Why Quantum?

Vladimir Rogozhin

Now we have to re-climb up on the shoulders of Heraclitus and Plato to better see and understand the triad: "logos" "eidos" "topos".

Steve Agnew

I actually do really like philosophy...but the only really certain thing that results from philosophical discourse is more philosophical discourse. Thus philosophy is really only useful for addressing questions that actually have no answers.

For questions of science that result in predictions of gravity action and quantum action, philosophy is less useful. For questions about why the universe is the way that it is and why matter exists and so on, philosophical discourse helps us define the limits of what we can know.

Science is the realm of what we can know, but around the edges are things that are knowable, but that we do not yet know. That is quantum gravity, for example. And then there are things that are fundamentally unknowable, for example, our quantum future is not precisely knowable at any scale. And yet science can predict the future of simple Cartesian objects reasonably well, sometimes with great precision.

But to predict the future of a complex relational object like a person, philosophical discourse can be more useful that the measures of science.

Vladimir Rogozhin

Hello Steve,

Fundamental physics and cosmology going through a "crisis of understanding"(K.Kopeykin) and the "crisis of representation and interpretation" (T.Romanovskaya). This was well demonstrated by Lee Smolin in his books. Overcoming the crisis is possible only on the basis of philosophy, based on the creation of a new conceptual framework that will reveal the nature of time and information, and their place in the scientific picture of the world of the Information Age. I provide a link to the article by Carlo Rovelli SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT CERTAINTY: A PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS in which he says: «This is a standard idea of how science works, which implies that science is about empirical content, the true interesting relevant content of science is its empirical content. Since theories change, the empirical content is the solid part of what science is. Now, there's something disturbing, for me as a theoretical scientist, in all this. I feel that something is missing. Something of the story is missing. I've been asking to myself what is this thing missing? I'm not sure I have the answer, but I want to present some ideas on something else which science is. This is particularly relevant today in science, and particularly in physics, because if I'm allowed to be polemical, in my field, in fundamental theoretical physics, it is 30 years that we fail. There hasn't been a major success in theoretical physics in the last few decades, after the standard model, somehow. Of course there are ideas. These ideas might turn out to be right. Loop quantum gravity might turn out to be right, or not. String theory might turn out to be right, or not. But we don't know, and for the moment, nature has not said yes in any sense. I suspect that this might be in part because of the wrong ideas we have about science, and because methodologically we are doing something wrong, at least in theoretical physics, and perhaps also in other sciences.»

And I'll add a philosophical covenant of John Wheeler for physicists: "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers".

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Steve Agnew

Well, I would not call it a crisis in physics, but there are definitely problems. You go at length to quote others, but I already know that these others do not know...otherwise we would have the answer.

The question is are these people helping us find a solution or are they digging a deeper rabbit hole for us all? One thing is for sure...there have been even smarter people than them flummoxed about an answer. The same philosophies that help us find truth can equally well obscure that truth with a bunch of complex redefinitions.

Vladimir Rogozhin

When I read an article or listen to a lecture about the "big bang", I was always surprised by the lack of logic in this hypothesis. "Logic" - from "logos". Physics only now returning to the comprehension of "logos" at the base of nature - "meta-law". Meanings and understanding of nature of the "laws of nature" must return to the primordial structure of the Universum. In this case, the first mate - the philosophy and all the philosophical heritage of humanity. Unfortunately, many of the fundamental physics ignore it when they construct models and looking formulas.

Steve Agnew

I hate to be in a position to defend the big bang since my cosmology is inverted from that. But the big bang is just one of many possible cosmologies and they all depend on a whole set of beliefs about the universe. These beliefs are mostly consistent with each other and with observations, but each cosmology has its pathologies and none are perfect.

In order for logic to work, you must believe in its propositions. In order for the big bang to work, you must believe in its propositions. Note that logic has its pathologies as well. There are many examples of contrapositives or self contradictions in logic and so the math of logic is not a panacea for physics. Logic reflects the walls of the universe back onto us all just like physics.

What is the meaning of nothing? Nothing is the lack of any object of matter. But now that we have defined nothing, it then becomes something after all. Space. So now we have a universe that is mainly nothing. After all, nothing really matters except of course nothing.

