Physics and Me

Physics is, and always has been the discipline that interested me most. It seemed to ask the biggest questions about the world in which we live, and the route towards answering those questions seemed most challenging. Sadly it is somewhat of a light hobby to me, something to dabble in for a change of scenery. This is because physics is one of the less relevant disciplines for social engineering but also because I lack the fluency and cutting edge knowledge to really probe any of the questions deep enough to be satisfying. It is for the latter of these reasons that I have as yet not written any essays on physics as I struggle to substantiate or even phrase what I wish to say. As I cannot bear in mind all aspects of physics in my head simultaneously I often overlook simple and obvious things when theorising. Such failing on my part make me reluctant to put finger to key, but one should always try something before giving up on it so I shall proceed.

Science looks at what happens and then tries to frame those occurrences in models and equations so that they may be used to predict other similar occurrences. The progress of science is a process of observing discrepancies between the models and equations with reality so that they may be refined to provide a greater degree of accuracy. Presently we have two main models in physics, one to describe the very big (general relativity) and one to describe the very small (quantum mechanics). The problem faced by physicists today is that these two models do not work when combined, the equations produce senseless results. I am informed that relativity has been inelegantly shoe-horned together with quantum chromodynamics and quantum electrodynamics leaving gravity as the main problem. Relativity is a beautifully elegant theory and quantum mechanics, I am assured, is one of the most precise models. Both of these attributes suggest that much of these present models is correct and so the search is on to find the missing parts of the picture.

Logically the disagreement between our theories of the very big and the very small means one of a few things; one of the theories is wrong, both of the theories are wrong, an assumption we have made regarding either theory is wrong or we are missing an extension to the theories so that they apply correctly in various conditions. Few scientific theories that have gained any credibility or acceptance have turned out to be completely wrong, most, like Newtonian mechanics, turn out to be great approximations that work well for certain conditions. When applied to conditions that are significantly different to those on Earth we begin to find issue with Newtonian mechanics and are required to make new models and equations to explain the erroneous results. Newtonian mechanics is still widely used today despite the common knowledge regarding it's failings, this is because the factors it does not account for are not relevant for many day-to-day uses.

The precision and elegance of quantum mechanics and relativity respectively suggest that they are not wrong in much the same way Newtonian mechanics is not wrong. Certainly for my part I shall not attempt to critique either of our existing theories as it seems less productive and less likely to be the problem facing a unifying theory of the universe. This leaves us with either an incorrect assumption or an incomplete picture that would allow for our present theories to be extended upon. It is fair to assert that much of this problem arises from the inability to devise experiments and observe situations where very small things exert a huge gravitational force and this is a significant contributor to why we have no solution to this problem as yet.

When I use maths I have to be fully aware of what the numbers represent, I have to be able to visualise the process I am trying to describe mathematically. With a lot of quantum mechanics I am unable to see what the numbers are representing or how the manipulation of them reflects the changes in reality. Although I am much more at home with numbers and find things expressed numerically much easier to relate to, I also find any physical law that describes the universe impossible to understand unless it can be logically described with words and diagrams. If it cannot then I cannot appreciate what the numbers and their manipulations represent. Feynman and Dirac are the kinds of physicists that I can appreciate for their approach to understanding. It is ironic that for all things I try to find ways to express them numerically, except in physics where I prefer pictures and words.

The quest to find a unifying theory of everything is like a jigsaw puzzle, except we don't know what the picture we are trying to make is, nor how big the picture is, nor what pieces we are missing. The best strategy to completing a jigsaw is to locate the corners and edges and try to link them all together so that you have something to build the rest upon, and as you do so you are able to place them in the appropriate places. I have used a similar approach when I muse about the workings of the universe. I conceive of a model for the universe which describes the relationship between some of the most important physical factors and then I attempt to hang the pieces of the puzzle we do presently have onto this model to see if they fit suitably. Once the bits you do have are in place you are much more able to suggest the kinds of “pieces” that you require to fill in the gaps. This is quite a hit and miss approach and not a commonly used one in the scientific community as a result.

