Misplaced Pages

Clockwork universe: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:38, 24 February 2013 editWing gundam (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers2,142 edits section reorder. Move historically earlier topic before objections section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:25, 17 March 2023 edit undoCitation bot (talk | contribs)Bots5,406,206 edits Misc citation tidying. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by AManWithNoPlan | #UCB_CommandLine 
(109 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Deterministic model of the universe}}
{{Redirect|World machine|the album by Level 42|World Machine}}
{{Multiple issues|
{{Coat rack|date=February 2013}}
{{NPOV|date=February 2013}}
{{original research|date=February 2013}}
{{essay-like|date=February 2013}}
{{speculation}}
}}

], Canberra, Australia (2009)]] ], Canberra, Australia (2009)]]


In the ], the concept of a '''clockwork universe''' compares the operation of the entire universe to the inner workings of a mechanical clock. As a metaphor for the inherent orderliness of nature, this idealized machine continues ticking along with its precision gears, governed only by a few simple yet elegant ], which make every aspect of the device completely predictable. ] was a strong proponent, believing that phenomena of any kind should be explained in terms of mechanics. In the ], the '''clockwork universe''' compares the universe to a ]. It continues ticking along, as a perfect machine, with its gears governed by the ], making every aspect of the machine predictable.

The paradigm undermines the notion that God's instant-by-instant attention was the sole motivation for the functioning of the universe as expressed in the religious philosophy of ]. The observation of regular order and consistency in the clockwork universe also tended to discredit the assumption of a Pantheon of Deities with ever changing and contradictory moods and motivations.

The clockwork universe was especially popular among ], who made a break with traditional religious organizations during the ], when scientists first demonstrated that ] and his law of universal ], could predict the trajectories of falling objects on earth as well as the motion of the ]. Deism was rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition in accepting the existence of God the creator of the universe but then rejected all ecclesiastical authority, especially state sponsored religion, by denying any subsequent Divine influence or intervention.

==Art==
In 2009 artist ] created a large wall piece for ] (The National Science and Technology centre in Canberra, Australia) representing the concept of the clockwork universe. This steel artwork contains moving gears, a working clock, and a movie of the moon's terminator in action.

==World-machine==
A nearly identical concept was earlier described in a 13th-century introduction to astronomy by ] : '']''. In this widely popular medieval text, Sacrobosco spoke of the universe as the ''machina mundi'', the machine of the world, and waxed poetic suggesting that a reported eclipse of the Sun at the crucifixion of Jesus might have been a disturbance in the order of that machine.<ref>John of Sacrbosco, ''On the Sphere'', quoted in Edward Grant, ''A Source Book in Medieval Science,'' (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Pr., 1974), p. 465.</ref>

As in a clockwork mechanism, the ''machina mundi'' consisted of a huge, regulated, and uniform ] that operated according to ]s in absolute ],], and ]. This concept became a tenet of many ].<ref>"Teaching the Tradition" by Piderit, Melanie M. Morey, Oxford University Press, (2012), page 371.</ref> Christians would, however, insist that both God and man have the potentiality to inject random non-physical perturbations into the world through the exercise of free will.{{citation needed|date=February 2013}}

==Opposition==
Objections to the possibility of the universe being completely predictable via the laws of science include: the concept of ] acting through the agency of a ] not strictly governed by the laws of physics; the second law of ] in which the total ] of the universe tends to increase over time; the axiomatic foundation of mathematics which underlies scientific inquiry; especially modern ]; and finally ] with its dependence on the probabilistic wave function. The nuances of all such objections are fundamentally different in character as described in succeeding sections.

Even though the presumption of a clockwork universe was rooted in no little part in the momentous discoveries of ], he was neither the inventor of nor a proponent for the concept. Indeed, Newton warned against viewing the universe as a mere machine, specifically as something similar to a great clock.
<blockquote>
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.”<ref>Tiner, J.H. (1975). Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher. Milford, Michigan, U.S.: Mott Media. ISBN 0-915134-95-0.</ref>
</blockquote>
Throughout his life, Newton noted the inherent harmony between natural law and religion and claimed in his master work, the ''Principia'':
<blockquote>
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” <ref>The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, by Issac Newton, translated by B. Cohen and A. Whitman (trans.), Berkeley: University of California Press (1999).</ref>
</blockquote>