Vladimir Rogozhin

Yes, Steve, one logic - absolutely not enough. For the edifying of a primordial structure of the universe as a whole is necessary to use all the knowledge accumulated by humanity, not just physics and mathematics. This is primarily all philosophical knowledge, primarily philosophical ontology and dialectic. Nature - is dialectical and we are in dialogue with nature. Multitude of universes - it is bad philosophy. With regard to the matter, Plato gave a good, very broad sense, which includes the idea of "generation": Matter is that from which everything is generated. A .Burbaki gave the idea of generating (maternal) structures ("Architecture of Mathematics"). Total ontology-dialectical unification of matter on all levels of being gives access to the structure of the Space 9-measurements. Primordial structure of the Universum gives an understanding of time as a phenomenon of the ontological (structural) memory - core, semantic attractor of the conceptual structure of the Universum of the Information age.

Steve Agnew

Actually, my cosmology is just three dimensional: matter, time, and action. Presumably your allusion to nine dimensions is related to string theory and its extra six hidden dimensions. I put hidden dimensions, multiverses, and supernatural agents all together as different ways of defining the lonely nothing of empty space.

Fortunately, a matter time universe does not have to deal with the conundrum of space since space is simply a result of action. My hope is that a universe of three dimensions will have just three constants that determine all other constants and no hidden dimensions or constants that have no measure.

The ontology would be matter, time, and action along with three constants. There are two representations of the dualism of nature, Cartesian and relational, and matter, time, and action are Cartesian while the relational representation anchors consciousness with three primal beliefs: origin, destiny, and purpose.

So yes, once you have a universe based on simple principles, its logic does flow nicely from physics to philosophy...

Akinbo Ojo

Steve, Vladimir,

If you pardon my butting in concerning Steve's interesting propositions...

"Actually, my cosmology is just three dimensional: matter, time, and action" and

"What is the meaning of nothing? Nothing is the lack of any object of matter. But now that we have defined nothing, it then becomes something after all. Space. So now we have a universe that is mainly nothing. After all, nothing really matters except of course nothing".

1. When matter is not separated, we have one. That is, if there is nothing between two bodies of matter, we have one body of matter. But we have many bodies of matter in the universe, therefore what separates them, which is space, is not nothing.

2. Talking cosmologically, if there was therefore nothing at the beginning, even space must be absent.

3. Which is more fundamental, matter or space? Can you have matter without space or can you have space without matter?

4. If Einstein's E =mc2 is correct and the measure of matter is kilogram, then the kilogram is not an ultimately conserved quantity.

5. To further apprehend the nature of space, it should be discovered if it is infinitely divisible. If it is not, then it is not a nothing but a different kind of something.

6. From 3,4 and 5, perhaps we replace matter with space in the triad, so we have space, time, and action?

Regards,

Akinbo

Steve Agnew

Now we are rocking...I like how you enumerate your arguments...

"1. When matter is not separated, we have one. That is, if there is nothing between two bodies of matter, we have one body of matter. But we have many bodies of matter in the universe, therefore what separates them, which is space, is not nothing."

When you say separated, you are already assuming space exists a priori. Time is what separates objects, not space. As long as time separates two objects, they will also be separate in their projection back into space given some action.

"2. Talking cosmologically, if there was therefore nothing at the beginning, even space must be absent."

The of course, space would not be the lonely empty nothing that it seems to be...and you would have invented another nothing, maybe a multiverse or a supernatural agent? Look, all we can know is what is in this universe and while we can ask what exists outside of the universe, there is no way to answer that question. We ask and answer these kinds of questions all of the time, but that is the realm of belief. Although science starts with belief in axioms just like religion and philosophy have their axioms, the axioms of science reflect the limits to what we can know.

"3. Which is more fundamental, matter or space? Can you have matter without space or can you have space without matter?"

The answer for me is easy. Matter. But you cannot have matter without time and action and it is with the action of matter in time that space occurs.

"4. If Einstein's E =mc2 is correct and the measure of matter is kilogram, then the kilogram is not an ultimately conserved quantity."

In my cosmology, that is correct. In fact, matter decays as exactly 0.283 ppb/yr and it is that decay that determines gravity and quantum action. Correspondingly, c increases by the same fraction each year and so our measure of atomic time gets another second every 65 years or so.

"5. To further apprehend the nature of space, it should be discovered if it is infinitely divisible. If it is not, then it is not a nothing but a different kind of something."

