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

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 7:26am UTC, wrote KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK...

Anonymous: on 9/1/12 at 19:55pm UTC, wrote Reminds me of Dali and Man Ray.

Michael P.: on 12/8/11 at 17:45pm UTC, wrote Another incredible Artist inspired by science and physics worthy of a look:...

Peter Jackson: on 7/23/11 at 21:27pm UTC, wrote John "I don't see anything wrong with the observations you are making." ...

John Merryman: on 7/19/11 at 20:05pm UTC, wrote Peter, I don't see anything wrong with the observations you are making....

Peter Jackson: on 7/19/11 at 19:37pm UTC, wrote John I have no problem with infinity of time and space, but cannot...

John Merryman: on 7/18/11 at 16:42pm UTC, wrote Peter, Some of the points are extreme, but considering where the bar is...

Peter Jackson: on 7/18/11 at 9:08am UTC, wrote John I've had discussions with Thornhill and find some of his assumptions...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "I wonder why there is no interpretation of QM that says the wave function..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Re.macroscopic objectivity: How an outcome is to be called, the method..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe Fisher, I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Jahangir kt: "A great website with interesting and unique material what else would you..." in Our Place in the...

Steve Dufourny: "I am going to tell you an important thing about the aethers. I thought that..." in Alternative Models of...

halim sutarmaja: "dewapoker hadir untuk semua pecinta game poker dengan teknologi terbaru dan..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Jason Wolfe: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..." in More on agency from the...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi BLOGS
November 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Art and Science: A Slice of Time [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger William Orem wrote on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 20:23 GMT


This is a work of art by artist Shinichi Maruyama. His pieces exist for only a specific, minute fragment of time: in some cases, as little as one 20,000th of a second.

The art, in other words, is not the photograph itself, or not only the photograph: the art is this swirl of water and ink, cast into the air by Maruyama's hands. Ultra high-speed photography is what allows us to see the result of his specific action--to spend human time, that is, luxuriating in its texture, its taught surfaces, its fragile edges, fraying and splitting into randomness.

I'll play my cards right away: I think this is excellent work. The almost monumental character of material so transient; the way it connects both to the ancient tradition of Japanese calligraphy--one thinks of "enso" paintings--and to the most recent images of spiral galaxies; even the way we can see the artist's kinetic energy still acting, with his body removed, in a manner that gestures toward both influence and impermanence. It all works.

To be sure, I am more interested in abstract art forms than some, as I've blogged about before. Jackson Pollock's flung paint makes immediate sense to my eye--and we had an interesting interchange on this site a while back about the question of beauty in physics, and what it implies about the G.U.T.--in a way that it doesn't to many. But I suspect even die-hard classicists can see some of the appeal of Maruyama's gestural splashes.



On occasion people write me to propose I blog about the intersection of art and physics. Back in the eighties there were entire bookshelves dedicated to this area; much of it, I suspect, driven by Douglas Hofstadter's brain-bending Godel, Escher, Bach. Since then, the computer and internet revolution has brought even more fire to the possibilities of cross-pollination. I can't say I spend much time thinking about the art-science nexus myself; oddly, perhaps, as I am both a visual artist (casually) and a physics enthusiast. But, for whatever reason, these "ways of looking" seem largely to occupy nonoverlapping magisteria in my neocortex. I love both, but in different ways. Perhaps you feel the same.

Still, in Maruyama's work I am reminded of how art and science are indeed kindred endeavors, and mutually supportive. There is something important in his dark cartwheel of water, suddenly frozen out and made permanent before us. Something having to do with the appreciation of time.



Here at FQXi, researchers contemplate such wonderful notions as reversible time, multiversal time, time as emergent, time as cosmic illusion, time as no illusion but quite real. Time in consciousness, time at the event horizon, time as analog and digital and more. These are rich and fascinating inquiries. Some of them--for me, multi-dimensional time is one--are rewarding even in the contemplation, leaving aside the question of their actual application to nature. (Scientific theories can be wrong, whereas artwork can only be more or less successful.) There is a pleasure akin to aesthetic experience simply in exercising the mind along such avenues of thought.