To brashly describe any physical factor as one of the most important is quite presumptuous so I shall define what I mean by physical factors and briefly justify why the ones listed seem of most importance. The factors I use to construct frameworks are; time (t), mass (m), energy (E), the speed of light (c), gravity (g), space-time (inclusive of relative position) and the electromagnetic force (and to a lesser extent the strong and weak forces giving a total of four fundamental forces inclusive of gravity. I will focus less on the strong and weak because their function and proof of their existence is less know to me, not because they are any less relevant. There is much to suggest they are all the same force but observed at different points on a spectrum in which case the number of forces observed seems almost as significant as their function). To return to my jigsaw analogy I would say that each of the above factors are akin to the clumps of pieces that form a small image that is a complete and recognisable object in the picture. There are many other bits of the puzzle we should not ignore such as the various subatomic particles (quarks, leptons) and their associated properties (spin, charge etc). Our justifications for these are largely based in pure maths and while the equations may provide very accurate predictions it is harder to explain the processes by use of words. It is for this inelegance and illogicality I shy away from constructing models to specifically make sense of this end of physics. I hope to be able to gain greater understanding of this area by inference from a model of the listed factors. Other things I should be wise to not overlook, as bits of the puzzle or clues, are a selection of constants like Pi (or as many would argue 2Pi or Tau), Hiesenberg's uncertainty principle and Plank's constant and it's derivatives. This list could go on and on as everything could be a clue or relevant. The selected aspects of physics are the most intriguing, confusing, unknown, fundamental and underlying and so seem to be the best places to start probing for hints as to the nature of the bigger picture.

Time is the trickiest customer of the lot and I put a great deal of this down to our perception of time. It is generally assumed that we all travel in time at a very similar speed in the same direction and have no control over this movement. We can only observe the “now” in our reference frame but we can recall the past in our memories, yet recollection is an activity we appear to do in the present. It seems the case that the future is something we can only statistically predict or wait for. We cannot escape time, all the things of our world occur within it and so all of our physics must account for time. Trying to describe the properties of a particle at a frozen interval of time yields the awkward result that we are clueless as to the particle's energy. There should be two words for time, that of it as a dimension for use in physics and one for out notion of the passage of time as our perception informs us it is. Time is such a big player in physics that I believe if we had a full understanding of it we would be able to infer explanations for everything else with great ease. The answers regarding time could easily be different for our physical understanding of it and our perception of it.

My aim with this essay is not to describe all my theories and thoughts nor discuss each aspect of our incomplete understanding of physics. I merely wish to introduce the subject and give an example of a model I have recently been using to frame other ideas upon. Later essays will probe the individual aspects to greater depths but I suspect that they will also be rather disjointed, hence my desire to begin with an essay describing my approach to physics and my weaknesses in the subject.

I have always observed that a group will make far greater progress on an intellectual task than an individual will. The ability to have multiple perspectives and reviews of ideas is huge. The individual can easily get distracted down a tangent that is of no use because they overlooked the small piece of information that ensured the tangent was not useful. A concern I have regarding the sciences is that the majority of the minds involved in making progress are of very similar dispositions and training. On top of that the science community has mechanisms, like any other social group, which require the individuals to adhere to else they are likely to suffer rejection from the community. Rejection from the scientific community means that any theories that person made will be far less well received and often disregarded on principle. The scientific method is both rigid and prescribed which suits well for most situations but not all. When faced with a roadblock such as a unifying theory an eccentric is required. The kinds of individuals who think outside the box, that are not blinkered by the community or their training. Rather than just astute academics the discipline requires a few individuals who are creative and that have a fresh way to look at problems. Einstein was one of these people, half artist and half scientist. He dared to ask questions about assumptions that others had not. Not being an active member of the scientific community myself I am able to begin with a pretty clean slate. My ignorance and lack of bias within the discipline are things I can turn into an advantage in some respects by allowing me the chance to be creative with my theories. Even if many are nonsense you only need hit the target once for it to be useful.

So on to my current model, which is easy enough to imagine and very simple in terms of how it combines a few factors. Originally I called it “balloon theory” but each extension of the model begs a more appropriate name. It was developed to make our experiences of time more comprehensible and palatable. The easiest way to imagine the model is as a three dimensional projection of a four dimensional shape. The space we appear to live in is three dimensional, we can go back or forward, up or down, left or right. In my model I use only two dimensions to represent the three space dimensions we perceive so as to make it easier to imagine because I use one of out space dimensions to represent the time dimension in the model. If mathematically describing I would return to a four dimensional model to appropriately calculate things. I postulate that our universe is like a four dimensional balloon in which we exist on the three dimensional surface. The surface of a balloon is only two dimensions, if you were to go up or down (radially in or out) you would no longer be on the surface but left, right, back and forward are all fine. The capacity to move in three dimensions upon the surface of the balloon must be imagined as it cannot be represented in our world of three dimensional perception. The up and down (radically in and out) dimension in the balloon model represents the time dimension. The inflating balloon represents the expansion of the universe, our movement in the time dimension is facilitated by this expansion, as the balloon expands all things at the surface will move upwards or radially out from the centre.

