Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Eckard Blumschein: on 4/29/09 at 21:31pm UTC, wrote Dear Jason Wolfe, For my essay and some related discussion you might try...

John Merryman: on 4/29/09 at 0:47am UTC, wrote Yea. They are trying to tell us we are cells. Little bubbles of awareness,...

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com: on 4/28/09 at 16:53pm UTC, wrote Steve, You mentioned several words that got my attention: quantum...

Steve Dufourny: on 4/28/09 at 10:57am UTC, wrote Jason , hihihi me I see spheres and spheroids everywhere .Circles ,tori...

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com: on 4/28/09 at 8:31am UTC, wrote Steve, You're right, strings display particle and wave behavior. I feel...

Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com: on 4/27/09 at 20:11pm UTC, wrote I wanted to make a comment about the flying spagetti diety. I was thinking...

Steve Dufourny: on 4/27/09 at 7:51am UTC, wrote Hello , Dear Jason you say " I propose a vote that we call "i" a wavy...

Eckard Blumschein: on 4/26/09 at 22:06pm UTC, wrote Jason, You are reiterating Gauss 1831. Find the point in what I wrote in...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

John Cox: "OH! OH! Ms. Woodward Ms. Woodward! I know Iknow! It's to keep you..." in Quantum Dream Time

Georgina Woodward: "Dear Joe, if reality has nothing to do with what you think it might be, why..." in Quantum Dream Time

alice paul: "All data here is unfamiliar to me. I think Really weird. I think you have..." in Hyung Choi and the nature...

alice paul: "your link text" in Hyung Choi and the nature...

alice paul: "All data here is unfamiliar to me. I think Really weird. I think you have..." in Are We Merging With Our...

shery williams: "Kaspersky technical errors that are harming your device and its..." in Are We Merging With Our...

Lena Smith: "Though every Canon printer is manufactured with utmost proficiency, but it..." in Conjuring a Neutron Star...

Jaybee Demeester: "Cleo has proven how a skilled but beginner specialist can have an benefits..." in Plasma Tubes in the Sky


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?


FQXi BLOGS
November 23, 2017

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Ancient Magnetism [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Mark Wyman wrote on Mar. 23, 2009 @ 20:31 GMT
For me, there’s nothing quite so thrilling as a new and unexplained observation. This is doubly exciting if the people announcing it are themselves baffled by what they’ve found. A perfect example of this phenomenon came recently, when a pair of astronomical observations provided evidence that large magnetic fields suffuse some of the most distant observable galaxies.

It’s not...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 23, 2009 @ 23:01 GMT
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/index.html

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 24, 2009 @ 00:49 GMT
This is not plasma cosmology, but rather magnetohydrodynamic astrophysics. As much as Alfven and others might have done good work on plasmas, these recent ideas about cosmology as due to plasma physics is nonsense.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 24, 2009 @ 08:46 GMT
Hi dear John and dear Lawrence,

I agree with that dear Lawrence ,there are some conjonction between some constants .

The general relativity .....the R relativity +gravitation effetcts.....thus the Newton point of vue with gravitation dynamic and accelaration are studied.

This concept implies a geometrical quadri dimension,the local distributions of mass and energy .....curvatures .

Thus the light particles are in this curvature too with mass and energy distribution.This system is going to close itself.........R=GM/c²(Scharzchild).

For the quantum fields theory ....thus the iteractions (electromagn,weak nuclears and strong).

Thus the space is full of ....m=E/c²....h/(mc)=hc/E.

Photons bosons and gluons ....all these systems implie some constants ...and an aim to unify these interactions ......??? 10 EXP 19 GeV ....limits of balance ???.

The Planck Wall is important in this logic.......R=2GM/c²=h/Mc........thus thge Time Planck ....1.4.10 EXP -43s.

The Space and Matter are linked since the begining ....but what is this begining ,personnaly not an explosion but a multiplication .

I think that Time is not zero ....it's not a physical reality in fact .

I think about this magnetic galactic field ,it's just a past foto and its dynamics ,thus a specific dynamic in Time of evolutiontowards complexification in Space

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 24, 2009 @ 09:09 GMT
Sorry I didn't finish my post,

Thus the space with relativity evolves....in correlation with density of matter and temperature.

I think the expansion is a step ...after there will be a contraction towards perfect harmony in correlation with spherization .

In a thermodynamic point of vue....RT=CONSTANT....this equation is very important for me in correlation with my Spherization Theory.

I think that if we insert the volume and pression ,expansion and contraction....and Time evolution in Space matter dynamic evolution....thus we can extrapolate some interestings ideas in a correlation with foundamenatls laws.

PV is interesting in correlation with foundamental laws....

In fact all is linked ,our limits in temperature,in Time...in all in fact..

If we admit the Big Bang,the temperature decreases caused by expansion...the matter modifies itself .

In my spherization logic...a contraction will be the second step...after a maximum spherical universal volume ...towards an ultim balanvce between all systems ....thus implies a decrease of volume ....temperature ...pression....there is an interesting link between Dark matter and Dark energy ,in this logic the volume decrease thus DM and DE decreases too ,it's interesting about the increase of mass ....activation concept??? towards complexification of matter ....The universal entropy between walls and with relativity are in this logic.

That's why the evolution point of vue is very important in all centers of interest .

Kinds Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 24, 2009 @ 09:39 GMT
Lawrence,

"magnetohydrodynamic astrophysics?"

Does this mean cosmic magnetics is hydraulic?

Wouldn't that compound the problem of explaining how distant galactic magnetospheres formed?

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 24, 2009 @ 23:51 GMT
Mgnetohydynamics is plasma physics: the dynamics of a "fluid" containing charges in electromagnetic fields.

A magnetic field has an energy E ~ 1/2|B|^2, for B the magnetic field. This energy is of course conserved. The point of the article is that magnetic field established in the early universe persist in galaxies. If the dissipation of that energy, say by accelerating charges and such, then it will decline. Yet the Lorentz force with a magnetic field is F = qvxB (v = velocity, q = charge, B = field), and so the work that is done is W = int F*dr = int F*vdt. Yet the dot product of a vector with a cross product involving that vector (here v) is zero. So magnetic field tend to persist, since they impart no energy on moving charges. It requries a changing magnetic field to "do work.". These field might become less dense if their current sources, say in some plasam, diffuses. Yet the fields remain for a considerable time period.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 25, 2009 @ 01:16 GMT
Lawrence,

Again, I'm not the expert, so I'm posting this from Plasma Cosmology.net;

The myth of 'frozen-in magnetic fields' still raises its head in the mainstream now and again, despite Alfven disposing of it many years ago. For years it was assumed that plasmas were perfect conductors and, as such, a magnetic field in any plasma would have to be 'frozen' inside it.

The basic technical reason for this arose from one of Maxwell's equations. It was thought that if all plasmas are ideal conductors they cannot have electric fields (voltage differences, inside them), and that any magnetic fields inside a plasma must therefore be 'frozen', that is unable to move or change in any way.

Further: Thanks to Alfven we now know that there can be voltage differences between different points in plasmas. He pointed this out in his acceptance speech when receiving the Nobel Prize for physics in 1970. The electrical conductivity of any material, including plasma, is determined by two factors: the density of the population of available charge carriers (the ions) in the material, and the mobility of these carriers. In any plasma, the mobility of the ions is extremely high. Electrons and ions can move around very freely in space. But the concentration of ions available to carry charge may not be at all high if the plasma is very low pressure or diffuse. In short, although plasmas are excellent conductors, they are not perfect. It therefore follows that weak electric fields can exist inside them, and magnetic fields are NOT frozen inside them.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 25, 2009 @ 03:12 GMT
Magnetism has little to do with cosmological evolution, but it is involved with stars and galaxies. I will make one observation that there are polarization regions in the CMB, but this does not involve some falsification of the big bang. If the current source, remember Faraday's law, is preserved then a magnetic field can exist for a long time. In the case of galactic magnetic fields this source can involve the diffuse extragalactic plasma as well as intense plasma jets due to black hole activity.

To be honest I am not much of an expert on these astrophysical subjects, so I am commenting based upon rather "arm-chair" knowledge.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 25, 2009 @ 09:57 GMT
Lawrence,

Which is undoubtfully more than I have. It is just as I've described over the course of our conversations, I have come to see the Big Bang model as a construct that is based on a questionable interpretation of some early information, with a significant amount of subsequent information molded to fit the model. This issue of magnetic fields too large to fit the model seems to be another example of something which doesn't fit, so I posted a link to the most relevant theory to see what the response would be.

You might say it's a theory accelerator and I want to study what flies out.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 25, 2009 @ 10:08 GMT
Hello ,

The galactic dynamic is fascinating ,a incredible big polarization.The curvature of galatic rotation and its different speeds towads centers are essential to encircle its dynamaics.

The increasing of velocity implies a rotation with a constant density .(Many links can be made between volume ,pression ,temperature,energy ,density,mass,gravitation,forces ,fields ,the spherization parameters in interesting because it's a correlation with all things simply....the constants and foundamentals laws)

That's why we can insert some parameters in correlation with some laws .....M=V²r/G...4(pi)r²(ro) where (ro)=V²/4(pi)Gr²....we can use this logic in correlation with the Time evolution extrapolation and spherization.

We can admit that all galaxies modify themself,

In the past we can imagine a kind of placement further to miscellaneous accretions and collisions between small galaxies.

Egel in 1962 explained protogalaxies, these galaxies had a spherical shape and constituted HE and H .

The evolution continued with its various fields of polarizations, gravitation, contraction, rotation, centrifugal energies.

I think personnally the rotation(the speed of rotation is directly proportional to the mass ???° is important in correlation with mass ,gravitation and energy.

gravitation,polarization ,evolution,spherization haloes, heap, ,rotative movments,centers,spiral arms,all these feacts show us the spherization .

There is always a balance ,let's take the cinetic moment in a constant gaz in contraction ,m mass ,towards the center of galaxy ,thus a distance .....mvr......Ec increase 1/2mv²[(r/D)²-1]....the balance will be where E of gravitation and Ec are minimals ....that's implies a balance when G Mm/D²=mV²/D.....Gravitation/centrifugal force.....

I think that since the beginning, the galaxies complexify themself harmoniously, they evolve by taking place, by turning and spherisize themself.All this dynamic with a specific logic of building ,like harmonic series of placement and spherization evolution.

All centers complexify themself by specific systems and fiels towards balances and specific geometries ..We can always see the dynamic in gravitation/repulsion,accretions/pushes,expansion/contractio
n....many exemples are possible in these balances .

All our Universe is in this logic of spherization.

If we analyze a little this galaxy magnetic field of this thread.