What Maruyama has me thinking now is this. From the perspective of a consciousness that goes through its processing cycle, let us say, once every hundred thousand years, the mountainscapes themselves would appear fluid. Such a perspective would watch the Himalayas rise, and erode, the way we watch ocean waves tumble. The ocean waves, meanwhile, would be far too brief for that mind to apprehend. But, for it, the tectonic plates might swim about the lithosphere like leaves eddying around a pool.

From another temporal perspective, revealed here by stroboscopic camera, a 10,000th or 20,000th of a second is a microcosm. Within that eyeblink is all this stability, this structure, this much fascinating detail. The gradual transfer of energy; the slow, complex interplay of mechanical forces; gravitation; angular momentum; surface tension. Every second that ticks past is composed of slivers such as these, in each of which nature is faithfully creating what Darwin, in the biological sphere, called "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful."

It's artwork that, like paradigm-challenging science, wakes us up to the possibilities of time itself. I am grateful to Maruyama for helping me see how much I don't see.



Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 20:48 GMT
Another superior blog, William. Thanks. I share your view of art and science.

My FQXi 2011 essay ("Can we see reality from here?") also speaks of the entanglement of form with time: "The boundary between continuous experience and discrete event is the only demonstrably objective boundary, and it’s where all the interesting stuff is." Like Maruyama's photos.

Variety isn't just the spice of life. It's the substance.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 09:17 GMT
Yes f course Tom of course and a good pub for multiverses, extradimensions and strings.....William, please Be rational!!! The free will ok, the irrationalities no thanks.

Thanks

ps the art and sciences are linked if and only if the real rationality is respected, if not it is an ocean of confusions and irrationalities.Physics and maths are rational.

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 21:11 GMT
So far as I have experienced, you choose to not respond to me

"Here at FQXi, researchers contemplate such wonderful notions as reversible time, multiversal time, time as emergent, time as cosmic illusion, time as no illusion but quite real. Time in consciousness, time at the event horizon, time as analog and digital and more. These are rich and fascinating inquiries. Some of them--for me, multi-dimensional time is one--are rewarding even in the contemplation, leaving aside the question of their actual application to nature. (Scientific theories can be wrong, whereas artwork can only be more or less successful.) There is a pleasure akin to aesthetic experience simply in exercising the mind along such avenues of thought."

What is your meaning of the word 'wonderful' for such Wonderland type concepts?

"From another temporal perspective, revealed here by stroboscopic camera, a 10,000th or 20,000th of a second is a microcosm. Within that eyeblink is all this stability, this structure, this much fascinating detail. The gradual transfer of energy; the slow, complex interplay of mechanical forces; gravitation; angular momentum; surface tension. Every second that ticks past is composed of slivers such as these, in each of which nature is faithfully creating what Darwin, in the biological sphere, called "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful.""

As Tom has repeatedly made clear, this is all for free. Now from me: It is called self-organization because scientists cannot explain organization.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 22:36 GMT
Sure they can. Organization is order with feedback.

Of course, now you'll demand to know what "is" is. And then you'll want to know what the isness of isness means.

Sure.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 28, 2011 @ 22:43 GMT
Tom,

Your non-answer does not pass by me for free. Feedback cannot be feedback without prior organization. There is no purpose to feedback unless there is purpose already existing for that which receives the feedback. Either everything has purpose or nothing has purpose. You do not explain purpose. You have no answer, and, your pretense at putting forward a 'scientific' answer is refuted by me. I refute it because I think that science should provide answers that make sense. Thank you for your unscientific input.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 11:09 GMT
You're welcome.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 01:39 GMT
I wonder how many dimensions it would take to model that.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 02:25 GMT
Nature is the best artist department:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-nanotechnolog
ists-lessons-nature.html


"Instead of trying to make perfect decisions based on imperfect information, the cell plays the odds with an important twist: it hedges its bets. Sure, most of the cells will place bets on the likely winner, but an important few will put their money on the long shot," Simpson said. "That is the lesson of nature, where a humble bacterial cell outperforms our best computer chips by a factor of 100 million, and it does this in part by being less than perfect."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 02:38 GMT
Lets please get something straight. The word 'Nature' does not address the origin of anything meaningful or creative. The word 'Nature' is a device of avoidance by those who wish to get the universe and its effects for free. Getting anything for free is unscientific. Nature, as presented to us by theoretical physics, is not a cause. Nature is the totality of effects resulting from an original cause that provides everything necessary for the universe to evolve and give birth to intelligent life. Theoretical physics has nothing to offer us with regard to either intelligence or life.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 10:50 GMT
James,

You've really had a bug under the saddle lately.