Also as Edward B. Davis notes in recounting the writings of Newton-supporter ], Newton's belief was that an overzealous and overreaching attachment to the clockwork universe paradigm wrongly reduced God's role in the universe. Responding to ], who was a prominent supporter of the clockwork proposal, Clarke wrote, echoing the beliefs of Newton, (in the ]):
<blockquote>
"The Notion of the World's being a great Machine, going on without the Interposition of God, as a Clock continues to go without the Assistance of a Clockmaker; is the Notion of Materialism and Fate, and tends, (under pretense of making God a Supra-mundane Intelligence,) to exclude Providence and God's Government in reality out of the World."<ref>Davis, Edward B. 1991. "Newton's rejection of the "Newtonian world view" : the role of divine will in Newton's natural philosophy." Science and Christian Belief 3, no. 2: 103-117. Clarke quotation taken from article.</ref>
</blockquote>

==Considerations Due to Free Will==
{{off-topic|date=February 2013}}
Most arguments for ] are rooted in the sense that it is self evident and a natural outgrowth of our consciousness or ]. Supporting evidence includes a common sensibility of right and wrong independent of culture and often contrary to individual interest (]), a common regard for altruistic acts to include self-sacrifice for unrelated strangers (]), a common curiosity as to origins and purpose, and a human ability to conceptualize such varied things as absolute ideals and non-physical number sets; none of which are easily explained by the mechanisms of ] pressures. These features do however suggest a spiritual component, which would be indeterministic by definition since operating in a realm outside of nature and natural laws necessarily implies a lack of predictability based on those laws. The religious argument is thus that any conscious being, either God or man made in His image, has the potential to introduce random uncertainties into the physical clockwork universe.{{citation needed|date=February 2013}}

Indeed, so firmly ensconced is the popular belief in an individual’s freedom of choice as to generate an inordinate societal effort in the development of ] and of ] to regulate behavior. Of course if the physical universe was strictly predictable and in this sense deterministic, free will would not be free but an illusion, responsibility would be meaningless, and there would be no logical foundation for ubiquitous social norms to include rewards and punishment for children, the treatment of one's neighbors, and especially for any criminal justice system; making all such efforts pointless at the core because nothing could be otherwise than what was destined to evolve through the natural laws of physics. The question is ancient and society and science continue to grapple with the question.<ref>"Experimental Philosophy and the Problem of Free Will" by Shaun Nichols, Science, 18 March 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6023 pp. 1401-1403.</ref>

Another consideration is that science lacks the tools to investigate, much less explain, how a clockwork mechanism consisting of electrons bouncing off ] could give rise to the ] needed to host free will. The assertion is that the axioms of mathematics and science limit their applicability in the most fundamental sense to predictions of atomic locations and motions and can only correlate these in the most general way to physical sensations which do not easily explain the sense of being a free agent.<ref>“The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness”, by Velmans and Schneider (editors), Wiley-Blackwell (2007), ISBN: 978-1-4051-2019-7.</ref> Given these considerations, many assume the existence of a supernatural ], not strictly governed by the laws of physics, which is thus the simplest explanation for the phenomenon.{{syn|date=February 2013}}

The primary argument against free will is then, that while advances in neuroscience at the macroscopic level would not be determinative, a simulation of a living ] at the microscopic level, might conclusively demonstrate whether an individual’s choice was predictable or not. Whether this pivotal calculation is even theoretically possible using Newtonian dynamics, or not given the likely evolution into chaotic complexity, is somewhat moot since the resources required would almost certainly be beyond any means. That is not to say that model simulations cannot provide meaningful representations of and valuable insights into neural structures;<ref>”A Large Scale Model of the Functioning Brain”, Eliasmith, Stewart, et al., Science Magazine, Vol. 338, page 1202 (2012).</ref> but rather that a conclusive demonstration of predictability would require an intimate and precise comparison to the real time chemistry of a living brain, which would be more difficult.{{syn|date=February 2013}}