We can there too find correlations with spherization and optimization.

This discovery is a part of our past ,a step of spherization ,like a specific dynamic at a specific moment of evolution.

It is evident that fields and forces and dynamics shall have many differents states if we analyze our past ,it could be interesting to insert a specific sequence of time to divide some steps of evolution ,we could see the different steps of expansion and contraction ,I rest persuaded that the Uiversal sphere is in the same logic and the quantum world too in relativity .

Kinds Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 26, 2009 @ 00:21 GMT
Alfven demonstrated that an electromagnetic wave in an ionized gas will cause the charged species to separate, which results in some complex hydrodynamic behavior. This does extend to the issue of charges and their transport properties in a medium. We might thank plasma TVs for this.

I don;t know enough about galactic magnetism to comment with much authority. Astrophysics is an incredibly complicated field. The basic theory, say gravity or electromagnetism and atomic structure is modelled in very complex phenomenology to understand what is observed "out there." The same holds for particle physics. The basic theory may have an elegant simplicity to it, but the phenomenology of figuring out channel production of particles is a very complicated business.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 26, 2009 @ 02:17 GMT
Lawrence,

But what if it really isn't about particles and their attendant gravitational fields?

From plasmacosmology;

"But perhaps the most important characteristic of electromagnetism is that it obeys the longest-range force law in the universe.

When two or more non-plasma bodies interact gravitationally, their force law varies inversely as the square of the distance between them; 1/4 the pull if they are 2 arbitrary measurement units apart, 1/9 the pull for a distance of 3 units apart, 1/16 the pull for 4 units apart, and so on.

When plasmas, say streams of charged particles, interact electromagnetically, their force law varies inversely as the distance between them, 1/2 the pull if they are 2 arbitrary measurement units apart, 1/3 the pull for a distance of 3 units apart, 1/4 the pull for 4 units apart, and so on. So at 4 arbitrary distance units apart, the electromagnetic force is 4 times greater than that of gravitation, relatively speaking, and at 100 units, apart, the electromagnetic force is 100 times that of gravitation.

Moreover, the electromagnetic force can be repulsive if the streams in interaction are flowing in opposite directions. Thus immense plasma streams measured in megaparsecs, carrying galaxies and stars, can appear to be falling towards nothing when they are actually repelling."

If the primary galactic forces are electromagnetic, not gravitational, would dark matter be necessary?

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 26, 2009 @ 23:46 GMT
The 1/r^2 potential of Coulomb and Newtonian gravity force have the same long range. Electromagnetism (EM) however involves potentials from + and - charges, and for a gas (plasma) with an equal number of +/- charges the EM potential is essentially zero. Gravity involves just one quantity called mass, so it does not saturate out as with EM. This is why on the scale of large masses and in particular cosmology the principal dynamics is gravitational, or the dynamics of spacetime, which is fundamentally described by general relativity.

Dark matter is called dark because it is not luminous. Light is an EM wave and a signature of the EM interaction. Dark matter has no EM signature, which makes it unlikely to be related to the EM field.

I don't know how else to put it, but plasma cosmology is basically a crock.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 27, 2009 @ 18:30 GMT
Lawrence,

Your call.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 28, 2009 @ 12:06 GMT
Nobody in the physics community takes plasma cosmology seriously. It is an alt-science idea based upon the erroneous hypotheses of Arp and Alfven. While Alfven did ground breaking work on plasmas (Alfven waves) he went down the wrong path here. To consider another example of a Nobelist who went even more bonkers, consider B. Josephson.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 28, 2009 @ 16:22 GMT
Lawrence,

I've no doubt that many brilliant people have wandered off into delusional thinking. I'm in no position to give an informed rebuttal to your view of plasma cosmology. My situation is that I've come to the conclusion, which you have not modified over the course of our conversations, that the Big Bang Theory and all its addenda, is a patchwork built around some original concepts that addressed a few questions, but doesn't provide a sound foundation for describing the universe. So I am willing to consider alternatives.

While you dispute plasma cosmology, you haven't offered any suggestions as to how to approach the issue originally posed by this thread. Back in the mid nineties there were similar issues raised about galaxy structures many hundreds of millions of light years across, as well as the chemical signature of light that could have only come from later generation stars, all from the very edge of the visible universe, which didn't fit in the Big Bang model. This seems to be along those lines of evidence suggesting the current model doesn't adequately explain the universe and that what we perceive as the edge of the universe, may in fact be a form of horizon line for visible light.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 29, 2009 @ 14:42 GMT
I don't know enough about galactic structure and astrophysics to answer and question about the nature of galactic magnetic fields. Yet this does not mean that I am not able to say that plasma cosmology is is silly. I don't have lots of time to write about this matter, but electromagnetism does not somehow overthrow general relativity and its role in cosmology.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 29, 2009 @ 18:04 GMT
Lawrence,

Fair enough. Then I'll say the universe beginning as a singularity 13.7 billion years ago, inflating out to many times its visible size in the first fraction of a moment, slowing down to the speed of light and then on a graduated curve which requires enormous energy to maintain, but mirrors a cosmological constant, based on the redshift of light that has been traveling for billions of years and the existence of black body radiation, is silly as well.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 30, 2009 @ 01:42 GMT
It sounds silly if you don't understand much about it. To be honest the idea that we are on a ball which spins at about 1000 miles/hour at the equator, orbits the sun at 29.5km/sec, and sun moves in a galaxy and so forth sounds rather crazy as well. The geocentrists can well enough argue about how silly that is --- dang, I don't feel all that motion.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 30, 2009 @ 02:19 GMT
Lawrence,

Some logical balance is necessary. Personally I see the earth as flat and the sun as the flaming ball which travels from one side of the sky to the other. Then there are those twinkly little lights and that funny looking shape that sometimes is a ball and sometimes is just fingernail shaped and sometimes isn't even there.

The question is whether there are other explanations. Do we keep an eye open to the possibility our assumptions might be wrong. Etc.

I'm willing to accept that space expands. Einstein also described gravity as contracting space. There is this assumption the universe expanded from a point and will continue to do so until gravity draws it back together. What seems to be overlooked is that gravity is a process which very much exists now! So that if it can draw this expanded space together, it is doing it NOW and the only expansion of the universe will be over and above what the force of gravity counteracts. If they are in equilibrium, than space does expand between galaxies, but the entire universe wouldn't be expanding, because the expansion is cancelled out. The light passing across long distances, without being absorbed, will appear to come from a receding source, BUT the fact this recession/expansion is AT ALL balanced by gravity, means that the source isn't receding at the rate it appears to be from the light which manages to travel the distance.

So I'm not reaching outside the Big Bang model. It is internally inconsistent. This simply leads me to speculate what the alternatives are.

Einstein originally proposed the cosmological constant to balance gravity and keep it from collapsing the universe. Recent measurements of the redshift would seem to show it is equal to what a cosmological constant would look like. In other words, an expansion to balance gravity. But since we are certain the entire universe is expanding from a point, than any anomaly from the Big Bang model requires enormous additional energy to keep pushing the universe apart. If, on the other hand, the universe is not actually flying apart, only that space between galaxies, which is what this redshifted light travels through, expands at the same rate it is being pulled into gravity wells, than it is essentially an optical effect and the dark energy to push the universe apart isn't even necessary.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 30, 2009 @ 09:49 GMT
Hello dear Lawrence and dear John,

When we say "the Universe expands ",the evolution point of vue is important I think .The expansion can be a sequance ,the gravity and the contraction are the balance between expansion and contraction .That's why after an expansion ,a contraction towards ultim balance is possible .In fact it's logic and rational like many laws in our Universe .

The spherization implies an improvement of polarizations ,the gravity and accretion are importants is this logic .

Personnally the only infinite is the mathematic world behind walls ,our Universe is finite .

The geocentrism is a past perception ,like the heliocentrism with our friend Copernic .The sciences evolution show us some evidences .

At this time the universal center is a reality because all has a center .the ultim coded gravity is there in this universal center and all turns around this center in spherization .This ultim balance of gravities is our future .

We can extrapolate many things but we are in a spherical system in the quantum world towards the cosmological dimension .

The silly thing is to not admit this reality and its fantastic spherization.

I don't think that a star will be a square one day .

The quantum .... a specific spherical fractal of spheres (correlation quat/cosmo....the numbers of stars ...)rotation ..mass gravity ...specific coded polrizations in correlation with gravity fields....the time constant to build in this sphere space and its limits.....the complexification towards centers .expansion and contraction ,the second step .....

The spherization is complex and simple .

Kinds Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 30, 2009 @ 23:19 GMT
The big bang theory is quite workable and is not internally inconsistent. There are of course questions and areas for research, but the basic theory works remarkably well. It predicts the Hubble recession, the deuterium abundance, the CMB, anisotropy of the CMB, and with inflation and particle physics associated with the big bang according to partition functions it predicts the three families of quarks and leptons.

As for spheres, a rotating star is not spherical, but ellipsoidal.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 31, 2009 @ 02:05 GMT
Lawrence,

It wouldn't be the first time a series of data points was misinterpreted.

It didn't predict the curvature of the rate of the redshift and had to add dark energy, but a cosmological constant did and it was predicated on a balance between expansion and gravity.

We never did resolve the issue of how there can be a generally stable speed of light, if the entire universe and the space it defines, is expanding from a singularity. Should space and its attendant quantum fluctuation pre-exist the singularity, I can only imagine the shock wave inflation would produce.

If there is a curvature of space causing the redshift, than the black body radiation of the CMBR would simply be the light that has fallen off the visible spectrum and its myriad sources are no longer distinguishable, thus BBT attributes it to that first scattering.

Inflation is a mathematical construct which neatly fits details that would suggest an infinite universe into a finite model, but it does raise questions. Why did it slow down to light speed? If gravity was that strong, wouldn't it have then caused an immediately prompt collapse? If there was resistance from a pre-existing field, wouldn't that have had other serious effects during the inflation stage?

I don't like examining issues I'm in no way qualified to question, but it goes back to the time contest and Barbour's winning essay. How can time be relative, yet there be an irreducible unit? Why is no one willing to try to explain that? Do physicists really have as good a grasp of physics as they claim? It naturally leads me to question other theories which don't quite add up. Suffice to say, history is full of masters of the universe with feet of clay.

Steve,

There is another side to reality, if you think of process as cause and form as effect. It would be as if the verbs caused the nouns. It seems counterintuitive, but has its own beauty.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 31, 2009 @ 02:10 GMT
Steve,

In that sense, the concept of finite vs. infinite is immaterial, as limits are a consequence of form.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 31, 2009 @ 08:57 GMT
Hi ,

Dear Lawrence

you say

"As for spheres, a rotating star is not spherical, but ellipsoidal."

