“The Outer Limits” seeks to determine if science alone could describe everything that is real in the universe. Most would probably agree that not everything can be explained by science. However, the question addressed here is whether science might be able to explain those things in the future. To answer this question, this chapter quickly moves through history from the discovery of electricity and magnetism to the development of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. It concludes that the separation between objects and events only exist within well-defined theoretical limits, and beyond those limits, everything converges into invisible forms of existence. It does not matter how much technology may advance in the future, there are certain things in the universe that can only be perceived in the mind of the observer.
“The Outer Limits” seeks to determine if science alone could describe everything that is real in the universe. Most would probably agree that not everything can be explained by science. However, the question addressed here is whether science might be able to explain those things in the future. To answer this question, this chapter quickly moves through history from the discovery of electricity and magnetism to the development of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity. It concludes that the separation between objects and events only exist within well-defined theoretical limits, and beyond those limits, everything converges into invisible forms of existence. It does not matter how much technology may advance in the future, there are certain things in the universe that can only be perceived in the mind of the observer.
This article takes the form of 3 microarticles. They are 1) Relativity says science overvalues experiments, 2) Time dilation to co-moving and non-comoving observers and 3) EXPLORING VENUS, MARS, ETC BY ENTANGLING THEM WITH EARTH. Each microarticle was originally written to stand alone, but I decided they should be combined into one article. Everybody (even including Nobel-winning physicists) seems to have a preference for experiment instead of theory. This reminds me of a movie I saw about Alexander the Great. Aristotle (played by Christopher Plummer) was teaching the young Alexander and said Greeks use their minds while rely on their senses, and what they can see and hear etc. While science acknowledges the importance of theory and mind, it appears to be following Aristotle's other races when it declares that observation and experiment always have the last word. This is justified by saying the ancient Greeks made mistakes because they didn't always rely enough on mathematics and experiment. However, it's well known that experimenters make mistakes too - from the days of Galileo to the recent experiments with faster-than-light neutrinos, and with the cosmic microwave background. This article hopes to plant a seed that will grow into a science which doesn't automatically assume observation and experiment must always have the last word. The entire universe, along with all of the past and present and future, appears to be becoming unified by our science into one entity/event. Consider the 19th century's union of electricity and magnetism into the one force of electromagnetism (light, and every type of radiation, are forms of this). Consider the unifying attempts of Einstein's Unified Field Theory, as well as the union of space and time into space-time, in the 20th century - and of physics' subatomic String Theory and Theory of Everything in the 21st century. A vital player in this trend is quantum mechanics, with its experimentally verified quantum entanglement that says particles can affect each regardless of distance in space-time. The way things are going, the mathematics used on Earth will end up being revised. After all, it's based on the limited perceptions of our senses and the idea that a virtually unlimited set of separate observations and experiments can be made ie it says 1+1=2. But if absolutely everything is actually a single thing/event, 1+1 will have no choice but to equal 1.
For over nine decades, quantum mechanics has profoundly shaped our understanding of nature, offering explanations for the stability of atoms, the formation of mole cules, the properties of materials, and phenomena such as light or radioactivity. It is essential to modern technologies—from microchips to lasers—and underpins the physics of elementary particles. Yet, despite its successes, it remains a deeply mysterious theory, confronting a central enigma: why does the quantum world behave so differently from everyday reality? Elements such as superposition and quantum entanglement—which allow particles to exist simultaneously in multiple states or remain interconnected regardless of distance—contradict classical world intuitions. This gap between microscopic and macroscopic behavior has given rise to what is known as the “measurement problem,” raising fundamental questions about the nature of reality. Diverging interpretations have led to two major schools of thought: anti-realism, promoted by Niels Bohr, which holds that reality depends on the observer and their interaction with measurement instruments; and realism, supported by Albert Einstein, which argues that quantum mechanics is incomplete and that eality exists independently of observation. Bohr’s complementary philosophy and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle were central to the formulation of the “Copenhagen interpretation,” which became dominant in the 20th century. However, the persistent opposition of scientists like Einstein and Schrödinger inspired generations of physicists to seek a unification between quantum mechanics and relativity, culminating in new theories such as loop quantum gravity and string theory. Thus, the debate between realism and anti-realism remains alive, and philosophy continues to play a crucial role in exploring the new foundations of physics.
Quantum theory has been proved as an outstanding mystery in modern science. The predictions of science have turned out to be probabilistic. The principle of determinism has failed. For systems like weather, earthquakes, rolling dices etc... and of course human behavior it has proved impossible, for science, to describe a state of the system accurately for a long time into the future. Moreover, modern cosmology has to rely on philosophical assumptions. It is argued -- by taking into account of the views of learned scientists and philosophers -- that modern science can never explain everything and it is a hard fact to discover the ``Theory Of Everything''. On the other hand, modern scientific technology have damaged our environment and posed serious threats for the future development of science. All these facts and results put a big question-mark (?) on the grass-root level working of science. In fact, all scientific researches are based upon ordinary sense perception, which keeps the outer physical universe as a separate entity, that is something quite independent of the observer. Basically, it is the observer -- the knower -- which makes perception possible. Astonishingly, the knower -- human mind -- is not included in our scientific theories. One should not forget human-being (human mind) is a part of nature and an essential component of our observations, so it's inclusion in scientific theories is must in order to recover modern science from the drastic state of trauma.
Quantum theory has been proved as an outstanding mystery in modern science. The predictions of science have turned out to be probabilistic. The principle of determinism has failed. For systems like weather, earthquakes, rolling dices etc... and of course human behavior it has proved impossible, for science, to describe a state of the system accurately for a long time into the future. Moreover, modern cosmology has to rely on philosophical assumptions. It is argued -- by taking into account of the views of learned scientists and philosophers -- that modern science can never explain everything and it is a hard fact to discover the ``Theory Of Everything''. On the other hand, modern scientific technology have damaged our environment and posed serious threats for the future development of science. All these facts and results put a big question-mark (?) on the grass-root level working of science. In fact, all scientific researches are based upon ordinary sense perception, which keeps the outer physical universe as a separate entity, that is something quite independent of the observer. Basically, it is the observer -- the knower -- which makes perception possible. Astonishingly, the knower -- human mind -- is not included in our scientific theories. One should not forget human-being (human mind) is a part of nature and an essential component of our observations, so it's inclusion in scientific theories is must in order to recover modern science from the drastic state of trauma.