (some grace)His grace promises, for those who accept it, eternal life (John 17:3) in the same olam that the Creator has, yes, put in our hearts.

Clifford Goldstein is editor of the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide. His latest book, Baptizing the Devil: Evolution and the Seduction of Christianity, is available from Pacific Press.

Go here to see the original:

Cliff's Edge -- The Past Hypothesis - Adventist Review

Several University of Nevada, Reno McNair Scholars Program scholars have recently been notified of prestigious awards, many accompanied with financial grants as well.

Seniors Edward Cruz, Valeria Nava and Guglielmo Panelli were selected for the competitive National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. Fellow McNair scholar and former President of the Associated Students of the University of Nevada Anthony Martinez was selected for the Henry Albert Public Service Award.

The National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program is a prestigious grant awarded annually by theNationalScienceFoundationto only 2,000 students pursuing research-based master's and doctoral degrees in the natural, social and engineering sciences at U.S. institutions.

Receiving this award is arguably my most note-worthy achievement to date, Panelli said. The financial assistance that accompanies this award provides me with more freedom to pursue my interests in graduate school. With this funding, I will be able to take an extra rotation with a research group in my first year to solidify my interest and will have the ability to postpone teaching until later in my graduate career so I can focus on choosing a research group that is the perfect match for me.

Valeria Nava feels as though all her hard work has amounted to something fruitful.

Im very thankful that my parents instilled in me the privilege of getting an education, an opportunity that they and many of my other family members did not have, Nava said. Id like to think that Im an example of a person who is statistically prone to not finish high school or college but overcame the challenges of being a first-generation student. I really hope to serve as an example to other underrepresented students in academia and demonstrate the possibilities of achieving even the most prestigious awards despite their backgrounds.

For Anthony Martinez, the Henry Albert Public Service Award is awarded to University of Nevada, Reno students chosen by a group of administrators and community members. Students are chosen for their impact and dedication to the community.

It made me feel as if all my work was noticed and was great because I felt as if I was following in the footsteps of one of my most notable mentors Hannah Jackson, who received it last year, and her work is still noticed today, Martinez said. I think research is necessary, but I also value service as a core part of my life.

The McNair Scholars Program is a federal TRiO program designed to prepare undergraduate students for doctoral studies through involvement in research and other scholarly activities. Their mission is to help first-generation, low-income and underrepresented college sophomores and juniors to increase the number of underrepresented persons pursuing teaching, research and administrative careers in higher education.

The McNair Scholars program has had a huge impact on my education, Cruz said. I wouldve never really imagined my undergraduate years to turn out the way they have, and it really is due to the mentorship that I have received in my lab, from my research mentor, Dr. Ian Wallace, and from the McNair Scholars program. As a first-generation student, the program really helped with graduate admissions and staying on top of applications and requirements.

Additional McNair Scholars Program graduating seniors include Jacob Trzaska who will be attending the University of Arizona for a Ph.D in optical sciences, Celeste Rodriquez who will be attending Brown University for the biosciences PREP program, Giselle Marquez who will be continuing at the University of Nevada, Reno for a masters of art degree in psychology with a specialization in behavioral analysis, and Jessny Joseph who is undecided but has applied to Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Harvard University and University of California, Los Angeles.

The McNair Scholars Program is currently accepting student applications until October 1, 2020.

Inquiries can be addressed directly to the program staff: Assistant Director, Dr. Karla Hernndez karlah@unr.edu and Student Success Specialist, Heather Williams, heatherw@unr.edu

Here is a closer look at four of the nine McNair Scholars graduating this semester from the University and preparing for their next steps at their chosen Ph.D. programs and graduate schools.

Edward Cruz is a biochemistry and molecular biology major and plans to attend Princeton University in the fall to begin his Ph.D. program to continue in molecular biology. Cruz studied under faculty research mentor Dr. Ian Wallaec who helped him in his writing and experiments, and was supportive of his goals. He is also a recipient of the Goldwater Scholarship, which is granted to students in a STEM field (science, technology, engineering and math). He always knew he wanted to go to graduate school and the McNair Scholars Program has been a great tool in helping him achieve that goal.

