Superstitious Physicists Believe in the Force

Just like in the Star Wars universe, physicists believe in the Force. Or a few forces, to be precise. They believe these forces act through space without contact. Why do they believe in such invisible forces? Because they cannot see anything that imparts the forces. Do they have any evidence for these magical forces?

This isn’t an easy question. Surely there is a mountain of data on the fundamental forces surrounding us. Well, this isn’t the question. The question is whether there is any data on this force acting through vacuum. The concept of force acting through empty space isn’t exactly backed by data. It’s stated in the basic postulates of modern physics.

Postulates of the Kinetic Theory of Gases.

1 The molecules in a gas are small and very far apart. Most of the volume which a gas occupies is empty space.

2 Gas molecules are in constant random motion. Just as many molecules are moving in one direction as in any other.

3 Molecules can collide with each other and with the walls of the container. Collisions with the walls account for the pressure of the gas.

4 When collisions occur, the molecules lose no kinetic energy; that is, the collisions are said to be perfectly elastic. The total kinetic energy of all the molecules remains constant unless there is some outside interference with the [sic].

5 The molecules exert no attractive or repulsive forces on one another except during the process of collision. Between collisions, they move in straight lines.

These postulates are assumed to be correct, because one can build a mathematical foundation around them that is consistent. It does result in a few interesting features, such as the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and the ten dimensions of string theory. Well, most physicists are ok with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics but are highly skeptical of the ten dimensions of string theory.

The thing is, string theory is generally true, but if you assume that molecules don’t touch, the forces between (and within) molecules is not the physical interaction of the strings, but acted by the mystical unexplainable Force, whose explanation is very Yoda to me.

The surely has to be a less mystical explanation for the Force. If you scour Wikipedia, you find the sentence:

“Each of the known fundamental interactions can be described mathematically as a field.”

These magical fields are thought to be formed by properties of individual particles. The most important such property is its charge. If one considers charge to be a property of an individual particle and not the property of a collection of particles, force is automatically envisioned as acting through empty space. But the question whether there’s any proof of this unbound action can be ignored, as it embedded in the basic postulates.

And how about energy? What wise words are imparted about energy:

“In physics, energy is the quantitative property that is transferred to a body or to a physical system, recognizable in the performance of work and in the form of heat and light.”

But what again is energy? What is the physical manifestation of energy? E = mc². Does this equation apply to everything? Well, not exactly. You see, this is considered to be rest mass. If a particle is in motion, it will gain energy that isn’t considered to be relating to mass, but to motion. The most crass example of this is that the photon is said not to have any rest mass. That it is a particle of “pure energy”, whatever this new age phrase means.

So, there are believed to be to types of energy: rest energy and movement energy and it is believed that something rather magical happens when rest energy is transformed into movement energy. This magical transformation is called the mass-energy equivalence. The equivalence is very true. However if you try to find an explanation of what happens when mass is converted into pure energy, nothing more concrete can be found than for the catholic concept of transubstantiation. If mass and energy are the same, they are not the same in an abstract way, but in a very concrete way.

And what would this concrete way be? For there not to be ‘pure energy’ in light, but light, or speed to be comprised of the exact same mass as ‘rest mass’. What this then means is that mass seemingly at rest still moves at the speed of light. Mass at rest moving at the speed of light can only be understood if the speed is confined into a closed orbit. However, as we know there are no mystical fields, this means that the orbit isn’t just within a single molecule, but within a supramolecular cluster. This is the only way that spooky action at a distance can be possible.

So, if my argument is that strings are concrete loops moving at the speed of light, what do the different versions of current string theory state? That the strings are one-dimensional, can vibrate in extra dimensions and can be open or close, depending on the situation. No wonder string theory gets a bad rap. But this really isn’t the fault of string theory. It is the fault of the concept that E = mc² would denote something else than fundamental particles moving at the speed of light. If it is believed that the speed of the particles is somehow magically converted into something else, which is fundamentally different, then the rug is pulled under the concrete basis of physics, to badly mix metaphors.

If one does not believe there to be a transubstantiation of energy to matter, but rather when light is absorbed by matter, it is physically incorporated into matter and continues to move at the speed of light, but either expressed as the rotation (temperature) of the supramolecular shell absorbing light, or in certain cases, making something more exciting happen. But nevertheless, everything is still comprised of elementary particles moving at the speed of light, nothing more, nothing less.