At the most fundamental level, the question of whether the chemical activity of the brain is hidden behind the probabilistic veil of quantum mechanics continues to generate discussion as more and more biological processes that do exhibit quantum behavior are discovered.<ref>NIH Center for Macromolecular Modeling & Bioinformatics University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Theoretical and Computational Research Group.</ref> Generally, while most chemical reactions and diffusions active in biology are too large to be more than slightly random in a quantum sense, a few are not. And while large cascading events and their timing, often have smaller and more subtle triggers, most of the brain's functions seem to operate classically.<ref>"Quantum mechanics in the brain" by Christof Koch and Klaus Hepp, Nature, Vol. 440(30), page 611, (2006).</ref>

==Considerations Due to Entropy==
{{off-topic|date=February 2013}}
In the mid and late 19th century the concept of ] in Thermodynamics was first described by both Rudolph Clausius and William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and was given mathematical rigor by ], who had the pivotal equation inscribed on his gravestone. As perhaps the most fundamental law of nature, the ] requires disorder to continually increase and thus demands the universe have a beginning. Our best scientific thinking is thus that the universe did not always exist.{{syn|date=February 2013}}<ref>“The Beginning of Time” lecture by S. Hawking, online at http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html</ref> Questions related to the origin of natural law bear on considerations of a clockwork universe{{citation needed|date=February 2013}} by raising the possibility of a hidden and higher order of things than can be described by physics alone.{{syn|date=February 2013}}

That is not to say that much fundamental work in theoretical physics has not been done in attempting to describe the evolution of the very early universe, once the initial seeds came into existance by other erstwhile means, and from a variety of perspectives.

Recent work in ] suggests the universe exists in 10 or perhaps 26 dimensions most of which are so tightly curled up that one circles back to the starting point after traversing only a microscopic distance along any one of these. But they do provide an elegant, but unfortunately unverifiable, framework for the possible collision of multidimensional surfaces enclosing higher dimensional spaces, or ], which might give rise to a succession of ] events creating a string of ]. Working out the mathematical details, however, verifies that from an entropic, as well as a quantum mechanical, perspective that such a progression could not have continued indefinitely; and thus still does not remove the necessity of a beginning of everything at some point in the past. <ref>“Relativity, Thermodynamics, and Cosmology” by Tolman, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, (1934), .</ref><ref>“A Larger Estimate of the Entropy of the Universe,” Egan and Lineweaver, Astrophysical Journal Volume 710 (2010), page 1825.</ref><ref> “Inflationary Spacetimes Are Incomplete in Past Directions”, Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 151301 (2003).</ref>

Another suggestion as to the evolution of the big bang at earliest times postulates an ], one variant of which was proposed by Hawking and Turok.<ref>“Open Inflation Without False Vacua”, Hawking and Turok, Phys.Lett. B425 (1998) pages 25-30.</ref><ref>“Singular Instantons and Creation of Open Universe”, Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D Volume 57 (1998), pages 7069-7070.</ref><ref>“Quantum Creation of an Open Inflationary Universe” by Linde, Phys. Rev. D, Volume 58:083514, (1998).</ref> Assuming the pre-existence of such an object of infinite or very large curvature, a quantum fluctuation could then have given rise to the extremely rapid ] of the early universe. Because of the point-like localization of this quantum state one might suggest that it was almost nothing initially; but of course this does nothing to explain its own origin in the first place. Nor does it account for the pre-existence of other physical phenomena which must already have been in place, or as Turok says:

<blockquote>
"Our instanton is a sort of self-lighting fuse that ignites inflation. To have our instanton, you have to have gravity, matter, space and time. Take any one ingredient away, and our instanton doesn't exist."<ref>“Stephen Hawking: An Unfettered Mind” by Kitty Ferguson, Macmillan, New York, NY, (2012) page 194; ISBN 978-0-230-34060-2.</ref>
</blockquote>

But all other considerations aside, the fundamental assumptions of natural law stipulate that it is logically impossible for physical objects to spring into existence without a physical cause or pre-existing physical basis of some sort such as gravity or space or time or zero point energy or some such. And since our well tested theory of entropy requires that there must have been a beginning, physics is confronted with a logical inconsistency. As a result, many invoke the simple notion of supernatural agency, or God, for creation of the universe necessarily in this view from nothing or ].{{syn|date=February 2013}}