McNair helps in so many ways that I cant imagine applying without being part of the program, Cruz said. They always informed us of scholarships and helped us with all our statements, and all the students formed a great community during application time. Being part of McNair also comes with many benefits such as GRE preparation and application fee waivers.

Cruz is excited to continue developing as a scientist at Princeton and aims to become a more active member in his community. His long-term goals are to become an academic researcher and teach at the university level.

Valeria Nava is an environmental engineer major and plans to attend Nava studied under faculty research mentor Dr. Yu Yang, whom she says she owes her success to and believed in her abilities before she did.

There is absolutely no question, whatsoever, that I am enrolled in a top-tier graduate school because of the McNair Scholars Program, Nava said. I would have never gotten this far without the support that everyone in McNair has provided me. They support you as an early researcher and the program lays out all the tools necessary to be a successful graduate school applicant. Plus, they provide an endless amount of resources to pursue other opportunities to help you as a student and researcher.

Nava is grateful for her time spent at the University and is hopeful for her future at Carnegie Mellon, where she will enroll in dual doctoral programs of environmental engineering and public policy.

Former ASUN President Anthony Martinez is a triple major in political science, international affairs and Spanish. Martinez studied under faculty research mentor Dr. Daniel Enrique Prez, who was a role model and showed him that gay men of color belonged in research. He plans to attend graduate school at Texas Tech University or the University of Southern California in the fall. Martinez has achieved many accomplishments during his undergraduate career and delivers an inspiring statement about his time at the University.

I think one quote that sticks with me is, Throw me to the wolves, and I'll return leading the pack, Martinez said. I came to the University having no idea how college worked, and I was a first-generation student trying to figure out my way around the University and where I fit in and even if I belong. Here I am, a senior year McNair scholar, student body president, triple major with a full ride to get a masters degree. Its not easy.

Martinez hopes to take a breather after he graduates but is excited for the next leg of his journey in higher education. He also hopes to give back to students and the community, to help individuals the same way they helped him.

Guglielmo Panelli is a physics and mathematics dual major and is continuing his education in a doctoral program at Stanford University. Panelli studied under faculty research mentors Drs. Andrei Derevianko, Joshua Williams and Melodi Rodrigue. Throughout his undergraduate career, he has achieved the Goldwater Scholarship, the Nevada Undergraduate Research Award, the NSF EPSCoR Scholarship, the Senior Scholar Award for the College of Science and the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship.

I feel that my time at the University would not have been replicable at any other institution, Panelli said. I have had the opportunity to participate in four research projects from things like exoplanet detection and philosophy of quantum mechanics to splitting molecules with X-rays and even searching for dark matter with GPS satellites. Ive been able explore my interest in teaching and science education as a learning assistant for the Department of Physics. Currently, along with my research, I am one of the senior co-editors for NSURJ where I am able to assist students in research from the beginning stages to the end stages.

Panelli looks forward to his next six years in the Stanford Physics Department. He hopes to solidify his field of interest and progress in his future of research.

See the article here:

Nine graduates head off to continue their higher educational pursuits - Nevada Today

By Dan Hooper, Ph.D., University of ChicagoA sketch of two-slit diffraction of light made by Thomas Young, which demonstrated the wave-particle duality. Young first presented this experiment at the Royal Society in 1803. (Image: Thomas Young/Public domain)All Matter Is a Particle and a Wave

In 1913, less than a decade after Einstein first proposed the concept of light quanta, Danish physicist Niels Bohr demonstrated that electrons also exhibit wave properties. Bohr built a model of the hydrogen atom, and the single electron in it exhibited both particle properties and wave properties.

It became more interesting and complicated a little over a decade later, in 1924, when French physicist Louis de Broglie claimed in his Ph.D. dissertation that everything is simultaneously both a particle and a wave. Prior to this, the scope of academic papers related to quantum physics was deliberately limited. Einsteins 1905 paper focused specifically on photons and Bohrs 1913 paper focused solely on electrons. De Broglie built upon and generalized the earlier works of both Einstein and Bohr.

But surely not everything is a wave, right? According to de Broglie, the wave-like features are there, but simply not visible to the naked human eye. The reason is that the extent of an objects waviness (or its quantum wavelength) is inversely proportional to its momentum.