A balloon implies that the surface is smooth which it cannot be due to mass and gravity which will have the effect of distorting the surface. The balloon would like more like a conker where there are spikes on the surface, representing mass, that I believe point inward but am open to persuasion to other options. Another failing of the analogy is that I believe a projection of the four dimensional roughly spherical universe would look much more like the shape of the p-orbitals in chemistry, a shape you could make by joining six balloons together at right angles at the nozzle.

There are several reasons this model appeals but the strongest of those for me is the least justifiable in that I find it to be an elegant idea which is as justifiable as taste in art or music. The simplicity of the model appeals as it is easy to comprehend and work with. It also allows more complex bits of the puzzle to be affixed onto it so that you can postulate theoretical explanations for them in the bigger picture within the theoretical universe model. The cyclic nature of the model also appeals as I have a real problem with the concept of infinite in reality. Maths makes assumptions regarding the concept but I am not ready to accept any of them as a reflection of reality with our current understanding of the universe. My model suggest that by travelling in one direction along the surface of the balloon/universe that they will return to the same point in space once they have made a complete orbit. There is no beginning or end of space in my model yet there is still the capacity to create more space.

The model suggests a kind of radial relativity where by movement along any space axis will change the nature of those axis. If I were to travel a quarter of the way around the surface of a sphere I would appear to be moving in the down direction or radially inward to an observer at my starting location however to me I would still seem to be travelling forward. As my model suggests that the down direction is “backwards in time” it offers a vague solution to dark matter and dark energy in that they are just relativistic effects. We observe far off galaxies and assess they should contain an amount of mass based on visual evidence yet the gravitational effects and expansions speeds we observe suggest otherwise. It is possible that these erroneous observations are not the result of any extra stuff but yet another trick of the universe based on where we see them from? Were we able to observe those galaxies from within we might well find they behave as we would expect and that our own galaxy was behaving peculiarly from the new position.

The malleable nature of the model is useful in that it may be tweaked to accommodate for problems that are encountered. Large parts may remain the same even when other aspects are flipped or reversed. This is useful as so many little things that all need accounting for throw a spanner in the works. The nature of time being so unknown also makes a rigid model unforgiving and I have several variations of the model for possible different properties of time. The model described assumes an inflating force or a pendulum like undulation of time. Another possibility is a cyclic time dimension, where rather than existing on a surface we exist on a wave, much like surfing ocean waves. This begs the question as to what is surfing the waves in front and behind us as well as many more technical ones.

To probe specific aspects of my model more deeply would require a lot of content and so I shall leave it at that for now as an introduction to the subject from my perspective, something I will return and relate to a lot in future essays and hopefully some things to ponder on in the time being.

Little elements of physics are like rubix cubes and other puzzle games, fun to pick up and try and solve, a bit of a challenge etc. To end I shall offer the reader a further choice of puzzle to muse over so allow me to suggest a very simple theory regarding anti-matter. We often wonder why we exist in a world of matter given that matter and anti-matter annihilate upon contact and the big bang created both. Presumably more matter was produced however that is unlike the universe, perhaps it is more mathematical in the way that negative numbers work. Matter combined with matter produce matter, anti-matter combined with matter annihilates to produce energy. Nothing is said about what happens when anti-matter combines with anti-matter, one might assume that anti-matter is the product but why not just matter? Because both 1 x 1 = 1 and -1 x -1 = 1 after all.

A Modern Witch Hunt

An injustice is being done to group of people that has had no media coverage. There are understandable reasons for this lack of support, mainly that the group in question is universally despised. This however is rather besides the point as injustices proliferate. Obvious injustices should not be ignored as they can only damage society in the long run. Social acceptance of an injustice targeted at villain figures will give the impression that one can excuse an injustice. This in turn will lead to people using ever more tenuous excuses for unjust behaviour. Logically there is no reason why anyone should speak out against the injustice that I intend to. People outside the group have no incentive to do anything and those within the group have a huge incentive to keep others from knowing they belong to the group.