That the universe must have had a beginning initiated by a prime mover was logically developed by ] based on the earlier works of ], who in making a rational argument that time itself must have started at creation, made a significant departure from the widely accepted Aristotelian philosophy of the time, but was well in agreement with modern considerations of entropy. This served to provide a theological framework for the later religious views of Sir Issac Newton. Interestingly, and at the other extreme, ], which rejects a creation event, requires a leap of faith in the eternal existence of the universe and a consequent lack of a beginning. <ref>“Why physicists can't avoid a creation event” by Lisa Grossman, New Scientist, Issue 2847, 11 January 2012.</ref>

==Considerations Due to Axiomatic Mathematics==
{{off-topic|date=February 2013}}
All of geometry and mathematics is based on a few simple assumptions, or unprovable axioms, from which logical consequences are drawn to form a bewilderingly complex assembly of proofs and laws. While the initial assumptions of ] or the ] have been chosen to be simple and "self-evident", there can be no assurance that they do not result in some subtle error far down the chain of reasonings.

Indeed one consequence of any axiomatic system is ] which demonstrates there must be mathematical statments which are both true and at the same time impossible to prove as well as statements which are false and yet impossible to refute. In this sense, any mathematics we could devise must always be incomplete. And as ] opined:

<blockquote>"Philosophy is written in this grand book — I mean the universe — which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth."
<ref>"The Philosophy of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries", (1966) by Richard Henry Popkin, p. 65.</ref></blockquote>

None of these considerations imply that mathematics or science is wrong but rather that there is no way to be absolutely certain of their results. Simply speaking, we tend to prefer those theories that currently match all observations and are simplest.

As a case in point, a central underpinning of the clockwork universe was Newton’s law of gravitation which fostered the sense that nature was precisely predictable in the heavens as well as on earth. Newton’s putative gravitational fields were apparently pervasive and conclusive. Trajectories of cannon balls and planetary orbits were predicted with spectacular success. It was only much later <ref>“The Attraction of Gravitation: New Studies in the History of General Relativity (Einstein Studies)”, by John Earman, Michel Janssen, and John D. Norton, Birkhäuser. (1993); ISBN 0817636242 : ISBN 978-0817636241.</ref> that a deviation from Newtonian dynamics of roughly 43 arc seconds per century was detected in the position of the planet Mercury. This is an amount only discernible with telescopes and precision instruments and demands a leap of faith in your grandfather’s unwavering attention to astronomical detail. But the consequences were profound.

Newton’s gravitational fields are now recognized to be a complete illusion. And at no little increase in complexity, we now prefer to believe instead that the inertia of moving bodies carries them along straight lines through a space warped by massive objects in an unseen dimension. Whether this reflects reality any more than Newton’s inverse square law is problematical because Einstein’s ] is not compatible with quantum theory and therefore known to be somehow fundamentally in error as well.

In addition, while a ] ],],] masses, imbalance of matter and ], and so forth], may be possible, a true ''theory of everything'' is not logically possible. An oft quoted demonstration, in addition to those given above, is that one might always ask “Why that particular theory and not another?”

The inevitable trend seems to be, especially over the last century, that as science advances, so in like proportion has there been a sharpened understanding of the fundamental limits of logic<ref>“Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits” by Bertrand Russell, Routledge Classics (2009) ISBN 0415474442</ref><ref>“Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901-1950” by Bertrand Russell, Spokesman Books, (2007) ISBN 0851247342</ref> and of the inherent limits of science itself.<ref>”Formal Logic: Its Scope And Limits” by Richard Jeffrey (Author), John P. Burgess (Editor) (2006) ISBN 0872208133</ref>

==Considerations Due to Chaos Theory==
Since the late 1960's with the rediscovery of Poincaré's proofs on the ], difficulties with many non-periodic real world systems slipping into a chaotic state have been demonstrated. Amazingly, these systems were previously thought to be well described by Newton's classical laws of motion and gravitation. Instabilities in predictions generally arise because of some non-linear aspect as well as an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions.

Another difficulty is that even for simple systems there seems to be a finite limit on any predictability. Even though an increasingly better knowledge of the initial state allows a prediction further into the future, the requirements on initial accuracy increase at a faster rate than the window of predictability improves.<ref>"Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow". Lorenz, (March 1963). Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 20 (2): 130–141</ref> Thus even for classical systems, there is a finite window extending both into the past and the future beyond which no predictions are theoretically possible.