YES I know ...the spherization encircles many foundametals like ellipsoidal concept,tori ,rotation,spheroids ,....

The spherization is global and must be studied with relativity .When I speak about spherization ,it's a global ^point of vue where all parameters are in correlation and of course the time evolution too is important .

You say

"The big bang theory is quite workable and is not internally inconsistent. There are of course questions and areas for research, but the basic theory works remarkably well. It predicts the Hubble recession, the deuterium abundance, the CMB, anisotropy of the CMB, and with inflation and particle physics associated with the big bang according to partition functions it predicts the three families of quarks and leptons."

Yes the Big Bang is interesting and a beautiful evidence ,of course we have some questions about this physical begining ,is it an expansion explosion or a multiplication with Space Time of elementary particles with a specific position....

In all case it's fascinating our past .

Dear John ,

It's important for me to make differences between the physical reality and its evolution and the mathematical unknew behind walls of perception .

Yes the ultim form is a consequence of some foundamental dynamics .

The infinite is mathematical and the finite is physical ,the limits are our walls .

Kinds Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Mar. 31, 2009 @ 16:36 GMT
Steve,

The walls are our definition, but they are finite. If a wall and the set it defines, is losing energy, it is crumbling and the set is shrinking. On the other hand, if this set is gaining energy, the wall must expand, or it breaks down and a larger wall forms. Like a crustacean shedding its shell and growing a new one.

That is why form is an effect, not a cause.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 31, 2009 @ 23:02 GMT
Hello ,

It is indeed a beautiful representation of the perception of walls.

The limits and their universal entropies based on these horizons of the unknew.

There are imperceptible secrets for eyes, the interactions dance and still dance under the breaths of the revealed forms.

My favorite form is the sphere ,a beautiful effect of foundamental laws of evolution.Spheres and spheroids are everywhere .It's foundamental I think ,small coded spheres who buid spheroidal states towards an improvement in spherization logic towards this ultim sphere .I don't see an other logic in Time Space evolution .Let's look in globality .Really,it's logic in fact .

what do you think ?

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 1, 2009 @ 01:17 GMT
There are other things which are not spherical. Spiral galaxies are not spherical, three quarks in a baryon also lie in a membrane-stringy structure and not a sphere, symmetries of crystals are polyhedral and so forth. In field theory there are also spaces which have different topologies than a sphere as well.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 1, 2009 @ 08:53 GMT
Hi

Let's be serious .

The galaxies have stars mainly NO? ..Further more the movement is in rotation ,and I think the aim is a spherization thus the galaxies spherisize themself.the centers ....acrretion towards spherical harmony.

I repeat but the time evolution is important .

We can say many things but the reality is as that .It's rational and foundamental .

The spherization unifies all .....the spherical architecture of spheres ....implies a comportment to become and to polarize...math phys biol chem astronomy,philosophy .........a beautiful polarization towards balances ...and the ultim balance is the sphere .

The sphere and spheroidal states are the best balance and that everywhere in our Universe .

Small coded spheres ....the fields ....who build others spheres in Time space spherical evolution ......Universal sphere .

It's a theory which is foundamental .It's as that simply .

Don't hesitate to post a list of non spherical systems ....on the other side I will post evidences ....exemples of spherization.

Kinds Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 1, 2009 @ 09:06 GMT
Hi ,

You know ,I don't say this conclusion like that .It's a long search between all sciences and foundamentals .

I am not an Utopist or an lighted people ,I amm rational and pragmatic.

Since many years I class all systems ......H NCO ...H2O CH4 NH3....Amino acids.....cells....in fact the quantum towards Universe and its systems in evolution between.

I would a concrete taxonomy to link all ......that's why I have insert spheres like quantum foundamentals ...the scale between the small and the big ....

All can be unified with the spherization ,these spheres and the rotations ....eureka in humility of course .

Kinds Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 1, 2009 @ 16:12 GMT
Steve,

A sphere is the most elementary unit of volume. Nature is constantly building up, breaking down, rearranging such entities and patterns. Don't get obsessed over the simple ones anymore than the complex ones, because there will always be alternatives. I can understand how attractive elemental patterns can be, but they are no more or less than they are.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 1, 2009 @ 21:54 GMT
John,

Thanks it's nice ,do you know Darwin ,Lamarck,Saint hilaire.,Cuvier,Wagner,De vries.......the evolution and the balances are around you .

The complexity returns to the simplicity .

I can understand the perceptions of others .What I know since my young life (33ans),it's the human instinct and the human nature ,vanity of vanity ,all is vanity .

I am conscient of my discovery ,and it's a long long research of truth before this conclusion .

Since Many years I class all ,the taxonomy is my life .

I have classed elementary particles more my model of a specific fractal of spheres in correlation quantum/cosmo....after I classed ....atoms ...H CH4 NH3 ..you know Oparine I suppose ...I continued proteins amino acids...hormons vitamins ...anim vegetal minerals ..I have a beautiful colllections of flowers justy for information)...after that ....I linked the astronomy and the astrobiology ....I have classed and extrapolated many works of math too like Fourier ,Legendre,Ostrogradski,dirac,....When you class all ,you see some truths ,simply or complexity ?

Now I have understood the universal message ,thus I am on a big project with friends to build an International Humanistic Sciences Center names Unified Sphere ,we are many people ready to act on ground y adapted sciences ,to be or not to be ,that is the question no?

All is linked and goes to the spherization ,it's foundamental ,simple and complex .

In all case thanks for your message,intersting point of vue.

kinds Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 1, 2009 @ 23:38 GMT
To be honest a cornerstone of what I work on is with sphere packing, similar to solid state crystalography, where the spheres are Planck units of volume. Yet the physics is not contained in the individual spheres so much as the polytopes and lattices they generate.

The sphere does occur with comparative frequency, but there is nothing sacred about it.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 2, 2009 @ 00:52 GMT
I am understanding better your point of vue with the sacred ....

I am happy you have used spheres in your research ,it's well .

My theory is not a detail but a whole .It's different! the spherization encircles all ...spheres ...spherical quantum architecture ..and betweenn many links..and future Ultim Universal sphere .It's different than a simple sphere I think .The spherization I...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 2, 2009 @ 01:10 GMT
In spherization ,the complementarity is essential ,it's my point of vue in all topics.

The complementarity and the responsability of scientists are important at this time .

The individualism and our economic system implies some isolated or non complemantary systems .It's very incredible and sad .Furthermore ,the human being and its instincts is young and thus non perfect ,that implies vanity simply ...but we evolve fortunaly.

If we add some actual evidences ,it's urgent to operate differently and that quickly ,economy,ecology,health ,numeric,juridic,agriculture,politic....

The skills in a humanistic point of vue are essentials to solve our major problems.

The sciences have the solutions simply.

The responsability is important with pragmatism and logic .

Spherically yours lol

Steve

It was just a thought .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 2, 2009 @ 03:46 GMT
The problem of these magnetic fields is another fascinating puzzle. Just like the puzzle of an ejected quasar being apparently older than its parent galaxy, it may be due to the mis-dating.

If the age of the galaxy is calculated using big bang cosmological model and luminescence of stars, if either of these methods is incorrect the estimated age of the galaxy will be incorrect too.

It is as John says it part of an increasing amount of evidence suggesting that the big bang model may not be correct.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 2, 2009 @ 10:36 GMT
Hi ,

Yes indeed ,it's possible thant this model must be improved to have best datas .

The age of Universe is difficult to encircle of course because there is an eternal unknew and a physical limit thus implies some questions about the real age .

I think personally ,the Big Bang could be an other dynamic than an explosion ,like a multiplication of ultim quantum particle and it's specific architecture.

The expansion and the contraction are important to the balance .Some news extrapolations are necessary I think .

Always the research of truth .

Friendly

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 2, 2009 @ 23:36 GMT
There is no E10 group. The lattice systems for the exceptional groups, the 24-cell (octahedrachoraon) for the F_4 group and the 120-cell (dodecahedrachoron) for E_8 will tessellate various spaces. The 24-cell tesselates flat 4-dim space and the 120-cell tessellates an AdS with negative Gaussian curvature. In this latter case there are orbifold groups similar to the discrete PLS(2,Z) systems with the two dimensional case for the Poincare 1/2 disk. There is a branching fractal-like pattern, which in the AdS case is given by the Klein quartic group.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


Ruth wrote on Apr. 3, 2009 @ 04:34 GMT
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Ruth

http://laptopmessengerbag.info

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 3, 2009 @ 06:36 GMT
Steve Dufourny,

Oh Thanks ,I am more intelligent this day .

For information ,It was a picture of these groups,just to inform you .

Octa ,dodeca ,isoca....etc etc .....spherization eureka.

Furthermore ,the octonion ,quaternion ,complex ,hypercolmplex are imaginaries .....objectivity or subjectivity ,rationality or pure mathematical extrapolations ....

But I respect these works and extrapolations ,but personally I prefer a rational method and an add or superimposing of rationals architectures .

Sincerely

Steve

Interesting about Poincarre and its conjecture .The sphere is the only .....

Kaluza Klein ........I know ,personnally ,The extradimensions are Utopy for me .

Further more these systems are not complete .Interesting but not complete .Let's be pragmatic .

It's the same with strings ,M Theory .....the ultim system is a specific architecture of different spheres .

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 4, 2009 @ 03:37 GMT
Are the number of dimensions required dependent on the description rather than the fundamental structure? I will describe my 4 dimensional model with extra dimensions.

I have been using 4 dimensions. That is the number needed to describe any matter in this model. Matter must have thickness in each of those dimensions (even if very thin) to have existence.For example according to this...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 4, 2009 @ 09:52 GMT
Georgina,

In a word, no. It's modeling, not reality.

Descartes developed the idea of three dimensional space from observing a fly and having the insight that it would take only three lines to describe it's position.

It was Edgar Allen Poe who has been given credit for first proposing that "duration" is simply an extension, or extra dimension of space. Of course, he was a narrator and this is really just narrative projection.

The mathematicians have proposed this as a static universal model, but Einstein really did show there are no universal four dimensions. They are entirely subjective and relative to one another.

The reason why it makes no sense to describe every point in time as spatial, is that it is inefficient. It contradicts Ockham's razor. There is simply space as the vacuum and energy fluctuating in it. It makes no sense to change space with time, as that would require an entire universe of energy to manifest each point in time. The energy is dynamic. By describing it as spatial, you are trying to model it as static. If it doesn't move, if you completely freeze it down to a dimensionless point, there is no fluctuation. If there is no fluctuation, nothing exists. It is just empty space. I should say, empty, dimensionless space, since there is no fly, or initial point of reference against which to frame it. Contrary to what the Platoists think, you can't have a map, if there is no territory.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 4, 2009 @ 10:48 GMT
Hi all ,

The extradimensions are imaginary extrapolations in correlation with hypercomplex and others mathematical imaginaries .