Intellectually we are at about a level of complexity that our biology reached a hundred million ears ago. That was what that link I posted was about. Even Lawrence, Tom and co. are bumping their heads on their own, very finite limitations.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 15:49 GMT
John,

That was a very interesting article. So the cell can out perform a computer chip by being less than perfect. The article was truly amazing. By extension, it suggests that developing a "perfect" physics model might be the wrong strategy toward achieving a significant scientific discovery: like the hyper-drive.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 16:11 GMT
John,

"Nature as a complex system hedges its bets in order to preserve as great a variety of metastable forms as possible." On breaking the time barrier, 4.9

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 17:08 GMT
Jason,

I think there are a lot of basic conceptual issues. For one thing, what is "perfect?" It is a very relativistic term. Physical reality is wholistic, while any model we can construct is reductionistic.

For cells, the binary code is good/bad, which is more of an analog scale, than the digital on/off our computers use, so a lot more information can be stored.

I realize...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 17:27 GMT
Tom,

I was going to try printing that out and taking it with me, on my various chores, but I would still get lost in it, so I'll have to consider it later.

I would though, like to rephrase your opening quote:

"The shortest path between two truths in the real domain passes through the complex domain."

The clearest view of the complex is from the extremes. Which is to say that what we perceive as fundamental truths are often tightly constrained and reductionistic views of the larger reality. To get from one such extreme to another, you must re-engage the larger reality.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 16:18 GMT
Telescopic observations change what would otherwise be expected, as they reduce the understanding generally as it relates thereto. Quantum mechanics has shown this observer related dependency/interactivity.

Natural and integrated experience is where to start in order to attain to the basics and fundamentals. Telescopic observations are [visually] DETACHED [relatively], and they are very much a creation of thought. They are leading us astray, as I have repeatedly witnessed.

The ability to fundamentally understand telescopic/astro. obs. is inherently limited (and contradictory as well).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 16:30 GMT
The more important picture here [that is lacking] is that we are becoming more inanimate. The desire to "outsmart" natural and integrated experience -- including the range and extensiveness of feeling in collective madness.

Dreams make thought more like sensory expereince in general. We are outsmarted in the dream. The collective efforts of the physicists -- like the creation of television as it relates to Maxwell's equations -- are making us more toxic, inanimate, excessively dream-like, and excessively unconscious.

Television is "outsmarting" the visiual experience, by making vision a creation of the mind. But look at how relatively primitive this experience is.

Aldous Huxley said: "Technology is just a faster way of going backwards."

Many of you physicists here need to really think about what you are doing, about how to truly advance yourselves and the mind. If you make experience significantly more inanimate, we become more inanimate; and this is already happening.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 20:34 GMT
Science must be empirically based. That means that science is the study of effects. Science must be clear about what it knows and what it does not know. Scince it has becomes ideological, it no longer is fully science. What science knows is: There are effects. Many of these effects are part of what appear to be different patterns. The presently unexplanable connection between patterns is ignored. Instead, scinetists invent different causes for what appear to them to be unrelated different patterns of effects. In the end, as the end has always been, no one knows what cause is. The best that science can hope to accomplish is to show that cause is singular: That there is only one cause, whatever cause may be. In the meantime, learning about effects is of great value to us. We learn the conditions under which those effects occur and, we recreate those conditions so that we may 'cause' those effects to occur as needed. Hopefully, the reader will recognize the complete lack of meaning in 'cause' even as I have used it here.

