From: cdj@world.std.com (conrad d johnson)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Summary: Capra and S-Matrix theory 
Keywords: Quantum, S-Matrix
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 17:31:26 GMT


I've read both Capra's =Tao of Physics= and Zukav's =Dancing Wu-Li
Masters=.  Both are good, lively introductions to the Quantum
mystery, but, to my mind, the sections on Eastern philosophy are
neither convincing nor relevant.

As to Capra himself, I don't know whether his forays into mystical
philosophy are better or worse than those of many other reasonable
people.  He's associated with Geoffrey Chew and Henry Stapp at the
Lawrence Berkeley Lab, and he's written some good reviews of their
work in S-matrix theory.  This is a branch of Quantum physics that
seemed central back in the 60's, but has since been almost
completely eclipsed by QCD (quark theory).

I think Capra and Zukav are right in seeing S-matrix theory as the
most philosophically interesting part of Quantum physics.   Chew's
original "bootstrap" idea was that no particles are more
"elementary" than others; all particles can be thought of either as
themselves or as "bound states" of other particles.  Kind of like
Anaxagoras.  That idea has gone by the wayside, but the Berkeley
group has evolved a new "topological" S-matrix theory that has a lot
going for it -- including an interesting alternative approach to
quark theory.

The Berkeley group sees QCD and S-matrix theory as having to do with
different parts of the particle energy-spectrum.  QCD deals with
high-energy phenomena, and has little to say about interactions in
the more normal energy range; the reverse is true of the S-matrix. 
If global economics puts a lid on new super-high-energy colliders,
maybe the S-matrix will come back into favor.  Andrew Pickering has
a book out called =Constructing Quarks -- A Sociological History of
Particle Physics=.  It has an interesting viewpoint on the rise of
QCD and the fall of the old S-matrix theory.

In any case, the philosophical standpoint of S-matrix theory is
still well worth considering.  An excellent presentation is Henry
Stapp's article in =Physical Review D 3/15/71= titled "S-Matrix
Interpretation of Quantum Theory."  In a nutshell, the idea here is
to give up the traditional picture of particles and fields in favor
of one in which events are fundamental.  What we think of as
particles are only connections between events; as such, particles
don't follow well-defined paths and have no location of their own in
between the events they connect.  The fabric of spacetime is woven
of interconnected events, and the structure of this web is what S-
matrix theory aims to elucidate.

My own feeling -- and I'm not a physicist, so take it for what it's
worth -- is that there is no sound basis for the traditional view. 
Particle/field descriptions of reality run into tremendous problems
if taken literally; their great virtue is that generations of
brilliant mathematicians have developed very powerful tools for
handling descriptions of this type.  The S-matrix viewpoint is prima
facie far more appropriate to the Quantum domain, but the
mathematical problems associated with it have been studied only very
recently by relatively few theorists.  Also, our philosophical
tradition offers us little or nothing in the way of conceptual
approaches to event-networks, which is doubtless one reason why
Zukav and Capra saw relevance in the Eastern traditions of thought.

My own thinking on this has to do with the question of measurement,
specifically with the idea that an event-net type of structure might
be necessary for any universe in which anything like a measurement
is possible.  I'll follow this up in a later post.  But among other
things, any approach to the world as a network of interaction-events
has to explain how and why such a world ends up =looking= like a
world of solid, permanent objects (like particles) moving around in
a =seemingly= continuous framework of spacetime fields, at least on
a macroscopic scale.  Some recent publications hint that the S-
matrix group may still be in the forefront on this:  see Stapp's
article "Light as foundation of being" (It sounds like mysticism,
but it's physics... it's in a collection of interesting essays
called =Quantum Implications=).

My thanks to Damien Guay for proposing this topic, despite the spate
of less-than-sympathetic responses.

Conrad Johnson