That the evolution of a few seemingly simple differential equations in a ] model was inherently unpredictable in any possible computer simulation came as a real surprise in the early 1960's. But since then most real world systems, having complex relationships much beyond the early models of Lorenz, have been shown to be chaotic.<ref>“Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?“, Edward N. Lorenz, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), December 29, 1972.</ref> In 1969, Sir James Lighthill (1924–1998) was elected ] to succeed Physics Nobel Laureate, P.A.M. Dirac. This is the chair at the University of Cambridge previously held by Sir Issac Newton. As a firm believer of Newtonian mechanics, Sir James’ statement of public apology is an enlightenment to read:

<blockquote>“Here I have to pause, and to speak once again on behalf of the broad global fraternity of practitioners of mechanics. We are all deeply conscious today that the enthusiasm of our forebears for the marvelous achievements of Newtonian mechanics led them to make generalizations in this area of predictability which, indeed, we may have generally tended to believe before 1960, but which we now recognize were false. We collectively wish to apologize for having misled the general educated public by spreading ideas about the determinism of systems satisfying Newton’s laws of motion that, after 1960, were to be proved incorrect. In this lecture, I am trying to make belated amends by explaining both the very different picture that we now discern, and the reasons for it having been uncovered so late.”<ref>“Sir James Lighthill and Modern Fluid Mechanics”, by Lokenath Debnath, The University of Texas-Pan American, US, Imperial College Press: ISBN 978-1-84816-113-9: ISBN 1-84816-113-1, Singapore, page 31. Online athttp://cs5594.userapi.com/u11728334/docs/25eb2e1350a5/Lokenath_Debnath_Sir_James_Lighthill_and_mode.pdf</ref></blockquote>

The best current thinking seems to be that even for classical systems, the argument for a clockwork universe as a strict consequence of Newtonian dynamics is no longer logically valid. Since both complexity and errors accumulate over time, perhaps exponentially,<ref>“Nonlinear Dynamical Systems and Control: A Lyapunov-Based Approach” by Haddad, and Chellaboina, Princeton University Press, (2011).</ref> we cannot be certain of determinism even for short times, or even in principle, or even for classical systems. Chaos theory thus seems to demonstrate that nature draws a curtain on predictions of mechanical motion in a clockwork universe that is forever beyond any ability to penetrate.<ref>“Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamics”, by Hilborn, (2001). ISBN-10: 0198507232.</ref><ref>“Chaos, Scattering and Statistical Mechanics” by Gaspard, Cambridge Nonlinear Science Series, (2005), ISBN-10: 0521018250.</ref>

==Considerations Due to Quantum Mechanics==
{{off-topic|date=February 2013}}
] describes physical objects in terms of ] whose amplitudes are smeared out to give only relative probabilities of being in different states rather than exact locations and velocities. In a sense this does not remove all determinism from physics because, if the initial state of a wave function could be known with absolute precision, its future evolution could be exactly predicted, at least in principle. But since the ] declares the theoretical impossibility of a precise knowledge of initial conditions, this alone prevents absolute certainty as to a deterministic clockwork universe even one consisting of wave functions.

The objection of quantum mechanics does not, however, depend on any lack of knowledge concerning positions or velocities but rather is fundamentally rooted in the mathematics itself. In principle even if we knew the initial conditions perfectly, the wave function, by describing a particle as existing in many different states at the same time, removes causality from individual events; notwithstanding the satisfyingly precise predictions of their relative probabilities in aggregate. For instance, identical particles in identical states, at least to all outward appearances, are observed to decay into different fragments along many different paths and at different times. In the other direction we cannot say that state Z was caused by state A, but rather that state Z could also have been immediately preceded by state A, or by state B, or by state C, and so forth, again more or less often. Nor do the states A, B, C, etc. always result in state Z. It seems the best we can do to make sense of this nonsense, is to replace causation with correlation. We are forced to such descriptions because all deterministic formulations, to include Newtonian dynamics, fail miserably in describing phenomena at the atomic level. They are, at best, collective approximations of the seething indeterminism of the wave function that apparently governs an underlying and more fundamental reality.