The group I am speaking about is paedophiles and the injustice they are subject to is the assumption that they are all child molesters. The term paedophile and child molester are basically synonymous in modern society yet they have very different meanings. The former is a person who is attracted to minors and the latter is someone who sexually abuses them. We do not assume all straight men rape women so why make the same leap of logic when considering paedophiles? It is generally accepted that we do not choose our sexuality, it is unknown if it is a genetic effect or the result of upbringing but that is beside the point. Even if for some reason paedophiles were somehow different and able to make a choice regarding their sexuality I would guess that none would chose to be inclined that way for fairly obvious reasons. As such it would be fair to conclude that no paedophiles made the choice to be that way and should not be regarded as criminals or villains or social outcasts. I pity the person who is so unfortunate to be attracted to people who cannot reciprocate the desires. Their plight reminds me somewhat of king Midas and his isolation.

Certainly, as with rapists, any person who sexually abuses another should be treated as a dangerous criminal and punished accordingly. Crimes of this nature are the only ones I could consider corporal punishment being appropriate for. Where a violent rape occurs and can be proved beyond a doubt a castration of the perpetrator may be a reasonable course of action. Despite the public outcry at Ken Clarke's claim that different rapes are of differing severity I would have to agree and none more so than when a minor is concerned. The distinction is hard to draw in some cases as I see little problem with a 15 year old and a 14 year old doing what they want with each other if they are consenting. If one widens the age gap at all it very quickly becomes very unacceptable and when trying to draw a line between what is just youths experimenting and what is taking advantage of minors, one can see why as a society we tend to err on the side of cation in this regard. Consent is the main consideration in the borderline cases but we are going off point rather. I mainly wished to clearly assert my view on rape as one of the most severe crimes and what I believe to constitute it so as I may continue to distinguish between paedophiles, child molesters and just kids experimenting while growing up.

As ever we find we are looking for solutions to problems in society. Obviously paedophiles cannot be allowed to have relations with minors. Perhaps in some far away future when we can reverse the effects of ageing I would not have a problem if an adult wished to change their appearance to that of a child and have a relationship with an adult but that is pretty irrelevant to any current discussion on the matter. The problem faced by society is how to minimise the chance that any given paedophile becomes a child molester. My argument for writing this essay is that more just treatment of paedophiles would reduce the chance that they might become child molesters. It seems pretty clear that if someone feels rejected by the rest of society they are unlikely to respect it's rules or have much empathy towards others and so would be more inclined to criminal and immoral behaviour.

Another factor that may contribute to turning some paedophiles in to child molesters is the lack of an outlet for sexual release. As previously mentioned, this cannot be provided in the manner they may desire most but some potentially helpful provisions could be made. As a society should we not accept that paedophiles do exist and that it is not their fault and so we should help them, both so that they may lead happier lives but also so they do not cause any harm to others? Any honest man will concede that sexual release does not require more than one person, most make do with that when unable to find others that are willing. The imagination is a powerful tool but it requires a degree of things to work with, presently such things for paedophiles are rightly illegal as they contribute to child abuse. I have heard suggestions of legalised images that are provided in a capacity similar to medicine. These could simply be pictures adults donate of themselves as minors, donated rather like giving blood. This method gets around consent and abuse issues which are the social concerns. The idea may be unpleasant in many respects but it is the the lesser of the available evils in this particular issue.

While there may be many good ideas that help to solve some of the problems faced by paedophiles that relate directly to the sexual side of the problem I think the social aspect is a bigger concern. The previous example was given to illustrate the kinds of approach that could be used when dealing with the unfortunate sexual issues. The social side of the problem is regarding the integration of people in to society. We need to get to a stage as a society where someone being a paedophile is not stigmatised for it. I cannot even give a specific example for a comparison for fear of offending due to current levels of social stigma surrounding this topic. By creating an environment in which paedophiles can socialise and discuss their problems and feelings openly without fear of reprisal I am sure you would significantly reduce the number of child molesters found in the society. You may even be able to reduce the number of paedophiles in the society too due to results from social and psychological studies that cannot really be carried out in the current environment as no one would offer themselves up as a paedophile.