For example, a baseball traveling at 100 miles per hour has a wavelength of 10-34 meters. When this is compared to the size of the baseball, it is clear that the wave-like nature of baseball is far too tiny to detect in any practical way. So a baseball might be a wave, but its wavelength is so small that its wave-like features are imperceptible.

The mathematical account presented by de Broglie illustrated that wave-like properties of matter are only detectable at the level of atomic and subatomic particles.

Learn more about the properties of light.

De Broglies paper was a bridge that connected and unified Einsteins idea of light quanta with Bohrs idea of electron waves. Initially, Einstein was impressed by de Broglies dissertation. In fact, he helped promote de Broglies ideas. More importantly, he convinced other scientists that it was absolutely imperative that these ideas be tested experimentally.

The first order of business was to determine whether electrons do or do not interfere with each other as waves do. This suggestion might seem fairly obvious, and it probably did to de Broglie and the other physicists working on quantum theory at the time as well. However, unlike de Broglie, Einstein was very famous, and his suggestions carried a lot of weight.

The necessary experiments were carried out and by 1927 it was demonstrated that electrons experience both constructive and destructive interference. Electrons are not only particles, but they also behave like waves.

From the mid-1920s to the late-1920s, a great deal of effort was directed toward developing a rigorous system of mathematics that could be used to describe and calculate how quantum particles-waves behave and interact.

For example, in 1925, Austrian-Irish physicist Erwin Schrdinger developed an equation that described the wave-like behavior of electrons. The Schrdinger equation, as its known, is still taught today, to nearly all undergraduate physics students. It makes accurate predictions, at least for electrons that are moving at speeds far below the speed of light.

Schrdinger was only one of several physicists working on this. Some of the others included Paul Dirac, Werner Heisenberg, and Max Born, each of whom made important contributions around the same time.

This new generation of quantum theorists was not content with the old quantum theory, developed by the likes of Einstein, Bohr and de Broglie. They were intent on building a more comprehensive and more mathematically robust system. This system would come to be known as quantum mechanics.

This is a transcript from the video series What Einstein Got Wrong. Watch it now, on The Great Courses Plus.

As the new generation made rapid progress in developing this system of quantum mechanics, Einstein became increasingly troubled by its implications. The concept of light quanta provided a notion of what it meant for light to be a wave. It had been long established that light consisted of oscillating or vibrating electric and magnetic fields. So, the peaks of a light wave would be those points in space where the electric and magnetic fields were strongest.

However, in the case of an electron-wave, it wasnt at all clear what the peaks of the wave really represented. The key question that was bothering Einstein was: what exactly is waving? A classical wave makes sense because it is made up of many objects. For example, a water wave is highest at one point because most water molecules are concentrated at that point. But the wave of a single electron cant be interpreted in terms of the collective behavior of many objects. After all, it is only one electron. Surely one object cant exhibit the kind of collective behavior that a water wave does.

Learn more about particle detectors.

In 1926, German physicist and mathematician Max Born proposed a radical answer to this essential question. Born argued that the shape of the electron-wave or any other quantum object, which is known as the wave function, should be interpreted to represent the probability of that object being found in a given location, when or if it were measured.

In other words, if you conduct an experiment to determine the location of a given electron, there is a high probability that you will find it somewhere where the absolute value of the wave function is very high. Whereas, there is a much lower probability that you will find it in a place where the absolute value of the wave function is low.

According to Born, there is no choice but to view the electron-wave in terms of the probability of it being found in a particular location, or in a particular configuration. This soon became the standard way for physicists to think about matter-waves in quantum mechanics.

The implications of studying electron-waves or matter-waves from the probabilistic point of view, and not the deterministic point of view that Einstein subscribed to, troubled him a lot. He could not find common ground among the new generation of quantum theorists. His bigger cause for concern was that the new interpretations were fast gaining acceptance in the scientific world of the time. Einstein set out to definitively disprove the new interpretations.

German physicist and mathematician Max Born was instrumental to the development of quantum mechanics. He was part of the new generation of quantum theorists who built upon the work of Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. Born is also known for his contributions in the field of solid-state physics, as well as optics.