Quantum mechanics predicts, for instance, that when you leave for work in the morning, the now unobserved pendulum in your grandfather clock will suddenly assume multiple positions and velocities all at the same time to include jumping off its restraints to skewer your house cat, which in turn will not be killed outright but will exist uncomfortably in a state of being both alive and dead. And the result of this carnage will be not resolved until you return home in the evening to survey the damage. Fortunately for large tabbies like ], but not for atoms, the probability of common sense behavior is much the more likely.<ref>“Mr. Tompkins in Paperback”, by George Gamow (Author), Roger Penrose, Canto Classics) Publication Date: March 26, 2012, ISBN 1107604680, ISBN 978-1107604681.</ref>

Indeed, the power of quantum mechanics is to start by assuming a lack of determinism and then to successfully calculate the consequences. To reiterate, not only is determinism not a required assumption but rather it is assumed not to be the case at all. Thus, to the extent that quantum mechanical equations reflect reality, rather than simply being a mathematical contrivance, then all of nature is at its core unequivocally indeterministic.

Driven by a life-long philosophical revulsion at this quantum mechanical violation of common sense sensibilities, and in undoubtedly the most famous attempt, ] championed the old world order against the upstart ideas of this newfangled indeterminism with the famous quip:

<blockquote>“God does not play dice with the universe.”<ref>“The Born-Einstein Letters", Bohn, Walker and Company, New York, (1971) (paraphrased).</ref></blockquote>

But more rigorously, even as the predictive success of quantum mechanics climbed to nearly unassailable heights, Einstein and a small cadre of supporters<ref>“The Shaky Game: Science and Its Conceptual Foundations series", by Arthur Fine, University Of Chicago Press, (1996), ISBN 0226249492; ISBN 978-0226249490</ref> developed the now famous ]<ref>"Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?", Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47 777 (1935).</ref> conjecture. The idea was that there might be heretofore unknown aspects of an object which when measured could perhaps provide a deterministic description of atoms without resort to pesky probability waves. Note that this did not re-formulate or re-interpret quantum mechanics so much as criticize its “incompleteness” and suggest it should be replaced with something else entirely.


== History ==
A few early ] attempted to wish away the violation of common sense notions by manipulating the basic equations. But with theoretical advances to include the] equation, the equivalency of the ] matrix formulation, the unification with special relativity under ], the linear Hilbert space operators of ], the ] of ] and many others, the mathematics describing this inherent lack of determinism has become rigorous and undeniable. To the extent this remains an uncomfortable fact, some to include Bohm, `t Hooft, and others,<ref>“Causality and Chance in Modern Physics” by David Bohm (1957) Routledge & Kegan Paul and D. Van Nostrand, (1957) ISBN 0-8122-1002-6.</ref><ref>“Quantum Mechanics and Determinism: An Investigation into Gerard ‘t Hooft’s Recent Theories" by Andres M. Morey and Professor Antal Jevicki, December 20, 2002, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912</ref><ref>“Determinism beneath Quantum Mechanics" by Gerard 't Hooft, Spinoza Institute, Utrecht University, Conf. Proceedings, "Quo Vadis Quantum Mechanics", Philadelphia, (2002), Report number ITP-02/69, SPIN-2002/45.</ref><ref name=thooftarxiv>Gerard 't Hooft (2006) "The mathematical basis for deterministic quantum mechanics" in ''Beyond the Quantum'', World Scientific, Th. M. Nieuwenhuizen et al, ed., pp.3-19; ITP-UU-06/14, SPIN-06/12, quant-ph/0604008, at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604008</ref> have suggested the possibility of replacing quantum mechanics with better, albeit as yet incomplete, theories or “re-interpretations” of microscopic phenomena. To date, none of these attempts founded entirely on deterministic principles are mathematically rigorous; none provide the means to calculate all or even most quantum behavior so far observed; and finally none have any experimental verification.


This idea was very popular among ]{{ref}} during the ], when ] derived his ], and showed that alongside the law of universal ], they could predict the behaviour of both ] and the ].
The problems in attempting to restore determinism to modern physics have been twofold, one practical and the other theoretical.