All child molesters are paedophiles but not all paedophiles are child molesters. Our hatred for the child molester and our associations for the two terms have made an already afflicted section of society one of the biggest witch hunts of recent years. I am sure they appreciate the rise of terrorism as it has taken the centre stage as public enemy number one! Regardless of this they are still hated and society does itself a disservice with this hate. In times when these issues were not so heavily demonised in the media we can find examples such as Lord Baden Powell who were reasonably obvious paedophiles (allegedly, as if getting sued by a dead man is my main concern after writing this!) that contributed heavily to society without reports of abuse. The achievements of Lord Baden Powell would not be possible in the current social climate. Changing the social climate is likely to be a slow process as the concept is so alien and repulsive. The more we struggle to appreciate the mentality the more we are able to hate, suicide bombers providing a good example comparison again here. The hatred is strong, and understandably so, but that makes it all the more important to push forward with social education and advancement. 

The Internet

It is hard to really appreciate the significance of an era in which one lives. The nuclear, space and computer ages are past and we are now in the internet age. Although closely linked to computers the internet is having a profoundly different effect on society than the advances brought on by computing. Computing gave humanity the power to store, manipulate and replicate vast quantities of data, upping the efficiency by which many jobs were done. The internet on the other hand, while facilitated by computers, has levied it's advances on humanity in the spheres of communication and knowledge. The most relevant era in human history that one can compare the internet age to is the development of the printing press, other similar comparable advances would include, in reverse chronological order; paper, written language and spoken language.

In times of change few people are happy, some fear the changes for various reasons while others anticipating the changes are impatient with the progress. This will help to confuse the society experiencing the changes as optimistic predictions fail to happen accompanied by a chorus of criticism. The internet started to really take-off in within my life, when I first heard the term used and inquired as to what it was I can remember being very unsatisfied with the answer, that I hadn't really understood, as I was expecting a thing that existed in a place. That was the early nineties, since then I have come to spend most of my waking hours within arms reach of the world wide web. In historic terms going from not knowing about a thing to spending a majority of time using it within the space of twenty years is incredibly fast, yet to me it was gradual and unnoticed.

Only very recently did it occur to me how significant the internet really is despite it having been right under my nose. As such I have come to write this article not to impart any relevant opinions or to provide any great insight but to simply express some of my shock at having been blind to such a powerful force of social change. The web is here to stay, as younger generations who have grown up with the net replace the older ones the internet is sure to become more engrained within society. It is wise therefore to consider some of the possible ramifications of this and, as ever, make some suggestions as to how the internet may be put to good use.

Before we move on to predictions it might be reasonable, if not obvious and redundant, to justify why I deem the internet to be of comparable significance to some of the previously mentioned human advances. The internet makes no new things possible, but then neither did language, animals with no developed languages are still able to communicate. Each new development provides the opportunity to communicate more accurately, quickly, durably, replicable, precisely, conveniently, widely and/or efficiently. The comparison of the significance of the internet against the others should therefore be between these aspects.

The internet allows for instantaneous communication, which admittedly the telephone provided before hand, the relevant differences between the telephone and the internet is the massive interlinking and passive nature of the latter. A phone call requires the participants to engage simultaneously in the event, where as the internet allows information to be presented for others to view at their leisure. The internet passively contains information which may be called upon as required/desired by individuals, the author is not required to present the information once it has been put on the internet. Prior to the internet and telephone communication was as fast as humans could physically travel themselves making it incredibly inconvenient.

The spoken word is as durable as memory, writing allowed humanity to increase the durability of the spoken word to that of whatever material was written upon. Largely this is plenty durable enough for purpose although there are some arguments to say that storing data on “the internet” will be more durable than a granite carving. This has more to do with the replicability of data compared to something like a book. Constructing a book requires time and resources, copy pasting something basically doesn't. The printing press enhanced mainly the replicability aspect of communications yet it had one of the most significant impacts of any invention upon humanity. The Renaissance was heavily fuelled by the printing press and the more widespread reading of books that the printing press allowed.

The internet, of all the methods of communication, provides the best or equal best accuracy, speed, durability, replicability, precision, convenience, efficiency and coverage. Humanity will need to transcend the use of language before we many be able to improve our ability to communicate much beyond the internet. Trying to provide a quantifiable measure as to the level of improvement of the internet compared to writing, speech, paper, the telephone and the printing press would be tenuous and imprecise. As I cannot quantify it, the assertion that the internet comes top in every category I can think to name, that would constitute an improvement to communication, is my justification of why the internet is so important.

