Scientific Interests and Biases

Here are my thoughts on various topics which I've selected because I either have a strong interest in it, my best working model differs from the generally accepted thought of the greater scientific community, or both. As a good scientist, I'm of course open to being wrong. Feel free to send me any thoughts you have in the form below.

QUANTUM INTERPRETATION - I agree with Einstein, that Quantum Mechanics is a probabilistic way of calculating how the world behaves, rather than an explanation of the mechanism itself (see: various interpretations). We've ruled out hidden variables within a quantum theory, but we have not ruled out a non-local field theory such as was Einstein's approach -- a metric unified field theory. The majority of the physics community is striving to modify General Relativity to include quantum concepts, because of the predictive success of Relativistic Quantum Field Theory following the 1948 development of the renormalization method of subtracting out infinities. I think the most simple description will be a result of incorporating something like parity violation into General Relativity, making it more general and more predictive than Quantum Mechanics. Professor Mendel Sachs of SUNY Buffalo has written extensively on this approach since the 1960's (including some interesting ideas), but has not gained acceptance in the community. I am not convinced his theory is a successful unified field theory, but I agree with his philosophy and approach. If a metric theory is what we will ultimately have, then Supersymmetry/Quantum Gravity and Brane theory will only be remembered as an exotic hypothetical exercise. Of course those who study these topics say the the same about metric theories...

FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES - I loved High Energy Physics so much I spent years and years studying it to complete my Ph.D.. The Standard Model of the last several decades includes a handful of fundamental objects: [electrons, muons, tauons, 3 corresponding neutrinos, quarks with one of three flavors and one of three colors, and all their antiparticles. Also force-mediating vector bosons: photon, W⁺, W^-, Z⁰, 8 gluons of each color-anticolor combination, and gravitons (not yet observed)]. I think that ultimately there are no fundamental particles, and that these particles can be unraveled into energy and spacetime through some undiscovered process. One hint came up in the literature when the number of atoms in a BEC (Nature 412, p295, 2001) trap unexpectedly decreased at JILA. The experiment, however, was not designed to test conservation of baryon number, and a more likely explanation is that the atoms flew out of the trap when no one was looking.

GRAVITY - The Quaternion or Octonian approach is interesting, probably because I love math. General Relativity is so difficult that it's a pleasure to spend time with it as well. On the experimental side, Gravity Probe B and LISA (proposed) are exciting experiments. As are (of course) the experiments I did to measure the fundamental constant big-G, search for a fifth force (1/r² test), and investigate the difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass.

QUANTUM COMPUTERS - The idea is that by building a computer using Q-bits rather than bits, one might be able to perform calculations which would normally take millions of years on current computers, such as encryption-decryption. A bit is a 1 or a 0 and is an electrically, magnetically or optically encoded transistor, hard disk, CD/DVD etc. A Q-bit is either a 1 or a 0 or a mixture of the two. Just as an indeterminate quantum state is a superposition of the available states (i.e. if you don't know the answer, all answers have an equal probability), the Q-bit can be in a mixed state (as opposed to a pure state which is an eigenvalue of the operator which produced it). In the end, quantum computers will be possible only if the quantum entanglement can be realized in a practical system. Entanglement is just the EPR paradox -- that two states macroscopically separated can be in a mixed state, and that by measuring one, determine the other. I think it's unlikely this will be successful, but the field is wonderful to study.

LOW TEMPERATURE PHYSICS - The methodology is a pleasure. The physics of low temperature Helium, squids, and superconductivity are fascinating.

AURORAS, ETC - Look here for predictions and satellite observations related to Aurora Borealis. Here's a nice biography of Kristian Birkeland, the Norwegian physicist who explained them. The sun often 'sheds' in a large agular direction in a coronal mass ejection. The light reaches us 8.3 minutes later, but the electrons get here in a few days. When they do, they will produce an aurora if the solar wind's changing magnetic field is down (opposite and cancelling the Earth's, allowing charged particles to get closer). The shimmering effect is the solar wind buffeting Earth's mangetosphere and the solar electrons which are pinned to the field lines at the poles will ionize the atmosphere accordingly. There are a lot of interesting solar dynamics like flares and sunspots. It's also fun to look for satellites and space stations flying overhead. A good general daily news site for these kinds of observations is SpaceWeather.com.