This is easy for me since space is whatever convenient thing you want it to be. Space is not needed to predict action, space is not needed to separate objects, and space is not needed for the matter exchanges that determine all force.

"6. From 3,4 and 5, perhaps we replace matter with space in the triad, so we have space, time, and action?"

Actually, I think that it is possible, but the math is tensorial. Just like Joy's linearization of 3-D space, by reducing space to one dimension orthogonal to time, it would be a form of space that results in what we call matter objects. I will leave that as a homework assignment...

Vladimir Rogozhin

Steve,

In my model there is no "hidden" dimensions. All 9 dimensions are ontologically grounded: 3 linear dimensions (the absolute rest matter) +3 vortex dimensions (the absolute motion of matter) + 3 wave dimensions (the absolute becoming of matter). Each absolute state of matter has its own way (vector absolute state of matter).

See, please "The Absolute generating structure" which is the ontological framework, the carcass and the foundation of knowledge. Fundamental constants represent the ontological "framework" of the Universum. In my model the structure of space substantiate absolute states of matter, and time - the phenomenon of the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory. I absolutely agree with your last conclusion.

Regards,

Vladimir

Akinbo Ojo

Steve, continuing the rock and roll...

I agree Time can be a 'separator'. It is not well recognized that this can be so. For instance, it is commonly whispered that space can have a discrete nature, but when you ask how this can be expressed since space cannot separate itself, you hardly get a coherent answer. I propose space has a dual nature, discrete and continuous. Discrete because it is not infinitely divisible, continuous because it cannot do its own separation. Time can however separate the discrete units if they have varying durations of existence (emerge and annihilate, perhaps this is what you call 'action').

As to your cosmology, with matter decaying as exactly 0.283 ppb/yr do you suggest the matter in the universe is infinite?

If this is not so, then by now with the universe expanding and the matter decaying, the departure from flatness would be so obvious, but this is not what seems to be observed. The universe appears balanced between its radius and its matter content. Your cosmology may therefore need some fine-tuning.

In mine the matter content is actually increasing along with its radius to keep the Omega parameter unity, which represents flatness.

Regards,

Akinbo

Vladimir Rogozhin

I update: the primordial structure of space founded by the ontological structure of matter, ie of its absolute (unconditioned) states - in the triunity of states.

Steve Agnew

...six hidden dimensions...

What I mean by hidden dimensions are simply dimensions that are not self evident. Axioms are by definition self evident and so ontologies with dimensions that are not self evident are certainly less useful for making a universe than ontologies with self evident axioms. However, it is true that you can build any kind of universe you want with such added dimensions and explain any kind of observation with another dimension.

Quantum spin, for example, is something that really should come naturally as a consequence of the action of matter and should not require its own distinct axiom or ad hoc assumptions. My matter time universe seems to have these kind of naturalisms that are very pleasant in any universe model.

Adding dimensions is very similar to the propensity to add constants and then to add multiverses, all of this is reminiscent of the tendency to attribute the universe to one or another of these various supernatural agents. What I look for in a model of the universe is simplicity, completeness, and closure.

Steve Agnew

...on the rock and roll...

No, matter time is not infinite, the matter time universe is finite and closed...and simple. My matter time universe is a butt simple time pulse of matter with a Fourier transform that is a matter spectrum with a peak for every matter interaction of every object in the universe. There is a bunch of phase stuff as you might imagine as both time and matter have both amplitude and phase and all action is driven by the Schrödinger equation. Action, once again, is simply a change in matter with time for an object.

Since space is a projection of matter time action, whatever your space in space time works just fine in matter time as well. But do realize that when you say the universe is flat, you infer that there is a space and yet we know that GR's model for gravity has deep flaws.

The speed of light has a really simple definition in matter time. It is just the rate of collapse of the universe at this time. The increasing red shift of light from galaxies is not due to red Doppler shift, it is because the universe pulse began with a universe that had all force at zero and projected to 3,000 Mpc Now we are about 81% of that size. In fact, the collapsing universe, these red spectra are actually blue shifted by the velocity of collapse.

Note that the CMB velocity is 99.96% of the speed of light and so our universe is seemingly tied to the speed of light close to its boundary, the CMB. In space time, this is a coincidence and in a billion years or so, the CMB will disappear over the event horizon. In matter time, the rate of change of the universe is the speed of light, collapsing, not expanding.