Something is important in historic terms if it has a significant social impact, either it changes public opinions or causes the physical workings of society to shift. Examples of such events are the enlightenment and the industrial revolution respectively. Usually an event will cause changes to all aspects of society with most being very minor and just one or a few major alterations. The internet is set to cause a number of significant changes in all different spheres of society. To gloss over a few quickly we can look and see how many people attributed the largely successful and peaceful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt to the internet. Impractical legal requirements like the recent super-injunctions were washed aside by the safety in numbers aspect of the internet. We can see how pressure from from popular internet forums (including the social networking sites) has caused enough advertising contracts to be pulled from the News of the World for it to be discontinued. It used to be the case that you had to infer public opinion from what the papers said and the views of a very small cross section of people, those being the ones encountered through the course of your life. The internet allows for the public to to provide enough individual opinions so that you are able to reasonable quickly gauge what the majority feeling is. Those industries where peoples opinions matter (which is all industries as far as I am concerned) would be wise to look into ways of using the internet to find ways of improving their operations.

The political power of the public has clearly been increased as the ability to reach a national or global consensus on an issue has been made easier in a number of ways. Essentially it is a combination of the vast number of people communicating with each other thus creating an exponentially greater number of communication links, the speed at which this communication occurs and the fact that geographic location has no impact on the communications. Because politicians know a public opinion formed with the use of the internet will be more representative and accurate of the population than the feedback they would get from the meetings they have in day to day life they are more liable to act upon them, hence the increased political power of the individual within democracies. The truth is quite easy to sniff out from the excuses, cover ups, distractions, linguistic tricks, slights of mind, boasts and blags. The advantage of free speech and a lot of traffic is that the truth will be spotted and spread like wildfire increasing the knowledge and freedoms of people. A secondary advantage to the free speech and lots of traffic is that in order to locate the truth for ones self you must approach new facts with cation and think about them. In school or on the television or in a book or paper we are somewhat more trusting of facts and, worryingly, opinions than we are from the internet. Questioning things and thinking about them has the effect of educating the populous and enhancing their intellectual prowess.

Although I hope for a second Renaissance that is ushered in by the internet age it is by no means assured, and even if it were there is nothing to say it will manifest in similar ways. It is conceivable that things will start to get lost in cyberspace. The sheer volume of data, opinions and so forth will obscure the most poignant and accurate from the larger audiences. This is not just the fault of the internet but also the result of a population boom since the first Renaissance. I do not know how to increase the chances of good things arising from the internet, all I am sure of is that the internet has a great deal of potential for social good along with a few minor areas of concern. Few people are unaware of the usefulness of the internet presently but we are most interested in what the internet may be able to do for us now and not what it may do for humanity over the next few hundred years. By being mindful of what changes may come about we are in the best position to maximise the advantages of the internet while avoiding any exacerbations of the problematic areas.

My first and only real prediction for now is regarding commercial areas of towns and cities – the CBDs, which in the opulent peak of the capitalist consumer boom have come to contain a very similar mix of shops, brands and products. The town I grew up in and the town I live in now are of similar size, over the last ten years they have had an uncanny resemblance to each other despite reasonably significant geographic and cultural differences. Over the last couple of years the resemblance they share is that of a thinning of certain shops. The feedback mechanism a free market capitalism has to equilibrate is that of the financial crash, it is not a mistake or something we can blame on groups or individuals, it is the natural cyclic progress of speculative money supply. The crash helps to cull the industries that are outmoded and unsustainable. My argument is therefore that exterior non-economic factors are the primary cause of the loss of many companies we are used to seeing in our high streets. The financial climate gave these businesses the final push over the edge but such pushes are inevitable under our economic systems, those companies may have survived if other non-economic changes were not also under way.

Clearly this non-economic factor, given the subject matter of the essay, is the internet in a lot of cases. For certain types of goods it is really not important to the consumer to be able to hold and inspect the product prior to purchase. Not having to pay high CBD rents or employ the number of staff required to operate many small shops means that the cost of such goods to the consumer can be significantly reduced if sold via the internet. The best examples of these goods are CDs DVDs and books where the consumer knows exactly what to expect from the product. As expected therefore, with the rise of internet companies who sell books, DVDs and CDs, the specialist shops who sold these products before the internet have had one of the hardest times in the current weak economy.