Max Born won the Physics Nobel Prize in 1954. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for his contributions toward the fundamental research in quantum mechanics, and particularly for his statistical interpretation of wave function.

French physicist Louis de Broglie is considered to be among the early contributors to the development of quantum theory, alongside Einstein and Bohr. His 1924 dissertation brought him to the attention of the scientific world at the time. In it, he posited that all matter exhibits wave properties.

The Schrdinger equation helps determine the optimal energy levels of a quantum mechanical system. It describes the wave function of the system, which in turn provides the probability of finding individual electrons or other quantum objects at particular locations within the system.

Einsteins Field Equations: A Long Road of Trial and ErrorAre There Absolute Truths in Mathematics?Earliest Molecule after Big Bang Detected in Space

See the original post here:

Einstein Vs. the New Generation of Quantum Theorists - The Great Courses Daily News

Greg Hayes

Raytheon Technologies has reported first quarter 2020 results for standalone United Technologies including Otis and Carrier. The separation of Otis and Carrier and merger with Raytheon Company occurred on April 3, after the quarter closed, the company reported on Thursday.

"I'm proud of what our team has done to support our customers and do our part in fighting this global pandemic," said Raytheon Technologies CEO Greg Hayes. "During the quarter, we delivered solid results, exceeding our expectations for adjusted EPS and free cash flow, while also completing the spin-offs of Otis and Carrier and our merger with Raytheon."

Raytheon Technologies first quarter net sales of $18.2 billion were down 1 percent over the prior year, including flat organic sales and 1 point of foreign exchange headwind. Net income in the quarter was a loss of $83 million, down 106 percent versus the prior year and included $1.6 billion of net nonrecurring charges.

Cash flow from operations was $661 million and capital expenditures were $412 million, resulting in free cash flow of $249 million. Free cash flow included approximately $700 million of one-time cash separation payments.

Total cash separation payments in the quarter were approximately $1.5 billion, of which approximately $700 million was reflected as a financing outflow, principally associated with making whole payments in connection with the early retirement of debt.

Raytheon Company, which was not included in Raytheon Technologies' first quarter results, had first quarter net sales of $7.2 billion, up 6.5 percent over the prior year. Bookings were $10.3 billion, resulting in a book-to-bill ratio of 1.44. Backlog at the end of the first quarter 2020 was a record $51.3 billion, an increase of $10.2 billion or up 25 percent compared to the end of the first quarter 2019.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Raytheon Technologies' will continue protect the health and safety of its employees. The company has a variety of measures to ensure that employees will be able to work from home where possible, while implementing robust safety protocols to ensure facilities are clean and safe.

The financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. The extent of such impact depends on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted, including new information which may emerge. Given the ongoing uncertainty regarding the scope, severity and duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, RTC is not providing an outlook at this time and will revisit providing a 2020 outlook at our next earnings release.

On April 3, 2020, Raytheon Technologies successfully completed the separation of Otis and Carrier and the merger with Raytheon Company. Following these transactions, Raytheon Technologies had a cash balance of approximately $8.5 billion and a net debt position of approximately $25 billion.

Hayes continued, "Looking ahead, the merits and strategic rationale of the merger are clear. Raytheon Technologies has a diversified portfolio of industry-leading technologies across commercial aerospace and defense with solid positions on key platforms. We have a strong balance sheet, ample liquidity, and are well positioned to deliver value for our shareowners and customers over the long term."

About Raytheon Technologies

Raytheon Technologies Corporation is an aerospace and defense company that provides advanced systems and services for commercial, military and government customers worldwide. With 195,000 employees and four industry-leading businesses Collins Aerospace Systems, Pratt & Whitney, Raytheon Intelligence & Space and Raytheon Missiles & Defense the company delivers solutions that push the boundaries in avionics, cybersecurity, directed energy, electric propulsion, hypersonics, and quantum physics. The company, formed in 2020 through the combination of Raytheon Company and the United Technologies Corporation aerospace businesses, is headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts.

Read more from the original source:

Raytheon Technologies Reports First Quarter 2020 Results; Greg Hayes Quoted - ExecutiveBiz