A similar concept goes back, to ] early 13th-century introduction to astronomy: '']''. In this widely popular medieval text, Sacrobosco spoke of the universe as the ''machina mundi'', the machine of the world, suggesting that the reported eclipse of the Sun at the crucifixion of Jesus was a disturbance of the order of that machine.<ref>John of Sacrbosco, ''On the Sphere'', quoted in Edward Grant, ''A Source Book in Medieval Science,'' (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Pr., 1974), p. 465.</ref>
<blockquote>
a) First and foremost, in literally millions of experiments and in many new venues, quantum mechanics with its intrinsic indeterminism has not had a single predictive failure.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
b) The second more profound reason to reject determinism is the theoretical insight by Bell in ]<ref>“On the Einstein–Poldolsky–Rosen paradox", Bell, Physics 1 195-200 (1964).</ref> that there are experiments which can actually measure whether all microscopic objects in the real-world are indeterministic as described by the wavefunction of quantum mechanics; or instead are deterministic as described by any conceivable hidden variable formulation, or indeed by any classical deterministic theory. The deciding criteria is Bell’s inequality which must be satisfied if reality follows the determinism of classical physics and must be violated if reality follows the indeterminism of the wavefunction. </blockquote>


Responding to ],<ref>{{cite book |last= Danielson |first= Dennis Richard |date= 2000 |title= The Book of the Cosmos: Imagining the Universe from Heraclitus to Hawking |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RYr-swEACAAJ&q=editions:ISBN0738202479 |publisher=] |page=246 |isbn=0738202479}}</ref> a prominent supporter of the theory, in the ], ] wrote:
The nature of Bell's insight was not in any way a new interpretation of existing theory but rather surprisingly a mathematical proof that experiments, able to measure this most basic aspect of reality, are actually possible.<ref>“The Fabric of the Cosmos", by Greene, Brian, (2005), Vintage Books, IBSN 0-375-72720-5, page 107.</ref> And the net result of every single one of the ]<ref>“Experimental Bell tests using uncalibrated devices" from "Guaranteed violation of a Bell inequality without aligned reference frames or calibrated devices", Shadbolt, Vértesi, et. al, Scientific Reports, Vol 2, No. 470, June 2012.</ref><ref>“Revealing Bell’s nonlocality for unstable systems in high energy physics", Beatrix, Hiesmayr, et. al. The European Physical Journal C, 2012; 72 (1) DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1856-X</ref> to date, indicate that the indeterminism of quantum particles is real and consequentially that “God does indeed play at dice" as the formulae of quantum mechanics have always stipulated.


:"The Notion of the World's being a great Machine, going on without the Interposition of God, as a Clock continues to go without the Assistance of a Clockmaker; is the Notion of Materialism and Fate, and tends, (under pretence of making God a Supra-mundane Intelligence,) to exclude Providence and God's Government in reality out of the World."<ref>Davis, Edward B. 1991. "Newton's rejection of the "Newtonian world view" : the role of divine will in Newton's natural philosophy." Science and Christian Belief 3, no. 2: 103-117. Clarke quotation taken from article.</ref>
Indeed, perhaps the last loopholes providing any hope of determinism are limited to the following possibilities:


In 2009, artist Tim Wetherell created a large wall piece for ] (The National Science and Technology centre in Canberra, Australia) representing the concept of the clockwork universe. This steel artwork contains moving gears, a working clock, and a movie of the ].
<blockquote>
a) The glaring assumption of Bell’s work is the validity of Einstein's well tested ]. Thus determinism might be rescued from the clutches of Bell by the future development of "non-local" theories, q.v. ], which would unfortunately require superluminal signaling, i.e. faster than light, and which would also require physical effects to occur before their causes. In any event and in the strictest sense, all Bell test results to date thus only require that either determinism or special relativity be wrong. Because there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that traveling faster than light is not possible and a great difficulty in explaining how effects might come before causes, indeterminism seems to be the indicated result.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
b) Critics cite technical difficulties in the experiments measuring quantities in Bell’s inequality to include not detecting enough events for statistical confidence. But as each new generation of ] definitively eliminates more and more loopholes in more and more combinations, these objections are becoming less and less viable . And this is especially true as each and every test measurement has supported the finding of indeterminism, at whatever confidence level, and never the opposite.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
c) Entirely new theories might be invented in the future which would supersede quantum mechanics, with its inherent indeterminism, based on novel assumptions or principles of which we cannot now imagine. Unfortunately we currently lack any such complete replacement formulation for quantum mechanics despite more than a century of determined effort.</blockquote>