PLANETS - The discovery of over 500 extra-solar planets since about 1995 has really been exciting for those of us who have enjoyed science fiction. The initial discovery was through the wobble of the star due to the gravity from the planet, but more recent observations have used the redshift to see light directly reflected from some planets. Chemical analyses have been performed, and we're only a few years away from seeing small Earth-sized planets. Of course, we are only looking at stars 10 to 20,000 light years away (where our galaxy is 100,000 light years across). The specifics as well as the observations of planets in our solar system are all very interesting.

COSMOLOGY - I do not believe the Universe had a beginning, and therefore believe that the evidence for the Big Bang theory (the Hubble relation between distance and redshift, and the black body microwave background radiation) will eventually be understood differently. In the last 50 years, most astrophysicists accept the Big Bang theory, however some do not.

DINOSAURS - I do not believe the extinction of the dinosaurs was caused by the comet impact near the Yucatan. Rather I believe the extinctions of the large cold blooded animals were due to a cooling of the weather and the evolution of warm blooded egg-eating mammals and took place over several million years. I understand this to be consistent with the evidence, and probably in agreement with a large portion of the scientific community. I am, however not a biologist and may be mistaken. The comet theory has gained a widespread audience over the last few decades (we all love a good accident it seems).

CELLULAR DIFFERENTIATION - When an animal's gametes combine in fertilization, the resulting cell starts dividing. Eventually we recognize this as an embryonic animal or human. But the mechanism by which , e.g. cell number 28 becomes an eye cell and number 432 becomes a leg is not completely understood, last time I checked the literature. The assumption is that various chemicals in the cell's neighborhood trigger activation of the genes responsible for that differentiation. So some chemical fluctuation starts the process and one cell determines the next, etc. I believe there is a more deterministic explanation which has yet to be uncovered, which does not rely on external chemical influences but rather on some new aspect of the cluster of cells.

MEDICAL IMAGING - All the various techniques for imaging are interesting. PET and fMRI have the special ability to be correlated with brain activity, teaching us the locations which are active for certain thought processes. EEG and MEG I think have tremendous potential when combined, but the basic problem is the skull gets in the way of our brain's electromagnetic emanations, blurring things. I last thoroughly studied this field in '95, and have heard of some advances since then.

NEUROPHYSIOLOGY - In contrast to most neuroscientists, I do not believe the mind is entirely composed of the brain as we define it: nerves and organs. You might say I'm a dualist -- that I believe the mind is some non-physical aspect (soul?) which interacts somehow with the physical "brain", but you would be wrong. In terms of Western metaphysics I am a materialist, meaning I believe all things are ultimately composed of things with location, energy, and relationship -- material or physical things. I just don't think we are aware of or understand a substantial aspect of our mind. I suspect the undiscovered aspect involves some non-locality which could explain many paranormal things such as reincarnation and telepathy (which I also believe to exist). The Nobel Laureate, Brian Josephson of Cambridge has written extensively on this subject.

CONSCIOUSNESS - The wind-up toy model of consciousness, where our self-awareness is nothing more than something complicated in the neural network, doesn't appeal to me. Some of the ideas like emergent autonomous pattern formation are interesting. The problem, I think, is that there is more to the human experience of self than is understood by any individual, and so delineating the characteristics alone is near impossible, much less the cause of consciousness. Looking at dreams, I'd say that a few are caused by physiological discord such as eating an upsetting meal or sleeping in an unusual place and the nerves fire unusually like the wind-up toy model. The majority of dreams are just us working through the circumstances which confront us when we are awake, ruminating or problem solving as many psychoanalysts would suggest. A very few dreams I would say are in a category I'd label mysterious, including prophetic or telepathic dreams and end up being interpreted as religious miracles or revelations. The problem with studying consciousness is that the observer can't see in, and the person inside isn't objective. Perhaps neuroscience and medical imaging could shed some light on what we ourselves are. My solution is to become more objective through a meditation practice which leads to better self understanding.

COMPLIMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE - There are many of techniques and theories outside of Western Medicine which are interesting and attractive but not necessarily more useful. Acupuncture makes sense since our nerves rely on electricity. The argument between chiropractors and those who attend medical school is whether the muscles hold the spine out of place (medical school) or a misaligned spine causes the muscles to tense (chiropractic). I guess you can see which way I lean by how I've emphasized medical school rather than referring to both as 'doctors'. I think there is a lot that can be done with subtler healing techniques like Reiki or Religious Science treatments, but I strongly believe traditional medical treatment should coincide. I'd expect Homeopathy to have some effect but I would guess it would be minimal, since the dillution factors are so etreme (sometimes less than 1 molecule/dose). I think our minds have a much greater influence on our bodies than we think. If a person had a lifelong dislike for their body, would you be surprised if they contracted cancer? How about allergies? There seems to be a lot more to psychomedical theory than placebo and psychosomatic effects.

SCIENCE ETHICS -  This sociology of the greater scientific community involves fraud, pseudoscience and the usual mistakes taken to an extreme. It's not uncommon to be approached by an enthusiastic student who has come across one of these. Fraud is pretty clear cut and rather rare in the sciences I think. There was a case at LBL determined by the judicial system which made a few headlines a while ago. The usual mistakes taken to an extreme include the premature announcement of cold fusion and the claims of an antigravity conspiracy. These are difficult to distinguish from legitimate research without careful study, so I'd recommend Hoaxbusters. Pseudoscience as I use the term here, is the process of referring to legitimate research but drawing unreasonable conclusions, and thus deviating from the scientific method of Aristotle, Descartes, and Bacon (reason/logic, deduction, induction, respectively). I feel the term is often misused to label beliefs which contradict the accepted scientific understanding. For example take astrology, which says the position of the planets affect our personalities. Accepted scientific understanding is that there is no effect, but this does not make it pseudoscience. One argument for astrology is that the planets' gravity pulls on us. This would be pseudoscience because even the folks next door pull with much greater gravity than the planets, and anyone who has taken freshman physics can calculate it. By the way, I don't believe in astrology.

SCIENCE EDUCATION - The gap between what the scientific community has known for decades, centuries, even a few millennia (!) and what the U.S. public knows is unbelievably vast. The National Science Foundation surveyed the public with questions like "Does the sun go around the Earth or the Earth around the sun?". This is something the Greeks knew in 200BC, yet only 75% of the U.S. public knows it today. Of course you could say it's relative, but with respect to the rest of the Universe, the Earth goes around the sun. Similarly, more than half (!) the adult population believe humans coexisted with dinosaurs, despite the fosil record. I'm amazed and dumbfoudned. Don't we care if our kids know about the world?

DEMOGRAPHICS AND REMOTE SENSING - Population growth is a serious problem for Earth. We often hear that we are growing like bacteria - exponentially, but a more accurate description is that we are reproducing at a linear rate and that rate has increased at a few specific points in history (my estimates):
  10,000BC to 4500BC    =            +180/yr, would double in 25,000yrs
     4500BC to 1670AD   =        +80,000/yr, would double in    3000yrs
     1670AD to 1800AD   =   +3,900,000/yr, would double in      200yrs
     1800AD to 1940AD   =   +7,100,000/yr, would double in      200yrs
     1940AD to now         = +67,000,000/yr, would double in        60yrs
Starvation and wars, destruction of the environment and mass extinctions are the default solution to the problem. The demographics show that population growth is small in wealthy countries like the U.S., and large in poor countries. China with 1/5 of the world's people has a population management policy; equally-sized India does not. African nations have been suffering the default solution for many decades but have the highest fertility rate in the world. Management of resources on a global scale is not too practical with all the conflicting politics and cultures, but the techniques are becoming available, such as satellite remote sensing (we can see a few meters below the surface), geodesy (mapping the gravitational field), and ocean acoustic tomography (a few explosions could map the entire pacific ocean floor through the sound waves produced, and the whales would be frightened briefly but no more than during WWII). Speaking of wars, the management of the world's weapon-grade Uranium and Plutonium seems like a high priority. Nuclear test monitoring systems could be built to detect tests anywhere in the world. Newer ideas are coming along like selling battery-style, sealed nuclear power plants to countries who want electricity but not weapons, and neutrino detectors for determining if a reactor is running as a power plant or as a breeder for weapons grade materials.

And at this point things get more political, so I'll leave it at that.

Eric C. Berg, P.O.Box 11131 Newport Beach, CA 92658-5019, eric @ ecberg.com