Given the universe pulse in time, all force increases in sync with its collapse, and so all of the right constants shift together. The fine structure splitting, for example, appears the same in early galaxies as it is today even though force was much smaller in early galaxies.

The scaling between gravity and charge forces is related to the size the universe relative to the size of the atom, but they both due to matter decay.

There is an interesting topology for matter time in that matter seems to have a centered or horn torus shape. Since all force is due to matter exchange, that means that the projection of force in space is centered on action, centers of mass, and not on particle centers.

You mentioned an omega parameter...sounds like de Chardin? Singular axioms like the omega point just don't seem consistent with the universe, where there seems to be a minimum of three axioms for a universe, so I call it a trimal universe. Although you can build a universe out of space, time, and action, I find that matter, time, and action makes a very nice simple set of axioms that then result in space as a convenient construct of our consciousness.

John Merryman

Vladimir,

Could it be fundamentally cyclical, with endless balancing of relations and feedback loops, building up and breaking down complexity as part of this process, rather than linear, with a primal cause leading onward and upward to ever more complexity?

Regards,

John M

pjackson

John,

What they seem to have done is proved what 'refraction' really is, which is a harmonic resonance effect on EM field interaction as invoked and shown connected to ellipticity as my attachment to Steve (or was it to Stefan?) above. As a helical form is dragged to become elliptical the phase on the new optical axis differs from that on the original.

Good post. Thanks. I may cite the paper.

Peter

Steve Agnew

If you let space be infinite and infinitely divisible, it is no wonder that you have so many problems defining time. It is not clear how you keep energy and matter finite in an infinite universe. And redefining time as blocktime is an identity and saying that time is time with different words is very common, but not that useful. In fact, we use identities in language all of the time to define words with different words that have the same or similar meanings.

However, an axiom like does not change when you define it with another word. In fact, axioms are all self evident propositions that we recognize because they are mainly defined as identities. So ultimately, time is time, matter is matter, and action is action. These axioms simply are the way that they are.

A set of axioms that close the universe mean that an axiom like time is defined combinations of the other axioms. Thus time is the quotient of action and matter, which gives time as the action of a clock along with its ticks.

The sunset that we experience is a moment of thought that we connect in our minds with a sunrise because we remember the sunrise as another moment of thought. We further imagine a likely future with another sunrise and sunset, but that imagining is all in our minds. We have a lifetime of experience and knowledge and can predict many actions fairly well. Sometimes we use causation and sometimes we use association, but basically we need to predict the future well enough to survive, but really no better than that.

John Merryman

Peter,

Is the light, rather than the source being dragged?

Regards,

John M

pjackson

John,

"Is the light, rather than the source being dragged?" Yes, the helical path becomes ellipticised, giving the normal elliptical polarity. In a hierarchical sequence where the hyperfine spinning 'charge' describes the greater scale helix then the charge may also be considered as a 'source', and 'dragged'. However it's really the particles matter the charge it interacts with that 'scatters' the light, so we must consider the 'source as part of the system that DOES the the 'dragging'.

i.e When light is incident on the surface of water it's refracted. However there's a difference between water 'at rest' wrt the incident medium, and water that's flowing. In the latter case we find anomalous 'Kinetic Reverse Refraction" which is equivalent to anomalous aberration of light entering the atmosphere of a moving planet.

There need be no anomaly if we allow theory to coherently resolve; The lateral motion at the refractive plane means there is also an asymmetry of 'charge' to the surface EM field electrons, so the emission axis is slightly 'rotated' giving the ellipticity. That's all shown in the diagrams in my 2012 essay, including the 'invisibility optics' proof.

Make sense? Sorry to be long winded, but a simpler answer could easily have been misinterpreted. I think we have too much of that already!

Best wishes

Peter

John Merryman

Steve,

I'm not sure how spatial infinity, or divisible infinity would matter in terms of defining time.

If space is infinite, then presumably the energy filling it will be as well, so that energy radiated out from one area will be compensated by energy radiated in from surrounding areas.

Being divisibly infinite simply means continuous.

You overlook the other property, that of neutrality. All this energy fluctuating in the vacuum seems to be positive and negative forces, logically balanced around neutrality, which would seem to very much locate this energy.