==See also== ==See also==
*]
{{Misplaced Pages books|Isaac Newton}}
*] *]
*]
*]
*] *]
*]
*]


==References== ==References==
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}} {{reflist}}


== Further reading == ==Further reading==
* ] (1961) ''The Mechanization of the World Picture'', ]
* ], , Harper Collins, 2011.
* ] (2011) , HarperCollins.
* "A Short Scheme of the True Religion", manuscript quoted in ''Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton'' by Sir David Brewster, Edinburgh, 1850; cited in; ibid, p.&nbsp;65.
* David Brewster (1850) "A Short Scheme of the True Religion", manuscript quoted in ''Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton'', cited in Dolnick, page 65.
* Webb, R.K. ed. Knud Haakonssen. "The Emergence of Rational Dissent." ''Enlightenment and Religion: Rational Dissent in Eighteenth-Century Britain''. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1996. p.&nbsp;19.
* ] (1938) ''Die Mechanisierung des Weltbildes im 17. Jahrhundert''
* Webb, R.K. ed. Knud Haakonssen (1996) "The Emergence of Rational Dissent." ''Enlightenment and Religion: Rational Dissent in Eighteenth-Century Britain'', ] page 19.
* Westfall, Richard S. ''Science and Religion in Seventeenth-Century England''. p.&nbsp;201. * Westfall, Richard S. ''Science and Religion in Seventeenth-Century England''. p.&nbsp;201.
* Riskins, Jessica (2016) '''', ].


==External links== ==External links==
* ''The Physical World''. Ed. John Bolton, Alan Durrant, Robert Lambourne, Joy Manners, Andrew Norton. * {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200214215544/http://physicalworld.org/restless_universe/html/ru_2_11.html |date=2020-02-14 }} ''The Physical World''. Ed. John Bolton, Alan Durrant, Robert Lambourne, Joy Manners, Andrew Norton.


] ]
] ]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 16:25, 17 March 2023

Deterministic model of the universe
Tim Wetherell's Clockwork Universe sculpture at Questacon, Canberra, Australia (2009)

In the history of science, the clockwork universe compares the universe to a mechanical clock. It continues ticking along, as a perfect machine, with its gears governed by the laws of physics, making every aspect of the machine predictable.

History

This idea was very popular among deists during the Enlightenment, when Isaac Newton derived his laws of motion, and showed that alongside the law of universal gravitation, they could predict the behaviour of both terrestrial objects and the Solar System.

A similar concept goes back, to John of Sacrobosco's early 13th-century introduction to astronomy: On the Sphere of the World. In this widely popular medieval text, Sacrobosco spoke of the universe as the machina mundi, the machine of the world, suggesting that the reported eclipse of the Sun at the crucifixion of Jesus was a disturbance of the order of that machine.

Responding to Gottfried Leibniz, a prominent supporter of the theory, in the Leibniz–Clarke correspondence, Samuel Clarke wrote:

"The Notion of the World's being a great Machine, going on without the Interposition of God, as a Clock continues to go without the Assistance of a Clockmaker; is the Notion of Materialism and Fate, and tends, (under pretence of making God a Supra-mundane Intelligence,) to exclude Providence and God's Government in reality out of the World."

In 2009, artist Tim Wetherell created a large wall piece for Questacon (The National Science and Technology centre in Canberra, Australia) representing the concept of the clockwork universe. This steel artwork contains moving gears, a working clock, and a movie of the lunar terminator.

See also

References

  1. John of Sacrbosco, On the Sphere, quoted in Edward Grant, A Source Book in Medieval Science, (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Pr., 1974), p. 465.
  2. Danielson, Dennis Richard (2000). The Book of the Cosmos: Imagining the Universe from Heraclitus to Hawking. Basic Books. p. 246. ISBN 0738202479.
  3. Davis, Edward B. 1991. "Newton's rejection of the "Newtonian world view" : the role of divine will in Newton's natural philosophy." Science and Christian Belief 3, no. 2: 103-117. Clarke quotation taken from article.

Further reading

External links

Categories: