Review of “Hidden In Plain Sight” by Andrew Thomas
by astriede
To begin with I wish to compliment Thomas on his realization that progress in physics is typically made when the philosophical/metaphysical foundations of physics are unified or modified in some other way. Questions concerning the nature of space-time and what is meant by a superposition of states of a quantum particle are examples of these fundamental questions. Thomas intends to modify physical assumptions concerning quantum mechanics and general relativity in order to propose a unifying link between the two. In my mind the most difficult problem in physics currently is trying to find a valid theory of quantum gravity. The two most experimentally successful theories in modern physics are general relativity and quantum mechanics. Both are verified by many, many, many experiments, yet, they contradict one another. So, if you sum them and try to formulate a theory of quantum gravity you will end up with contradictory results (for instance, 1 = ∞). Thomas intends to solve this problem from “working from the ground up rather than the top down”. The problem with working from the top down is at the top these incompatibilities between the theories are at the top. We need to analyze the core, foundational assumptions of the theories in order to make any ground in summing them. I love this approach and I believe it is the approach that most scientists (philosophers included) make when making discoveries: we question our assumptions about the world. Thomas begins his discussion by being very clear on the importance of ‘simplicity’ and ‘unification’ in physics. He states that nearly all discoveries in physics are made when theories which described different things are shown to be related in fundamental ways. For instance, a couple hundred years ago light, electricity, and magnetism were considered to be fundamentally different theories with no overlap of any kind. Then James Clerk Maxwell came along and wrote four equations which showed that the three were all manifestations of the same phenomenon. Therefore a unification occurred which made all of physics simpler (there is less different phenomena to talk about). I like to call this an example of ‘ontological convergence’, that is, when different theoretical entities which are thought to exist end up being one and the same existent reality. Another example of ontological convergence would be when it was shown that space and time are just two different manifestations of space-time. Thomas intends to show that this kind of ontological convergence can happen between quantum mechanics and general relativity when we see that they arise from the same fundamental principles. He says that “the great advantage of theories based on principles is that they are not arbitrary (as opposed to theories based on structure).” and that “A fundamental principle contains the reason for its obvious correctness state within itself“. Although Thomas finds this satisfactory and starts formulating his principles, I must stop and say that this is problematic philosophically. Much of recent epistemology has been concerned with questioning whether or not these types of principles are not arbitrary. The problem is that you can allows pose a question concerning the correctness of what makes that principle correct, that is, in order something to be a principle in this sense it must have some quality that makes it correct, but the question may be asked concerning the correctness of that quality. Thomas’s approach to physics is called foundationalism in epistemology and I have to say I was quite surprised to see Thomas quote Descartes and not any of the other more recent contributors to foundationalism (such as Laurence Bonjour or Richard Fumerton).
There are quite a few things I find problematic about his argument and I will only focus on a few. To begin with in Chapter 8 “The Quantum Rationale” he states that: “The properties of any particle – or any object – are determined by all the other objects in the universe” and further “that all properties of all objects are only defined relative to the other objects in the universe”. So, if a particle were to be isolated from everything else then it would not have properties. This statement is crucial to his argument for the “link” but is also quite false. He takes evidence of this claim to be that because quantum particles are in a superposition of states (they occupy all possible values for a physical quantity simultaneously before observation) they must only have properties after they are ‘observed’. ‘Observation’ in his terms occurs whenever anything interacts with a quantum system. My objection is that the quantum particle has to have at least one property, that is, its wave function which specifies the superposition of states. Without its wave function the particle would not be observable at all. Once observed an electron can either be spin up or spin down it cannot have any value (although, it has both before observation).
The second problem I had with his argument is that he equivocates between two definitions of “uncertainty” when formulating the link in Chapter 9. In quantum mechanics uncertainty is fundamental, that is, it is logically impossible, to know the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously with infinite precision like in classical mechanics. Further, in a two state system (up or down) quantum mechanics states that it is logically impossible that you know that it is up or down before measurement. In Chapter 9 he brings up an example of two spaceships flying to each other in space. Because of relativity we know that occupants on both spaceships may believe that they are stationary and that the other is moving. The “uncertainty” posed in the spaceship example (our inability to assign velocities) is different from the uncertainty proposed by Heisenberg’s relations which describe quantum mechanics. The uncertainty in the velocity case concerns the spacial relations between the ships but uncertainty in quantum mechanics is intrinsic to the particle itself.
Other than these complaints I loved his assault against the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The many worlds interpretation (MWI) posits a progressive infinity of external universes which are generated for each possible value of a quantum state for every time it is observed. The MWI goes completely against how progress in physics is made, unity, and therefore should be discarded.
These are just a few thoughts concerning the book and there are so many more. Overall, I really enjoyed it. The book contained many non-intuitive facts concerning modern physics that slipped my previous notice and he seemed to grasp philosophy significantly more than many other physicists. If you have any more questions concerning the book or this post feel free to ask.
You can buy the book at: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Plain-Sight-fundamental-relativity/dp/1469960796/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358228327&sr=1-1&keywords=hidden+in+plain+sight
” title=”Hidden In Plain Sight”>
Mind, Energy, and Spacetime 
Thank you for the philosophical analysis of this book. I just finished the author’s description of “block time”. I am incredulous at what he seems to think is a slam-dunk proof that any time past or future is just as “real” as the present. I can’t recall ever seeing such an egregious straw-man argument from a scientist.
I noticed at other junctures some ideas that called for more discussion/justification, such as the open anthropomorphizing of “Nature” — “Nature wants to do this”, and “Nature only has such and such information available to it, and so cannot xyz, etc”.
Finally, I thought his brief treatment of free will reflected either ignorance of the consequences of materialism or cowardice in addressing it. Regardless, it was startlingly uninformative and shallow. He needn’t have bothered to even write that part.
At this point, I’m having trouble thinking of a reason to read further.
Thank you for your review Astriede. I have read several reviews on these books (Three of them now) Most of the reviews go one way or another and few are written by anyone that seems to understand physics to any large degree from either side.
wrecktafire:
“The trouble with time started a century ago, when Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity demolished the idea of time as a universal constant. One consequence is that the past, present, and future are not absolutes. Einstein’s theories also opened a rift in physics because the rules of general relativity (which describe gravity and the large-scale structure of the cosmos) seem incompatible with those of quantum physics (which govern the realm of the tiny). Some four decades ago, the renowned physicist John Wheeler, then at Princeton, and the late Bryce DeWitt, then at the University of North Carolina, developed an extraordinary equation that provides a possible framework for unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. But the Wheeler-DeWitt equation has always been controversial, in part because it adds yet another, even more baffling twist to our understanding of time.
“One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,” says Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France. “It is an issue that many theorists have puzzled about. It may be that the best way to think about quantum reality is to give up the notion of time—that the fundamental description of the universe must be timeless.”
No one has yet succeeded in using the Wheeler-DeWitt equation to integrate quantum theory with general relativity. Nevertheless, a sizable minority of physicists, Rovelli included, believe that any successful merger of the two great masterpieces of 20th-century physics will inevitably describe a universe in which, ultimately, there is no time. “