If we consider the time like a fourth dimension and if we insert the imaginaries ,of course the extrapolations are infinite in correlation with the subjectivity of those extrapolations.All these perceptions implie many models in the virtuality .

But it's interesting these works ,the creativity is essential to evolve .

It's the same with the infinite fractals and the lattices .If we combine all those systems ,it's evidant that we are going to have many imaginary superimposings,further more if we insert foundamental laws ,it will be still more extrapolated ....in fact in this way it's infinite .

If we extrapolate our quantum dynamic just before a kind of wall .This system is always in the physical system and its universal laws .Thus implies 3 dimensions and a time constant of evolution ,a harmonic serie .Thus in this logic ,only 3 dimensions are accepted .Of course the relative perception is essential .Our link with the quantum and the Universal sphere is foundamental ,only parameters change in 3 D + Time constant ....

I d like say one thing ,to have 3 dimensions is fascinating ,it's very interesting to anayze deeper our dynamic in 3D .Many many secrets are to discover .

Yes The human being must dream and know its Universe ,The most incredible things are in 3 D .Our aim is to know these secrets and evolve .

I return to the extradimensions ,what would be the rule of these dimensions ,there is no sense to have extradimensions ,we have all around us to in 3D and its potential ,this universal entropy is behind all .It's the energy ,the mass ,the gravity ,the rotation ,the evolution.... which are important .

About infinite ,it's important to make differences I think between the physical reality and its limits and the mathematical eternity if I can say .If we insert the mathematical infinity in the fractals in the physical dynamic ,more complexs and infinite maths ......it's evident all is different .

That's why I d say ,it's important to have limits and maximum numbers .Of course our universal knowledges are youngs thus implie some difficulties to know these limits or walls ,a foundamental gauge is essential .

sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 4, 2009 @ 12:21 GMT
John,

I know that the dimensions do not have any objective existence but they allow a model to be formed, to interpret what is happening, in a way that is comprehensible to the human mind.

I know the map that I can fold up and put in the glove compartment of the car has little realistic similarity to the landscape existing outside of the car. But it is extremely useful non the less....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 4, 2009 @ 18:46 GMT
Georgina,

I'm sorry if I over interpreted. Our minds function by modeling reality. The problem is that when reality diverges from the model, it is the inherent tendency to patch the model and proceed. Occasionally though, the old program has to be scrapped. The problem I keep pointing out with time is that we always project it forward along this narrative dimension, yet the reality is that it goes the other direction. The only order we can perceive, the only information we have to work with, the only reality we know, is that stream of information coalescing out of this field of energy, which than recedes into the past.

Yes, we obviously want to know what the future holds, but projecting it as some linear narrative is basically worthless because the input is not linear, so projecting the narrative past onto the chaotic future often blinds us to what is happening. A good example would be the political and economic disasters which are unfolding. Many people predicted exactly what has happened because they could sit back and take as objective a view as possible, but those at the forefront of the political and economic process could only run along in front of the herd and had to go in the direction of the most momentum, even though that snowball effect leads to disaster time and again. It is this tendency to follow the rut which motivates my emotional distaste for modeling time as a linear dimension.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 5, 2009 @ 04:39 GMT
John,

nothing is coming from the future or moving into the past or vice versa. These are imaginary realms.There are just energy changes in space. Matter is constantly changing position and form in space.Where it exists in space, is its only objective reality.

Although different observers may incorporate its image into their different subjective realities, when the image is observed from different positions.

Nothing flows into the matter from the future or out of it into the past. That is imaginary.It has one existence. It does not exist in the past or the future only in space.It also does not exist in a multi verse. If these fantasies were correct then every duplicate copy would require a duplication of the energy within that mass.These misunderstandings cause the time travel paradoxes such as the grandfather paradox.

The only flow is that from the outer region to the inner region of the hypersphere. All matter moving through the objective substance of space, and light carried as waves within the objective substance of space.These are both forms of energy travelling through space. Time is an unnecessary muddle of subjective mental constructs that should not be superimposed onto the simple spatio-energetic description.

Observation of patterns in space, including patterns of change, which are perception of changes occurring in 4 dimensional space, can be made. Remembering our observations for reference (learning from experience)enables reasoned choice of response on the basis of what has happened before may happen again.

It is a natural and usually useful means of operating within subjective reality although imperfect.This temporal mental relationship to subjective reality i.e. imagining historical time, using subjective time or positional time is not the objective reality of energy in space.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 5, 2009 @ 11:22 GMT
Georgina,

We seem to be in some general agreement, though the emphases of the models may be different.

Motion destroys/creates information, the past/future. While the energy remains constant, the present. As this turnover of information varies, there is no absolute measure, ie. clock.

To tie this to the cosmology, the gravitational collapse is balanced in a cosmological constant by radiant expansion. So while structure is created and destroyed, it is within an overall balance.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 7, 2009 @ 21:29 GMT
Georgina,

When you said that duplicate copies in multidimensions require their own energy (E=mc2); I agree, it only has one rest mass energy. But it makes me think of chess where each chess piece can guard multiple squares (almost like eigenstates). The weighted probabilites are dependent upon potential energy distribution. And then, the particle moves into an eigenstate. Instead of treating the wave as a particle moving from the future, what if we imagine that the wave exists in a "complex space" (not physically/directly measureable) while the automated universe (God/your choice) decides which eigenstate will be chosen.

The chess metaphor does imply the possibility of strategy and potentially intelligence. I notice that the universe sometimes behaves this way. Events (which I admit are not exactly quantum systems) seem to unfold this way. Athiests/agnostics have their eigenvalues chosen with dice. Spiritual people (especially those asking for help) seem to experience a more helpful flow of events.

Can events/situations actually be compared to quantum systems?

Can QM be compared to chess?

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 9, 2009 @ 06:04 GMT
Jason,

You said "When you said that duplicate copies in multidimensions require their own energy (E=mc2); I agree, it only has one rest mass energy."

I was referring to the imagined situation of an object materially existing in different positions in time or simultaneously on different paths of a branching multiverse. If a version of a cup exists at each position in time, there must...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 9, 2009 @ 18:30 GMT
Georgina,

On the QM/chess analogy: You caught me! I'm busted. It does open itself up to "intelligence". It's my personal opinion that this is where physics takes a wrong turn in its journey to be the theory of everything. It will be the journey of almost everything until it can understand how the remaining pieces fit including the three letter word piece. Perhaps another few hundred years. I think the conservation laws will still work with these pieces. God is infinite, but our ability to work with God/understand and not argue is very limited. So limited amounds of (something having to do with the body of Christ as a "spiritual/psychic substance") will only do (or have the potential to do) as much as it can before it's orderliness is consumed by entropy.

In my opinion, this is the missing piece.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 9, 2009 @ 19:10 GMT
The humongous stumbling block of mathematical physics is that, to be really good at it, you have to be an athiest or an agnostic. But that is what blocks the final piece of the puzzle. In Holy Communion, when the priest says,"eat of the body of Christ", he's not talking about living cells. He's referring to a spiritual/psychic substance that is maximally charged with "orderliness"; it will bring order to an entropically described system in a way that overrides the randomness (something like Gibb's free energy). However, it is a substance intimately related to consciousness. The neurobiologists who think that they understand how the brain functions will be impacted the most by this.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 9, 2009 @ 22:19 GMT
Georgina,

"Once it is realised that Historical time is a mental construct that does not fit with objective reality but does fit with the subjective interpretation of reality carried out by the mind, then the paradoxes become explicable.

The question of probabilities or possibilities prior to observation is something quite different.When an observation is made a subjective reality is formed."

This is the point I keep trying to make. Historical time, i.e, narrative, has us moving along a series of events from past to future.

In order not to have the physical reality smeared along this fourth dimension, we stick with what really is the only physical reality, that which is present and in motion. As this motion changes configurations, each replaces the previous. So the observations create subjective realities that then become past. Therefore the point of the present isn't traveling along a fourth dimension from past to future, it is creating events that fall away into the past.

This resolves the issue of multiple worlds as well, because the future does consist of multiple possibilities, but we are not traveling to it. Instead, these possibilities are collapsing into the present and falling into the past. (Neither of which physically exist.)

Jason,

The problem with the monotheistic model is that the absolute, the universal state, is basis, not a singular apex. So a spiritual absolute would be the raw essence of biological awareness from which we rise, not a moral ideal from which we fell. In other words, good and bad are not an over arching conflict between the forces of light and darkness, but the basic biological binary code of attraction and repulsion. Of which our subconscious is parallel processing reams of information to feed into the serial processor of our consciousness. Between black and white are not just shades of grey, but all the colors of the spectrum.

As Georgina astutely observes, our minds function by seeking and finding the information they desire, so it is natural to assume there must be some ultimate destiny, but that would require a cessation of time and motion. The reason a chaotic reality seems meaningless isn't the fault of reality, but of the concept of meaning, which is static and reductionistic. That which is left when all that is meaningless is distilled away. Reality, on the other hand, is dynamic and wholistic. Nothing can be subtracted from, or added to it.

A point about Christianity is that monotheism is an idealization of top down social order, but it neglects the more fundamental bottom up process by which this social order renews itself, as each generation dies off and is replaced by the one growing up under it. Jesus was not trying to start a new religion, as there is nothing more antithetical to monotheism than schism, but to push the reset button on the old. This regenerative process was thwarted by the status quo, just as our current money changing regime is resisting replacement.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 10, 2009 @ 01:27 GMT
Religion really involves magical ideations. The religious idea is:

infinity - infinity = reality,

or 1/0 = God, and how this is inderstood is through faith. Clearly science does not operate on those lines.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 10, 2009 @ 02:59 GMT
Lawrence and John,

I do want to thank you for being thoughtful in your reply. I have encountered hostility from intellectuals to such a degree, I thought it was the norm.

We can agree to disagree, that's fine. I was actually presenting ideas I discovered in Theosophy. Monothesim comes in two varieties, a personal God (Christianity, Judaism) and an impersonal God (Theosophy, Buhdism). At some perceived risk, I approached God from both points of view (hoping not to run afoul). My experience has been that a sacred worship of God begets a very tolerant God and a discovery of very exciting inner teachings.

It was my intent to show that physics does not have to imply the absense of either a "real" God, spirituality or the paranormal. With (1) quantum mechanic eigenstates that are chosen randomly (it appears) and receptors in the brain (receptor theory) that are driven by organic molecules, physics has not successfully rid the universe of a spiritual underpinning.