I understand words are simply descriptive and have no meaning beyond their ability to convey some underlaying concept. As such they are a framing device, but like all frames, can be viewed from multiple angles. If there is an inability to come to terms as to what is being described, it is "a failure to communicate." The connection is not made.

As a word, time can refer to a measure of duration, or it can be the overall effect of change. Historically there has been significant effort to discover what is the universal measure of this overall effect. Newton's absolute "flow of time." Einstein presumably solved this issue by proposing what amounts to every clock, ie, measure, being dependent on circumstance, as well as from what frame they are viewed from. In the 2008 FQXI contest, The Nature of Time, Julian Barbour won with an entry essentially arguing the only measure, "worthy of the name," was the path of least action between different configuration states of the universe.

What I keep trying to point out, obviously to little or no avail, is that this focus on the measure, the duration, overlooks the actual process of creation and dissolution of events that is being measured. That this physical state of being present is not a "point" moving from start to finish, as with the process of measuring duration, but that it is entirely within this state of physical presence that these points of reference form and dissolve, thus it is they which go from being in the future to being past and have no physical being, other than that brief moment of existence.

As such, this measure of time is basically a form of frequency, the rise and fall of these waves of being.

So rather than it being an extension, like space, it is an effect, like temperature. With temperature, we measure the composite effect of a multitude of the force of many actions. Their amplitudes, so to speak. While with time, we measure the individual rate of change/frequency and wonder what the universal rate is, but there is no universal rate, simply the composite effect of many activities.

A faster clock, ie. rate of change doesn't rush along that vector into the future faster than a slower one. It ages/burns quicker and so recedes into the past faster. The twin in the faster frame ages and dies faster than the one in the slower frame.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

Peter,

Like I said, I get the first 90% of it. Which is fine by me, as I'm a generalist. The system has no trouble fitting together, even if we haven't fully figured out all the pieces and light seems to still be open to further understanding.

The main issue for me is explaining cosmic redshift as an optical effect and being able to dump all the twisted logic to explain it as recession of the source.

Regards,

John M

pjackson

Steve,

I agree, but despite Zeno, why is in necessary to have infinite divisions of something with a physical presence or action? Even if we go beyond the Planck length to a smaller Dirac/Bell etc. dark energy 'ether' with an 'action', at some scale the presence or action can cease so there's nothing to divide.

I agree with Bell, such theoretical limitations (he specified non-locality but I find it a general truth) are only a measure of our lack of imagination.

Now 'upwards' is a quite different case! Did you read my post on TFL, the only logical system NOT beset by paradox?

Best wishes

Peter

pjackson

John,

Many other possible causes of cosmic redshift have been identified. One I've derived (I have no idea if it's correct), is simple ('DFM') scaling.

Imagine a sine wave from a fixed source. OK one way to 'stretch' it is to move the source away as it's emitted. That also works if you look in 3D and see a helix. However there are others including this;

As the wave expands in a (Schrödinger) sphere in all directions into the universe it's amplitude decreases. So take your wave and reduce it's height without changing it's wavelength (in the helical form its the radius that reduces).

Now look at the wave and compare it to the 'stretched' wave. you'll find the change has had exactly the same effect, just on a slightly smaller 'scale'!!

Now the issue there is that the observable considered theoretically (not in astronomy I must add!) is the derivative 'frequency' f, and 'propagation speed' and wavelength dictate f! I do have a solution relating to non-zero coupling energy loss, but that's 2 theories in one and more complex.

Discerning evidence is still limited. Fun though!

Best wishes

Peter

John Merryman

Peter,

Which brings to mind another of my pet peeves; That of dimensionless points as anything other than a mapping device. Anything multiplied by zero, whether it is an apple, or a point, doesn't exist.

There is no such thing as a dimensionless point in time. It either would freeze all action and thus physical reality would vanish, as with a temperature of absolute zero, or simply the shutter of the camera doesn't open and no light is received.

As for a dimensionless point in space and how a line is composed of infinitely many such points; If it is dimensionless, infinitely many zeros still add up to zero.

Basically it's poor math. There is no platonic realm of dimensionality, just rough mapping devices.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

Peter,

Thanks.