James

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 23:20 GMT
There are major problems with theoretical phyiscs. One obvious problem is that theoretical physics exists for the reason of explaining cause. Emprical physicists tell us valuable informaton about the effects and behavior of the universe. What is it that causes theoretical physicists to embrace the belief that theoretical physics explains cause. The answer is lack of understanding for unscientific reasons.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio replied on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 15:25 GMT
Physics is fundamentally/ultimately based upon force (or energy) as it relates to fundamental and stabilized distance in/of space. This balances attraction and repulsion. Inertia and gravity are only fundamentally and truly equivalent ONLY if they are at half strength. Balance and completeness go hand-in-hand, and balances relates to the middle.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 21:31 GMT
John,

Since this is a physics website, I can't think of a more important obstacle to overcome than that of generating gravity using light. Questions like "what is the meaning of life?" are for each person to solve for themselves. A majority of intellectuals despise religion because they can't get proof on demand. Depending upon where you go, there are atheists who spit upon believers. In fact, in our civilization, belief has become synonymous with being stupid. And yet, we are better off having only fleeting encounters with the supreme being, and other forces. A little bit goes a long way. Too much, and we become wild eyed zealots or lose interest in the physical world altogether. I'm not a fan of atheist flavored intellectualism. The most knowledgeable of people who can spew forth facts to disprove God have demonstrated the lowest standards of qualify of life. I've encountered people (physforum.com.,...) who have gorged themselves upon the tree of knowledge of good (they would say naive or stupid) and evil. Such intelligence has mutated into grotesque trollish monsters who creep and slither through their polluted marsh.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 01:55 GMT
Jason,

It's all in the journey. The end is just punctuation and a new journey takes over.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 04:00 GMT
John,

In a hyper-drive, it's a really quick journey. :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 10:39 GMT
Jason,

Without motion, nothing exists. With motion, nothing exists forever.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


B^2 wrote on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 23:34 GMT
"There is something important in his dark cartwheel of water, suddenly frozen out and made permanent before us. Something having to do with the appreciation of time."

I like that Shinichi Maruyama an artist who captures moments was able to photograph "a dark cartwheel of water" that is itself the symbol enso, an expression of the moment. I found that connection very beautiful, well done William.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Apr. 29, 2011 @ 23:48 GMT
The art aspect is fine. Why wouldn't it be? But the percieved wonderfulness of theory is not: (Scientific theories can be wrong, whereas artwork can only be more or less successful.) I love the scientific visual effects of the operation of the universe. The empirical examples of this are of value to artists and, very sadly to say, to theorists. I say very sadly, becuase the role of thoeretical physics is to pretend that those artful pictures tell us somethjing more than patterns of effects.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

B^2 replied on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 00:49 GMT
James,

Your comment makes you sound like a philistine. Was that your intent? This article was wonderful because it was full of creative symbolism.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 23:30 GMT
B^2,

"Your comment makes you sound like a philistine. Was that your intent? This article was wonderful because it was full of creative symbolism."

It did refer to theory also. To be honest, I just now checked to read messages, and this one is unfamiliar to me. I knew I said something, but the wording seems foreign. I can only think that I probably skimmed the article more than read it. I wrote too fast. It must have been the references to theoretical ideas that I find to be strange that they are a part of serious science. However, I am not a physicist and the article was about art. I think the article is very well written and even communicates an emotional response of appreciation for that which we easily observe, but, especially for that which we can only now observe. Anyway, I retract that message. Whatever my point was intended to be, it was out of place here. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 01:07 GMT
Dear William , I enjoyed your post. Especially your thought provoking consideration of the subjective experience of different time scales. Energy or continuous material-spatial change itself is so important for scientists to consider,imo. It doesn't exist in the space-time model.

The art work transmits a sense of unbroken flow, natural pattern, potential becoming actualized in form. Which as you pointed out is also reflected in Japanese calligraphy. It is beautiful and has, whether intentional or not, a spiritual connection.

From Tao, the water course way by Alan Watts,1975.