As a Theosophist, and as someone who has asked the "Powers that be" many times, I have never found an angry Christian diety nor any hellfire damnation with which to keep the congregation from straying. I have only found, over and over again, a benign power that has answered my request for help, my thirst for knowledge and my need for healing.

You will forgive me if I reject the Theory of Everything because the physics relies too heavily on randomness and dice to be able to keep out unknown influences. But as a theory of almost everything, it is really quite good.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 10, 2009 @ 18:18 GMT
Lawrence,

Math does tend toward its own deification of platonic ideals. The forms of group religious models which tend towards being intellectually constrictive are similarly reductionistic.

Jason,

Scientists get emotional about religion. I wouldn't describe myself as pro, or anti religious, because thought is inherently reductionistic, while reality is wholistic. So whatever model we chose to model reality, from the most devout religions, to the most disciplined sciences, the result is like holding water with a sieve. Some participants of this discussion might disagree, but that's because they are viewing it from the point of view of science, which is to analyze physical reality, as opposed to organized religion, which is to cohere a social unity. Personally my view of god is that it is implacable in both creation and destruction, but I try not wasting time worrying over what I have no control over. This is, to me, an informed atheism(not anti-theism), because anything truly absolute is beyond relative desire.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 10, 2009 @ 18:59 GMT
John,

The implacable creative of destructive nature of God is readily apparent. And as the little creatures of His creation, we may seek to emulate those powers. We are really quite good at breaking things and destructon,in general. Creation is a much more difficult ability to master. Placing every atom, just right, takes an enormous amount of information; that's even before we get into forces that we don't know about yet.

Somewhere in the universe, there are creative forces of nature. The known four forces are very simplistic in their ability to obey the complicated steps in rearranging matter; but they can hold the final "construction"

together quite readily.

We need to look for the "creative" force that commands the other four forces; it will have it's symmetric to entropy (thermodyanics). It is the force that will obey its informational directives, the way ribosomes obey the DNA strands to construct proteins. But this is a force of nature, a fifth force.

What is missing from the mathematical physics that it cannot predict its existence?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 10, 2009 @ 19:28 GMT
I didn't edit it closely enough. There is a symmetric to entropy/thermodynamics...

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 10, 2009 @ 21:25 GMT
Jason,

I think it is cyclical. Energy expands as matter contracts. Think how the interaction of this dichotomy manifests throughout nature, from the expansion of youth and consolidation and contraction of age, to convection, to the top down order and bottom up chaos of Complexity Theory, to the way that order defines reality, yet recedes into the past, while energy motivates reality and determines which direction the future will take, to the fact that the earth exists in a state of near equilibrium between a hot core confined by a cool crust, with the resulting magnetic field, to the quantum world which expands out, until we measure it and then collapses to a defined point, etc.

If you view the atoms as creating the information, rather than the information defining the atoms, it's much simpler. Bottom up, not top down. It is our knowledge which is top down, seeing the past, while reality moves bottom up, into the future.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 11, 2009 @ 03:10 GMT
John,

As mathematical physics has accounted for all of the Laws of Nature it can find, a bottom up picture where the atoms create the information, but are not directed by it, is the most reasonable conclusion in terms of the creation of the universe. The Creator has better things to do than to waste his power and knowldedge moving atoms around. I am sure that he automates it. But what happens when the really interesting creative environments appear? Methane gas on planets that can support a rich chemistry might be a good place to create life. In fact, I don't know if "water" is the true lifegiver. Personally, I think we should be looking for chemically dynamic environments. I've wondered if Venus might be chemically dynamic enough? By dynamic chemistry, I'm referring to the possibility of cyclical chemical reaction steps (for example, the Kreb cycle). I'm not saying that there is anything like that on Venus, I'm just looking for places where cyclical chemical reactions might be occuring.

I still believe there is a creative "Fifth Force" that commands the other four forces. The terminology is a bit dramatic. However, it gave me the following idea.

Are we allowed to describe a "Ribosomal" Field (borrowing from the idea of cellular ribosomes). This R-field consists of a scalar potential energy field for each of the four forces; after all, it's going to command those other four forces by manipulating their potential energy at the quantum level. Lets simplify the R-field and say that only commands the strong force. Anyway, the R-field will respond to chunks of information, each of which is like a letter in an alphabet. But the R-field will process information in a conservational way. It will process the information chunk in ways that obey the conservation of energy. Furthermore, it will expend a minimal amount of change in entropy to produce the result.

Anyway, I'm still playing with the idea.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 11, 2009 @ 04:07 GMT
Jason said "We need to look for the "creative" force that commands the other four forces; it will have it's symmetric to entropy (thermodyanics). It is the force that will obey its informational directives, the way ribosomes obey the DNA strands to construct proteins. But this is a force of nature, a fifth force.

The creative force is, in my opinion, due to the motion of all matter along the scalar dimension. This can also be considered as continual loss of Universal potential energy, as this energy is converted to mass energy and kinetic energy. This is the driving force of creation. Due to the orientation of this motion, it gives rise to gravity which draws matter together. The potential energy of the universe is becoming stored within matter with angular momentum rather than being lost as entropy.It causes development of structure as atoms loose potential energy and "fall into place" just as water will flow to lower ground.In more complex systems this process is occurring alongside control factors such as enzymes which direct the developmental pathway.

As well as this motion along the 4th dimension the other forces also play their part in the creative process being dynamic interactions caused by disturbance of the objective material substance of 4 dimensional space.

Creation at all scales, including biological development, is a continual, natural physical process, occurring within the dynamic environment of quaternion space as continual energy change takes place.

The motion of all matter along the scalar dimension can be related to subjective time, because a continual change in time is assumed and related to constant change, as observed on a clock.

What is missing from the mathematical physics that it cannot predict its existence?"

I do not think that there is something missing, rather than what we have is incorrectly interpreted by currently accepted models and thus misunderstood.The problem being with time and gravity and consequently the space-time continuum model or alternative mathematical models that give a static rather than dynamic model. Time is a muddle of subjective mental constructs that do not exist in objective reality and gravity is due to continual motion along the 4th dimension (ie. loss of universal potential energy.)

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 11, 2009 @ 04:40 GMT
Jason our posts overlapped.

I think you may be overcomplicating matters.The continuous Scalar flow is vital and affects all matter. However matter and the objective material substance of the void are all part of a single dynamic system.So the dynamics of the system (giving rise to the forces)will also be interwoven with the continuous scalar flow of all matter.(According to this model all of the forces are disturbances of the objective substance of the void, that cause interaction of matter rather than being due to transfer of imaginary particles.)

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 11, 2009 @ 11:53 GMT
I am nost sure what is meant by math gives a deification of Platonic ideals. There is of course the matter of mathematical realism: Are the objects of mathematics real?

I think in recent time it has become clear that the concept of God as traditionally thought of is at least in need of serious modification. We also might ponder whether the whole concept of God is simply a projections of our consciousness onto some ultimate basis we imagine to exist. A part of our imaginative capabilities is to project ourselves onto the world or other people. A fiction writer does this, as did Einstein when he imagined riding on a frame with an EM wave. I suspect this has to do with our evolution of language as a story telling system. This permitted our Pleistocene ancestors to tells stories of spirits, totems and the like about the natural world. In doing so this confered a survival advantage by permitting knowledge of a local environment to be passed down generations. Most tribal religions are stories concerning the patterns of their local environment.

Modern science does little to lend any support for these mystical or theological ideations. We may never be able to disprove the existence of a God, but the notion appears to be an imaginative construction which the universe is not sympathetic towards.

Lawrence B. Crowell

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 11, 2009 @ 22:29 GMT
Georgina and Lawrence,

It's not like "magical thinking" hasn't been beneficial to science historically, so here goes.

Let's start with quantum field theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

Forces are mediated by bosons acting as virtual particles, which means that the four forces emerge out of processes that are hidden by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (as if that wasn't "magic"). Since I'm going to make my argument within the conservation laws, I hope you won't mind some story telling.

Let's go back to a time when alchemy was alive and well. There was an alchemist who was put on the spot by the king. The king and his angry guards demanded that he change a base metal into gold or visit the dungeon. They handed him a chunk of iron ore and then, with arms crossed, watching impatiently.

Now, a real alchemist is very much aware of the the conservation laws. So this is what he does, he takes the iron ore between his palms and begins to exercise his knowledge and power over the forces of nature. He begins to generate a quantum field, a virtual field, between his palms.

Now, fortunately for the alchemist, he has a magic ring that will help him since his heart is pounding and he can't concentrate, anyway. But, he knows how the magic works. There are mysterious forces within this virtual field; they act like templates. They will obey the conservation laws as best they can; and they will transmute one thing into another, according to a reaction (like a chemical reaction). In this case, the transmutation is nuclear or a quantum reaction. In this instance, the template, which works like a potential energy disturbance, will take 3 iron atoms, some additional neutrons, some kinetic energy (since a decrease in entropy isn't helping), and it will convert it into one gold atom, and some other byproducts.

Now this reaction doesn't occur naturally, but using a virtual field, some occult power stored in the ring, and a sincere prayer to a compassionate God, the reaction is driven forward. While the iron was only partially transformed, and the rest of the energy came from the glucose in his now shriveled pinky, the king and the guards were impressed and the alchemist came to no harm.

While quantum mechanics had not been invented yet, there were already those who had mastered its arts. Eventually, Heisenberg would reveal that the physical, classical deterministic world sits upon an ocean of mystery.

And with this story, I would argue that physics will have to do a better job to rid the universe of occult magic, the divine and all the spooky stuff before it can claim to have a Theory of Everything.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 12, 2009 @ 00:54 GMT
Lawrence,

The concept of god originated as a projection of the tribal spirit, according to Gilbert Murray's Five Stages of Greek Religion. Of this group soul, individuals were considered transient phenomena. Given the nature of life of the time, this was a very logical formulation. Out of this evolved the tendency to identify it with geography and give it personality. Then arose the idea of melding these deities into one, as groups combined, ie. twelve tribes of Israel.

Now consciousness is a field effect of neurons, while society is a field effect of individuals. Can biology really define the point where swarming individuals are truly distinct from a multicellular organism? I can think of some forms of fungi where the line gets quite blurred. If we were to project the future of life on this planet, could it be that humanity is the embryonic central nervous system of a planetary organism? Brains are very energy dependent. Of course we may just be a still born.