While I'm not an optics expert, I find it contradictory to propose this expansion is relativistic, in order to explain why we appear at the center, since this still requires a stable speed of light to create the doppler effect and so it is not constant(C) to this expanded space. On the other hand, an optical effect would quite reasonably explain why we appear at the center.

Regards,

John M

pjackson

John,

Most realise we're not 'at the centre' due the the large scale peculiar CMBR anisotropies. Did you not look at my (co-authored) beautiful cyclic model unprecidentedly explaining all of them!?

Cyclic model of Galaxy Evolution, with Bars.

There's only bi-directional expansion, then contraction ('accretion'). The evidence is overwhelming. It's like fitting a big jigsaw puzzle together coherently. It may be 'wrong' but the chances of that have a number on nought in front!

(You will tell me if it's me that's crazy won't you).

Best wishes

Peter

John Merryman

It seems the focus on complexity blinds theorists to the basics.

Which goes to the nature of knowledge and its relation to complexity.

Complexity theory posited the boundary between order and chaos as complexity, but I would describe this as the relation between order and energy, in that as structure forms, the constituent energy is naturally following paths of least resistance and so naturally probing the weak spots of order. Much like grass pushing though the cracks in the sidewalk. The consequence, from the point of view of the ordered frame, is that this is naturally chaotic, since it occurs where it is least structured and thus least defined, ie, thus seemingly random.

So while it is natural to build on prior theoretical forms, this has the effect of walling off disciplines and while the complexity of the logic within multiplies, it is not well rounded and leaves serious gaps in logic.

This train of thought is wandering off and I'm running out of time at the moment, but there is a physics to the psychology which needs consideration, because some of these issues really are too basic to have been overlooked by reasonably logical people.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

Peter,

But the CMBR is not the redshifted distant galaxies.

I'l have to check that later.

Regards,

John M

Vladimir Rogozhin

Hello John,

The Generating (maternal) structure - the dialectical process of the "coincidence of opposites" (absolute rest and absolute motion of matter) and the generation of new structures at the new level - the absolute becoming. From here: the cyclical, feedback, complexity of the structure at the new level and the phenomenon of the "arrow of time" as a manifestation and the accumulation of the ontological (structural) memory.

Robert Spekkens said in conclusion essay in Contest-2012: "Long live causal structure!" but he has not submitted its ontological construct . In fundamental physics and cosmology is necessary to introduce the ontological standard of justification of models.

Sincerely,

Vladimir

Steve Agnew

Time is often defined in terms of motion, i.e. Barbour's essay, and so if your idea of space has problems, your idea of time inherits those same pathologies. Once again, you mention time as a duration...and of course a duration is time, right?

Space cannot be continuous or not or anything that you want to imagine. Space is a result of action and since neither matter or action are continuous, space in that sense is not continuous. But time is continuous, and since we represent time as space, space in that sense is continous. In fact, space can be anything we imagine since it is a result of action and is not necessary for action.

Or time is the overall effect of change...and what is the overall effect of change? Time of course. These statements are identities and show you that time is axiomatic. The only way out is to recognize that a closed universe supposes time as an axiom and therefore defines time as combinations of other axioms.

Note that Barbour's essay essentially did exactly this. He defined time in terms of matter and action and won the prize, the "path of least action". In fact, all he did was say time is what a clock measures, with different words of course.

You like temperature and temperature works as a clock as well. An object temperature is energy and energy is equivalent to matter. A change in temperature is a change in the matter of an object, i.e. an action. Therefore, temperatures and temperature changes are perfectly good clocks and what clocks measure is time.

Steve Agnew

As far as disease metaphors go, you are doing great. However, we exist in a sea of other organisms and it is only certain ones that cause us injury. In other words, there will never be a perfect theory of GR and QM, there will only ever be theories that are more useful than others for prediction of action.

Right now science struggles with the boundaries between QM and GR just as you have noted, and is infected with some kind of virus. All I am suggesting is that many of the conundrums of GR will be resolved with quantum gravity. Quantum gravity will make sense out of black holes, dark matter, dark energy, and the funny business in the CMB.

However, it will not be an easy transition to quantum gravity, that much is sure. It will be painful and full of discord and derision...imagine that! Once inoculated, the virus that makes science sick will not completely go away. It will simply be replaced by a beneficial virus and complete the metaphor.

« Previous Page Next Page »