While CDs, books and DVDs may be some of the best example of products that are being purchased more and more online than from CBD retail outlets, and therefore also example of the kinds companies finding it hardest at the moment, the reach of the internet extends further and will likely alter our CBDs more as time elapses. Some of the various other markets that I deem to offer little as a retail outlet over an internet counterpart are; gambling, travel agencies, electrical equipment including computing accessories and so forth. Other sectors are able to transfer aspects of their service online such as estate agents, large super markets, banks etc. Essentially the only advantages physical shops have over purchases via the internet are the speed at which one can get the required item, the ability to inspect/try/feel/wear the product prior to purchase (which is important for many foodstuffs and clothes) or the human interaction, weather it be in the form of specialist advice or a specialist service such as a bike shop that also does repairs and servicing. Specialist advice and peer review is becoming more widespread and available online thus further reducing the need of a specialist provided by the retailer. People trust their own research more than possibly biased advice from a specialist provided by a retailer which is not an unreasonable position to hold.

I predict that as the use of the internet becomes more integrated throughout society that our CBDs will look rather different in a way that is probably for the best. As the need of certain kinds of shop diminish rents will decrease and space will increase thus allowing for more restaurants, bars, interesting shops and specialist service based shops to take their place. This is a natural progression as internet shopping is a more efficient means of distributing goods and thus a more advantageous thing to do for society. A CBD will come to be more and more a place of leisure. This in turn will also reduce the strain on such areas in terms of how many people they service and allow largely populated areas to operate more smoothly. The internet will decentralize commerce to an extent, indeed it may be one of the few modern social factors that slows the flow of population into urban areas.

I wish to end on a tangential utopian note regarding a new kind of theft that has arisen mostly alongside the internet. Copyright issues have existed for a while but are a far greater threat now that computing and the internet are so widespread. The issue is that it is very easy to replicate and use data that another's labours have gone into producing. Ethically such thefts feel different from thefts of physical objects, not because it is stolen labour and not stolen goods, but because after the theft the victim is in exactly the same position, they still have all of the things they previously did. I personally believe that people should be rewarded for their labours even if they may be used/consumed and enjoyed by others without removing that possibility from the “owner”, I also believe that the record companies have a negative monopolistic effect on the music industry. As producing and promoting music requires reasonable amounts of capital, and required more capital for production prior to the advent of digital formats, the record companies are able to offer contracts that are significantly in their advantage. That in turn allows record companies to ensure that success in the music industry without the backing of a record company is really hard. Copyright laws protect record companies interests and allow them to maintain control of the industry but without the laws there would be no financial incentive for people to create music. This applies to other industries that fall under the arts and culture umbrella but the negative aspects of capital based monopolistic control are most pronounced in the music industry.

Ideally therefore we would operate within a system that allowed the control of the music industry to be located in public opinion, while still providing the musicians a financial means to support themselves. My vision to solve this issue may be difficult to implement for many reasons, inclusive of objections from record companies. Essentially I think that a state based digital library would offer the best of all worlds. This library would offer citizens the ability to freely download films, series, music, books and potentially other goods that can be digitally replicated easily. The state would then offer the individuals or owners of the rights a flat royalty fee per instance downloaded. These royalties are funded by taxes but would need to be lower than they presently are to not cripple the state. The fact that it would be free means more people will obtain the media than they would if required to pay and those that would have otherwise acquired without making a payment would do so legitimately. This increased demand would allow a reduction in royalties needed to sustain artists and make such a system more financially practicable, sadly though the factors to facilitate the system are only created by the system thus creating a catch 22 scenario. The media downloaded would need to be free to remove the incentive to obtain pirate copies, the same is similarly true if all titles are not made available. Self production and promotion would be far easier as distribution via the digital library would also be offered to all artists for free and this would reduce the strangle hold the capital owners have on the industry. It has never really been the fear of the major record labels that people will pirate music online, it is their fear that artists will be empowered to bypass them altogether via the use of the internet.

This idea is quirky and logistically awkward to implement yet it is a way the internet may be utilized as a positive social force, which has been the underlying theme of this somewhat patchwork essay. The main points of relevance regarding the internet as a positive social force are that is is one of, if not the most, significant improvements ever made to communication and that it is here to stay. It will have effects that are political, economical and social, from improving democracies to altering human geography. The internet is still in it's infancy and has much untapped potential for both good and bad. We need to be aware of it's significance so we may find ways to promote the good and avoid the bad.