Mathematicians are supposed to look for the underlaying principles, not get hung up on the subjective detail.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 12, 2009 @ 01:49 GMT
We are like two-eyed fish facing opposite directions. The one eye sees the mathematics, the logic; the other eye sees consciousness, the spiritual. We have not evolved to the point of seeing the universe with both eyes looking at the same thing. If we could, we would see the iceberg.

The surface of the water is the quantum mechanics, Heisenberg's ocean. Everything above it is classical, everything below it is quantum and virtual. Perhaps we are more like one-eyed fish that swim on our sides.

But everything below the water line is virtual and eventually, invisible to physics. We are not fungi nor a mere collection of neurons. Anything above the waterline can be destroyed. Anything below the waterline has watery roots that descend beyond what we can see. Perhaps we are not like one-eyed fish, but more like aquatic plants that descend into the depths. Admittedly, we would be strange looking plants, one with an eye or maybe two eyes, but so much for metaphors.

But QM is the waterline. What lies below it is largely unknown.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 12, 2009 @ 19:18 GMT
Beyond just writing awkward poetry, I was trying to make some points.

1. There are really two valid ways of looking at the world; One is logically/mathematically, and the other is through "human experience" (emotionally/spiritually).

2. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has been used by physicists to explain how forces work (as long as everything is conserved in the long run). But this is really an indication that physicists cannot explain everything; they cannot keep out the "unknown". If that is the case, then a TOE is not possible.

3. "Surface of the water" is a metaphor for QM. Anything below it is just not quantifiable or observable under repeatable laboratory circumstances.

4. This whole "physics" idea that consciousness is just a bunch a neurons and electrical impulses (which implies that life is meaningless and biological death equals permanent death) is wrong. So if you sold the soul you thought you didn't have, you may want to buy it back (ask nicely).

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 13, 2009 @ 02:25 GMT
Jason,

It's not that I disagree with you, but having grown up somewhat close to nature, I have serious respect for just how deep that abyss we are staring into is. We have lived our lives with the surface of the water being quite calm. It's not always that way. I don't make any claims as to knowing what comes after, but it will be a phase transition that makes the entirety of ones life rather insignificant.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 13, 2009 @ 07:39 GMT
Jason, I would say that the surface of the water that you speak of is the Prime Reality Interface. That is where objective reality interacts with the receptors of the organism or his artificial sensors to provide the information from which subjective reality is formed and all interpretation of reality begins. The reality of subjective experience is also the playground of scientific investigation.This is the real world of all human experience.

Below the surface is the unknowable objective reality. Religion attempts to explain underlying reality in a way that is comprehensible to the human mind. It requires faith, as no proof is possible even by the scientific method. However religious models are also necessarily subjective reality and not the objective reality which they attempt to describe. Which is inaccessible.

This realm of objective unknowable reality is the realm of theoretical speculation, philosophy, metaphysics and religion. Endless argument is possible as to what is the best description. Science can not provide the answer.The ultimate decision coming down to personal ideological preference. This may in turn be due to personal thinking style, education, IQ, upbringing, peer group, environment, habit or social expectations etc.etc.

Science has reached its limit and within this realm speculation by scientists is of no greater validity or worth than speculation by practitioners of any of the other afore mentioned disciplines.

A theory of everything that fully describes subjective reality needs to also acknowledge that there is an underlying unknowable objective reality. An equally real part of reality that can not be investigated by science, that exists beyond the limit of the scientific method.

John, change is continuous and everything is in transition. It is the belief that change can be prevented that has always been false and this false belief causes distress.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 13, 2009 @ 08:46 GMT
Hello to all ,

It's a beautiful thread .

Personally ,the sciences show us the link between the universality ,the spirituality and the logic of our experiments .

The complexity of our universal dynamic is so incredible .

The maximum energy is behind all things and its parameters .

Of course we have limits in the quantum and the cosmological point of vue but around us we see so much splendid polarizations ,the evolution is important to encircle the spiritual link .Our Universe complecify itself ,towards harmony and spherization .The balances increase everywhere ,the mass increase by very weak polarizations .

It's evident ,an unknew exists and it will be always unknew but we evolve too .

Our common future is fascinating ,we go towards the complexification,the harmonization,the optimization,trhe improvement ,the ultim sphere and its ultim balance but so far of us in Time Space .

I am pragmatic and logic ,when I see around me I see so much fascinating creations .Furthermore as I like gardening,I see a harmonic complementarity between polarizations (animals,vegetals ,minerals.)It's evident in fact ,a scientist don't deny this evidence of spirituality because the balance is everywhere and increase .Furthermore like a human being ,we can accelerate ,optimize these complementarities ,it's there that the conscienciousness is important .We are catalysts ,builders.

Our potential is incredible .

The universality ,the spirituality with pragmatism is essential .All is linked in fact .

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 13, 2009 @ 09:53 GMT
The surface of the water is symbolic of quantum (wave) mechanics; above is classical mechanics and below it is very mysterious.

One of the reasons why I believe that "consciousness" is something more fundamental below the waterline is because consciousness emerges within an enterconnectedness, a network of sensory signals. In classical mechanics, particles are localized. In quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement and nonlocality of information become important. Below the waterline, I anticipate increasing nonlocality and entanglement. I expect it to eventually conform to an organized set of laws, probably not very recognizable. Under these conditions, I believe that information, while not localized, will transmit and process in ways similar to signals in the brain. If quantum fields can be described with quantum waves, it doesn't seem too far a leap to anticipate signal propagation and even naturally occuring signal processing.

While this opinion is partially motivated by knowledge of theosophy/metaphysics and is combined with quantum mechanics, I think the idea is at least plausible.

While it's speculative, can it be readily dismissed?

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 13, 2009 @ 12:19 GMT
Jason,

I think that as our knowledge of the process of neurobiology develop, consciousness will become less and less mysterious. For example, already it is possible to watch the activity of the brain and how different regions are involved in the processing of information through use of MRI scanning. The cascade of nervous impulses is becoming recognised as dynamic rather than mechanical.Specific brain regions related to specific facets of experience are being identified. The role of different neurotransmitters and dietary factors in control or modification of behaviour is being elucidated. Specific differences in brain structure between the psychopath and non psychopathic individual have been found.

How internal biological activity becomes experience is a matter of biology itself, not impenetrable mystery.Although due to the emotional and personal connection to our thoughts and experiences, it may seem cold and reductionist to say that it is our biology that gives us our experiences. Even those personal experiences that we may believe transcends mere biology. Serotonin (a chemical)allows us to feel joy, without it we will be depressed or suffer anhedonia. Oxytocin (another chemical, released during sex and at childbirth) maintains pair bonds and bonds mother to baby. The feelings these hormones create are real but originate in biology and are not mysterious.How the brain creates subjective reality is exactly where science should be directing its attention. This is where answers are to be found rather than endless speculation as to what reality is. Reality is what the mind makes it. Understanding the processes, calculations and models of the mind will allow us to make sense of how the world and the universe appears to the human being. All of subjective reality is the playground of science.

Objective reality is the mystery because we have no direct access to it and can only reach for it via our subjective experiences, speculation and models, which will never be objective reality itself. It is inaccessible.It is beyond the reach of the scientific method. The model one chooses as most acceptable to represent that objective reality is a matter of personal choice (according to ones circumstances and ability and freedom to choose.) There can be no proof.

I think it unlikely that objective reality is akin to conscious experience. Just as the avatar seen on the computer screen has no physical similarity to the computer code in the software that produces it.Just as the serotonin chemical has no similarity to the joy I am at times able to feel.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 13, 2009 @ 17:12 GMT
Georgina,

Everything that you say is true about our biological existence. But let us not forget that everything electrochemical is governed by electromagnetism. Electromagnetism is mediated by virtual photons whose very existence is only to conserve momentum/spin/energy. But they do so statistically. I'm afraid it's too handwavy to make the spooky things disappear. Distruction of the physical body would certainly alter consciousness, but not necessarily extinguish it permenantly. If we admit there is an objective reality that can't be measured, then science cannot collapse the impenetrable mystery.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 13, 2009 @ 18:27 GMT
Remember, the only reason mathematical physics works at all to describe the Laws of Nature is because of conserved quantities. Mathematics came from merchants who didn't want to be cheated out of a ducat. The physical universe which was bought and paid for with so much energy applied to a physical space, something that neither physicists (nor the rest of us) understand. Space itself will manifest phenomena: for .5101MeV, you get an electron complete with 1/2spin. Of course, "space" energetically charged you for an electron-positron pair. We have yet to figure out how "space" is constructed. Physicists are ready to declare a TOE, that everything is understood, but they cannot even explain the operational principles behind "universe construction theory".

Physicists will say: "hey, take some space, declare its laws, F=ma, Maxwell's equations, universal constants, etc... and whammo, we can build a universe!"

I am sure that the Creator (God/aliens/your choice) is looking at us humans and our TOE and his laughing uproarously, and planning a surprise (nothing bad); probably a brain busting puzzle. "So my children want to play God, hehe." He looks closely at us and says, "Theory of Everything?" God has a sense of humor. He says, "How about a theory of 'Conserved Automation'?" He asks, "Ye physics Gods, my children whom I love, step into the ultraverse where I am, and let us create new universes together. Canst thou wield the forces of Creation? Canst thou weave the fabric of space from the living energy within thy essence? Thou art bound by the laws of conservation. Come back in a few aeons when you are ready to command such forces. We shall play God, together."

God says one more thing, "make sure when you build a universe, that you use "back doors" to get back inside. The clever little creatures that you create will try to kick you out of your own universe and say it's theirs. When the time is right, I will teach you 'Quantum Universe Interfacing'."

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 13, 2009 @ 19:17 GMT
Georgina, Jason,

The objective reality, the absolute, is the essence we rise from, not an ideal, spiritual or mathematical, we fell from.

Aristotle, not Plato.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 13, 2009 @ 22:22 GMT
Jason said "If we admit there is an objective reality that can't be measured, then science cannot collapse the impenetrable mystery." Yes. This is very significant because it shows that science alone can never answer all questions but must work in conjunction with an accepted theoretical model, which will always only be a model and not the reality itself which is unknowable.The question is what model is most acceptable, bearing in mind that the scientific method can not provide the answer to this?

Speculation can be endless. Does science admit its limitation and designate the other side of the boundary as beyond science? Or does it continue with increasingly outlandish speculation, with no possibility of proof, because the simple truth that science is never going to be able to provide all of the answers can not be accepted.The Prime Reality Interface is the limit of scientific knowledge obtainable through the scientific method.Science has been held up as the means of secular enlightenment. Its inherent limitation has not yet been widely acknowledged.This is not the fault of science itself but of fallible human minds that can not perceive the existence of the impenetrable boundary between objective and subjective realities.

Jason said "Electromagnetism is mediated by virtual photons whose very existence is only to conserve momentum/spin/energy. But they do so statistically." This is a model only. I would say that there is no such thing as a virtual photon which is a mathematical convenience but that electromagnetism is more likely to be a disturbance of the unknowable substance of objective reality. That disturbance being caused by the oscillation of the particles themselves.

The interpretation of phenomena observed and measured within subjective reality will always depend upon the theoretical model that is used to explain how those phenomena arise.If the explanatory model is changed, the interpretation is changed.Though the phenomenon itself remains exactly the same. That is why the choice of explanatory model is of greatest importance , in my opinion. As it is that choice that determines the form of the comprehension.Comprehension does not arise from the phenomenon itself.What it is, is how it is explained.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 14, 2009 @ 12:36 GMT
Georgina,

I believe we have agreement on the following points:

1. Objective reality cannot be measured.

2. Science alone cannot answer all questions.

Mathematical physics has done a great job so far at quantifying the physical nature of the observable universe.

If we can agree that physics will stay on its side of the measureable universe, and God/paranormal/spooky stuff will stay on its side of the objective reality, then I will quit raising this important but non scientific issue. Of course, I will have to consult with God to determine what happens next. If I get the chance, I'll ask why pertubative theory fails to bring General Relativty and QM into on mathematical structure: Subjective TOE.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 14, 2009 @ 16:19 GMT
Jason,

"If we can agree that physics will stay on its side of the measureable universe, and God/paranormal/spooky stuff will stay on its side of the objective reality, then I will quit raising this important but non scientific issue."

HAHAHA!

"Of course, I will have to consult with God to determine what happens next."

Exactly. Reductionism and wholism are two sides of the same coin.



Can you reductionistically explain consciousness, or wholistically explain what you are conscious of.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 14, 2009 @ 19:18 GMT
But this issue/debate has made me wonder about pertubation theory which is what prevents QM and Relativity from unifying. The way I understand it, by adding a few more increasingly diminishing terms we can solve the exact solution plus anything nearby? I'd like to research online the attempted mathematics to unify the two subjects. Without being an expert, getting large space physics (GR) to unify with QM means we need a better description of "space". I'm not an expert in Hilbert space/Minkowski space, but can we define (mathematically) a background space, that is a function of scale? I don't think anybody describes space this way. You can limit it and quantify and restrict it all you like.

As an awkward example, for F=ma

F(r); r(q) is position, where q is a scaling ratio perhaps. 'm' is the same at all scales, and a(q)...

For K=1/2mv2, v(q) as well...

Do you thing a real mathematical powerhouse has ever, or would ever, attack the unification problem by defining 'space' as a function of scale?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 14, 2009 @ 20:17 GMT
You have all been invited to visit the "objective" side of reality anytime you wish. Yes, there are the platonic absolutes. There is also a richness and magnificence beyond words. It is a wondrous garden on a sunny day, infinite in expanse. There are experiences that will speak to your soul and unfold very deep truths. There is healing. There are powers and forces that will saturtate your neurobiology with power and wonder.

You have but to knock.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 14, 2009 @ 20:34 GMT
Georgina,

Your comment about virtual photons caught my interest. From a physics interpretation point of view, I think the non-local wave nature of particle-waves is an established fact. Whether or not we can bounce a particle (electron) off of another particle wave very much depends upon how far above the Heisenberg Uncertainty "water surface?" the other particle is sticking. Virtual particles are probably just disturbances upon quantum wave fields that are too deep under the "water surface" to be measured.

Can a disturbance of a wave really be called a particle? Possibly.

Can it still be a point particle? Possibly not.

Can a virtual particle be a point particle? Again, probably not.

If a point can become a wave, non local, below a certain scale, can a redefinition of background "space" add anything useful? I'm hoping someone will take a closer look at this. Maybe a redifnition of space might restore the point particles (or define their transition into nonlocality).

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 15, 2009 @ 09:48 GMT
Jason said "From a physics interpretation point of view, I think the non-local wave nature of particle-waves is an established fact." This may be accepted theory. It is not fact.

An electron is a particle of matter according to the Prime quaternion model, although its position in 4 dimensional space is constantly changing as it oscillates along the 4th dimension, as well as moving in 3D space. Its oscillation may be interpreted as a wave form. It enables a single electron to set up interfering wave patterns in a ripple chamber. A single electron causes a ripple, then moves to afore space, then on its return visible space from afore space, as it has changed position in 3D space it sets up another wave pattern.The patterns interfere.

Force mediating particles are imaginary according to this model. They allow forces to be balanced mathematically but the forces themselves are due to the disturbance of the objective substance of space. The massless particles are not particles at all but energy or a disturbance of the objective substance of space that surrounds all matter and therefore also affects all matter.We obtain no information from this substance itself and therefore do not have a subjective reality formed from information of it.The disturbances are dynamic and wave like. The photon is the minimum energy of disturbance required for an effect on an electron to be observed in subjective reality. Multiples of this energy level are required for further effect. This is why photons are thought of as particle like. It does not mean that lesser disturbances and intermediate disturbances do not occur in objective reality but only that they are not detected in subjective reality. Eletro static forces are due to the "tidal forces" caused by particles oscilating along the 4th dimension. The gravitational force has been explained in many of my previous posts.

The model that is chosen to allow comprehension is very important as it affects the comprehension itself. However objective the experimental data, if the model into which the data is placed for interpretation is incorrect, or biased in some way that has not been recognised, then the conclusions will be incorrect or misleading, certainly not facts or proof.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 15, 2009 @ 20:07 GMT
Georgina,

To help me visualize the p.quaternion model = 3D(space)+1D(energy); I use 2D(space)+1D(energy). I get something that looks like mountains, valleys, rivers. Of course, elevation is the scalar potential energy. Also, afore = before and aft = towards stern (rear) of ship. So, your two references to direction are

Afore = before (front?)

Aft = rear (back)

You're from the United Kingdom, a seafaring nation; thus the terminology.

Georgina said, " A single electron causes a ripple, then moves to afore space, then on its return visible space from afore space, as it has changed position in 3D space it sets up another wave pattern.The patterns interfere.

"

This sounds a lot like an electron point particle riding a wave which is an alternative interpretation to quantum mechanics (perhaps from the same article I read on this website). That would be an answer to my "what is space" question. What's funny is that this model, if we use my 2D(s)+1D(E) visualization, then particles are pointlike and they ride the ocean of energy like ships at sea. Is that how you visualing QM? I believe that using both of these two interpretations, "point particle ships at sea" and "wave-particles", when used together will help reveal more of the quantum truth (what's really happening).

Georgina said, "We obtain no information from this substance itself and therefore do not have a subjective reality formed from information of it."

What kind of information are you referring to? Do you mean location/momentum information of the target particle obtained by colliding a "bullet" particle with it and then finding where the "bullet" went?

We're back to our "what the heck is space" dilemma. Do we known anything about it? It's flat in 3D, curved in space-time. I think the P.Q.model says that time is particle flow to lower energy (like a waterfall). I can see why the metaphor/visulation inadvertently implies time travel.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 16, 2009 @ 10:12 GMT
Jason, it could be thought of in that way. All 4 dimensions are spatio-energetic. The movement in space, of matter or a particle, such as an electron, can be considered. Or the energy change that is occurring can be considered. Kinetic energy, that is movement of mass in 3D space, is associated with vector direction or directions. Movement of mass along the 4th dimension is also an energy change....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 17, 2009 @ 08:54 GMT
Georgina,

I am noticing an enigma/contradiction within the P.Q.model. Particles are considered "disturbances" within the "field"; they are also considered to be oscillations within the potential energy (4th dimension). But what is enigmatic is that particles and their associated charges are what create the potential energy of the scalar 4th dimension. The enigma is that the particle (disturbance in the potential energy) is creating the potential energy.

I was playing with the idea that every particle in a system (the universe) has a tangible relationship or connection with every other particle in the system. The idea was to create a relativistic frame in which only the particles exist and the laws of physics are defined for each pair of particles by unknown (to be determined) processes. The idea was to dualistically either (a) overlook the particles and allow the "connections" to become the space (complete with defined laws of physics) or (b) overlook the space and just see the relationship between pairs of particles (the way physics is described now). I haven't thought it through completely. Much to my liking, I leave a backdoor in this model for the Creator to alter the laws of physics locally through the "connections" between the particles. Given the more than infinite number of connections between particle pairs, the overlap could appear as a potential energy scalar field.

The other interesting quality of this model is that the connections between particle pairs can be defined/programmed as "no interaction". I can have particles of group A with interacting laws of physics. I can have particles of Group B with interacting connections (laws of physics); and I can say that the connections between particles in A to particles in B are either "non interacting", "restricted/weakly interacting", even "interact a clusters of A to single particles of B".

The particles would exist in an ocean of "connections"; the "connections" are push/pull with respect to each other. Given the infinite number of these connections, they could be perceived as an ocean of potential energy. Since particle pairs can spring up or annhilate, then "connection" creation/collapse can occur. The "connections" are (a) the laws of physics, (b) space itself and (c) lines whose endpoints are the particles.

So, do you think I'm taking too many conceptual/

hypothetical liberties?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 17, 2009 @ 09:53 GMT
Within a "Connection Theory", if I take 4 particles: A,B,C and D, then I can define the connections:

AB,AC,AD,BC,BD and CD. I've already suggested that these connections are programmable. But for a given connection, I can define (a) a separation 'd' (b) a force between the two particles as F = +/-(strength)/r^(1 to n dimensions). (c) a velocity of affect of endpoint A to endpoint B. (d) cluster rules.

To meet a physics format, I have to boil down the rules into something more mathematical. I'm workin' on it.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 17, 2009 @ 10:08 GMT
Connection theory rules

1. "Appear"; Redefine relationship pair (distance d,Force F, endpoint affect velocity).

2. "Vanish" collapse pair by annhilation.

3. "Add to cluster";

4. "Subtract from cluster"

Since a particle A has as many connections as N-1 for N particles in a system, there are N-1 relationships to be determined; which is probably a good reason to simplify with well established set of particles.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 17, 2009 @ 12:15 GMT
Georgina,

I hate to spend physics credibility for vision, but here is what I see. These "connections" between particles can obey Least Action rules and reproduce the physical universe as physicists known and love. But there are other connection rules that are beyond linear space and time, they are part of the deepest mystery. The mechanisms take much longer to occur, but the effects are much broader than just one or two particles. There are connection rules for clusters (clusters are large macroscopic objects that can approximate platonic absolutes). It kills me to have to spend credibility on this but this is an important piece to the puzzle.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 17, 2009 @ 19:46 GMT
Jason,

Sounds credible enough for me. I tend to see reality in terms of the network creating the nodes/particles, while the particles define the network/"connections."

In terms of a "creator" the normal assumption is one of "intention," but that implies a goal/bottom line/final destination. What if we are simply projecting our own reductionistic focus and in fact the medium really is the message?

Is it the purpose of mountains to define the valleys? Is it the purpose of the valleys to emphasize the mountains? Does it matter? In our mad search for meaning, we miss it all.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 17, 2009 @ 20:31 GMT
John,

I do appreciate your enthusiasm. After I had some time to think about it, the idea appeals to me. It will come in handy for some of my pet project theories like hyperspace/hyperdrive, the occult (physics blasphemy), and a spirit world (sorry, more physics blasphemy).

I also like how, when N becomes large, the system can take on the appearance of absolute laws of nature. I went through the arduous intellectual climb of trying to understand the "absolutes"; don't tell anyone, but they're more like "absolute enough". I also have a nagging feeling that there is a "query" phenomenon going on. Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, send out a query wave amplitude and get back an answer amplitude wave.

And you are right about the mad search for meaning. Its not found in mathematic or physics; it's found in other manifestations of reality.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 17, 2009 @ 23:45 GMT
Jason,

Meaning can be found in math, or physics. Our hunter/gatherer ancestors found it in berry bushes, especially the wild raspberries.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 18, 2009 @ 07:57 GMT
John,

Meaning in math or physics? Are you pulling my leg? Actually, I'm pretty sure that part of the brain that can experience meaningfulness is pretty much shut down by mathematical thinking. It's a shame. But if you say that hunter/gatherers found meaning in wild raspberries, I'd like to know how.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 18, 2009 @ 09:51 GMT
Jason,

"Meaning" is inherently static and reductionistic. It's what is left when all that is "meaningless" is distilled away. The problem for those seeking meaning is that reality is something of an onion. When you peel away all the layers, there is nothing left. Our thought processes are inherently reductionistic, though, because we have to find those objects of focus, be they food, shelter, or motivating concepts, which attract us and move us in a forward direction and not just leave us confused and bewildered by the cacophony of chaos in which we exist. Thus creating the narrative of order.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 18, 2009 @ 10:48 GMT
Jason said "But what is enigmatic is that particles and their associated charges are what create the potential energy of the scalar 4th dimension. The enigma is that the particle (disturbance in the potential energy) is creating the potential energy."

The particles are not creating the potential energy, in the Prime Quaternion model. That is like saying an electron occupying an energy level...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 18, 2009 @ 17:35 GMT
Georgina,

The potential energy that the electron creates is by virtue of its electric charge that generates an electric field, F = -GRAD PHI = KQ1Q2/r2, where PHI is the potential energy. In virtual photon perspective, the electron is the giver/receiver of momentum, the virtual photons as carriers of energy, cause the potential energy scalar to slope. That's what I meant by "cause". In objective reality terms, the cause of electromagnetism and the corresponding potential energy may be open to interpretation/perspective. The enigma I was referring to was the resemblance to "space tells mass how to move and mass tells space how to curve".

As for the search for meaning, and for God, mathematical physics boils down to the nuts and bolts of how the physical universe works. To use the "throw baby out with bathwater" metaphor, the important things are lost when physicist (and the "pretend" physicists like me) try to reconstruct the observed "beauty and majesty" from quantum particles and neurobiology. The "oops, where's the baby?" is not the absense of the baby (diety), but insteady represents a failure of the mathematics to accurately reproduce the baby, God, or General Relativity. General Relativity cannot be reproduced by QM because of a mathematical "scaling" problem. God cannot be reproduced by the mathematics, neurobiology, or as "mechanistic information" because the Supreme Creative Power created those things; there's not a single "God mechanism". How does your pc know (if it could "know" anything, somehow evolve philosophy) it was created by Intel or whoever? The firmware tells it so; I am the firmware telling you that God exists, but you don't believe because the mathematics doesn't tell you. Why doesn't the mathematics tell you? It is built to show causal relationships of physics mechanisms (A+BC+D or F=ma). Your attachment to God is through your soul. Reductionism says you don't have or need a soul (pardon me, I'm busting out with laughter). God (and your soul) are too integrated into the physics to be isolated as one or two mechanisms; God manifests the physics, as well as your soul that reductionism hides from you. Your pc has to take it on faith that it was made by Intel (or whoever). Believe the Firmware.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 18, 2009 @ 17:52 GMT
By the way, the QM+GR = TOE fails to unify because perturbation theory doesn't work. Perturbation theory is the mathematical equivalent of saying "roughly" or "-ish". I'm not suggesting that we call it mathematical "-ish" theory; rather, some major relationship is missing. It's probably a spatial/scaling relationship.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 18, 2009 @ 21:40 GMT
Jason,

Whether it's religion, or physics, the dynamic builds up a static crust, which is as natural as motion creating a history. Those people most concerned with a sense of order are naturally more focused on the crust, than on the dynamic. So those most focused on the emergent order of physics tend to see the emergent storyline/history of religion. Which is often most notable for its incongruities and faith based claims of infallibility. Its crustiness.

The problem with an intent based deity is that it always raises the next question.

If God is Intel, where did Intel come from? There wasn't a platonic ideal just waiting to be filled. As a corporation, it is a node that emerged from a conflux of circumstances and desires. To the extent there is a spiritual absolute, a source of the awareness and its emergent desires, it is foundational, not ideal. It is the rawest source, not the most refined artistry. It is not sitting back and watching life unfold, but rather the essential motivation pushing it forward. The grass roots, not the prince in the tower. The prince is just crust.

So the next question; Where did that essence of being which manifests biology come from? That is the question which rises from the abyss. All we know is that it exists, because we exist, yet its source is deeper than the deepest ocean. Yet it keeps pushing onward, implacably creating and consuming. There are no ideals, only circumstances. Objects are defined by their limits and we are constantly fighting our limits, whether as theologians or physicists. Yet those limits are the only conceptual foundation we have from which to further push them. So there is a profound tension between those maintaining order and those questioning it. One is the past and the other is the future.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 24, 2009 @ 16:35 GMT
I know that spinors occur in complex space (real + imaginary). I think the terminology "imaginary" is misleading. I propose a vote that we call "i" a wavy number; so there will be real and wavy numbers. Any takers?

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 26, 2009 @ 22:06 GMT
Jason, You are reiterating Gauss 1831. Find the point in what I wrote in addition to my essay.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 27, 2009 @ 07:51 GMT
Hello ,

Dear Jason

you say " I propose a vote that we call "i" a wavy number; so there will be real and wavy numbers. Any takers?"

a duality between waves and particles ,towards strings ,if I understand well ,

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 27, 2009 @ 20:11 GMT
I wanted to make a comment about the flying spagetti diety. I was thinking about this; specifically, spagetti and meatballs. Atoms/molecules/quantum particles are a lot like meatballs, and superstrings are like spagetti. Superstrings (spagetti), carry information. So, using this metaphor, if the universe is like spagetti and meatballs, and there exists a flying spagetti diety, what are the implications?

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 28, 2009 @ 08:31 GMT
Steve,

You're right, strings display particle and wave behavior. I feel like I have superstrings streaming everywhere I look.

Eckard Blumschein

Can you give me the link to your article?

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 28, 2009 @ 10:57 GMT
Jason ,

hihihi me I see spheres and spheroids everywhere .Circles ,tori ,elipses,rotations ,spherocal fields .

In our physical world ,the spheres ,spheroids and spherization are everywhere .

Yesterday ,I cooked pastas ,I put some oil in the water and magically ,the circles appear ,what is interesting is the ratios between these visual circles ,spheroids .

It's the same in the botany and ecology ,many ratios in correlation with spheres ,and spherization are there always and everywhere.

Let's take fruits ,seeds ,flowers ,.....always a spheroidal comportment .So many exemples around us .

You say

"So, using this metaphor, if the universe is like spagetti and meatballs, and there exists a flying spagetti diety, what are the implications?"

In this method ,it's like a ultim frequence to harmonize all systems .A link between all thing .

Personnally ,I see the ultim frequence like the light and its linear velocity .This light like a chief orchestra ,center towards centers towards a kind of universal membran .The curvature is interestng in this physical universe .

On the other side ,I think it exists a different velocity which is interesting ,the velocity of rotation of these ultim spheres ,this velocity is different and not linear .

If I take the constant mv thus the velocity is superior than the linear limit velocity of the light .

The mass is in fonction of this velocity of rotation .

In this logic we could say what these velocities more the sens ,the direction....implie a comportment ,a nature of becoming .

We can extrapolate ans say that these velocities are linked too with the frequences ,like a music of velocities of those spheres (quantum ultim architecture )

We could say too that these spheres have a kind of spherical membran and inside a kind of incompressible liquid with its codes in Time Space evolution.

I think that the information is there in the ultim central sphere ,this ultim sphere gives the informations to others smaller spheres and its differents rotations .The combinations implies the nature of the particle I think .

sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe/wulphstein@gmail.com wrote on Apr. 28, 2009 @ 16:53 GMT
Steve,

You mentioned several words that got my attention: quantum architecture, "harmonize all systems", nature of becoming, evolution, like a music of velocities.

I had a vision (among many) that I thought was too much, so I didn't post it. It was about miracles accomplished by quantum self assembly. This also constitutes a measurement or observation of the same signal. Given your special knowledge of spheres, you noticed something I didn't. I know what it is. I've heard speculative ideas that biological/cellular construction has features of quantum entanglement. Then with the articles that John provided links to, the pieces of the puzzle are coming together. The common signal is like an MPEG stream (I work with these). Any digital file can be represented as an infinite set us sinusoids (fourier series). With Shannon error coding, errors can be kept out as much as possible. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that superstrings (and the information streams they carry) are intermingling with the ribosomes/cellular synthesis of our cells. The cells are quantum/superstring self assembly machines.

Gentlemen, our cells are trying to talk to us.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 29, 2009 @ 00:47 GMT
Yea. They are trying to tell us we are cells. Little bubbles of awareness, spheres, if you will. Projecting cones of perception that bounce around the atmosphere, reflecting off one another in little flashes of recognition. Mostly though, we avert our gaze and go about our business, collecting food and shiny objects for our nests.

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Apr. 29, 2009 @ 21:31 GMT
Dear Jason Wolfe, For my essay and some related discussion you might try fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/369. There you will also find two attachments:

... How_do_negative_and_imaginary.pdf

and Dec. 20

fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Microsoft_Word_How_do_part
_2.pdf

Feel free to ask for more hints.

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.