...Tao is the flowing course of nature and the universe:li is its principle order which , following Needham we can best translate as "organic pattern" ;and water is its elegant metaphor.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 12:22 GMT
Now suppose these images are taken in incredibly short time periods. Further, suppose the medium for photography is not optical photons, but rather X-rays or gamma rays. This is in order to capture very short time intervals shorter than ħ/ΔE = 1/Δω. The ripples on the water are water waves with a certain momentum or wavelength. We might then ponder whether this flash photography would result in some uncertainty in measuring the momentum of the waves on the water. The momentum of the waves is given by the wavelength, which means there would be some noncommutative coordinate uncertainty in taking such photographs.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 21:49 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Thinking about your suggestion of rapid rate of shooting the images and very fine definition due to use of small wavelength em...

There is no clear line drawn between continuation of form and new actualization from potential. So with a smaller time interval (and wavelength) wouldn't there just be less new actualization and more continuation of form the previous form? So greater similarity to previous image?I suppose if the change is small enough it just won't be measurable by us but still exists at a smaller scale than we can discern with our measuring instruments. Giving some uncertainty.

The photos would look much the same but if put in sequence and then photos are selected at larger intervals from the sequence the differences may be apparent...If you play spot the difference. There may also be things going on that just can't be appreciated with visible light alone. Which could be interesting for artist or scientist.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 1, 2011 @ 02:08 GMT
My main point is that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would creep into the picture. The ripples are a form of water wave, and measuring those in such small intervals of time with particles to within the uncertainty principle poses some interesting questions.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on May. 1, 2011 @ 03:49 GMT
This is observing the macroscopic manifestation from the reflection, interception and interpretation of of em radiation, which is an image reality not a probability wave function for an unobservable particle or an unobserved object reality. However I agree about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle applying here.

In a single static image the position of a particle could theoretically be determined (or could be represented by a coloured polystyrene bead in the water) if the shutter speed is fast enough to completely freeze the image.However the change of position is required for calculation of momentum. It is not possible to know position and momentum simultaneously because the change allowing momentum to be calculated has to be either spread across more than one image or the position on a single image is blurred over a sequence of positions.

If momentum is calculated from a single image, position is blurred. If position is known from a single image it does not contain the necessary information by itself for momentum to be calculated, but another image is also required.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 16:25 GMT
REQUIREMENTS OF A FINAL THEORY:

I am going to give you some excellent advice so that you may improve, broaden, and consolidate your ideas.

1) Physics is fundamentally/ultimately based upon force (or energy) as it relates to fundamental and stabilized distance in/of space. This truly balances attraction and repulsion. This is key to unifying physics generally.

ULTIMATELY, distance in/of space must be equivalent with force/energy in keeping with space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic/inertia energy.

2) Inertia and gravity are fundamentally and truly equivalent ONLY if they are at half strength. Balance and completeness go hand-in-hand, and balance relates to the middle.

3) Combine and include opposites -- as this is a requirement of any truly unified understanding of physics.

4) Quantum gravity requires that opposites be combined and balanced. Inertial and gravitational equivalency fundamentally balances attraction and repulsion and fundamentally stabilizes and balances distance in/of space in conjunction with space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic/inertial energy. Quantum gravity requires that space be both visible and invisible, in a balanced fashion. Here we unify gravity and electromagnetism. Quantum gravity requires that space be flattened/contracted AND stretched/expanded in keeping with balanced attraction and repulsion and gravitational/inertial equivalency.

5) Invisible and visible space must be merged and balanced in keeping with balanced attraction and repulsion in order to fundamentally stabilize and balance distance in/of space inertially and gravitationally so that electromagnetism and gravity may be unified.

6) Inertia and gravity must be fundamentally equivalent in order to truly unify gravity and electromagnetism.

7) There is a reduced ability to understand astronomical/telescopic observations BECAUSE they are creations of thought. Try to understand this in relation to both television and dream vision.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 18:25 GMT
TV is an advanced or accelerated form or experience of art.

Similarly, photographs are slices of space and time that are necessarily and essentially related the flattening of space in/as dream experience.

Acoordingly, dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general, thereby improving memory and the understanding.

The danger, however, of modern physics is that experience is becoming more inanimate (and with it ourselves) by thoughtfully reconfiguring or replacing sensory experience -- including the range and extensiveness of feeling thereof.

Our belief that it is best to, and that we can, generally "outsmart" experience is our undoing. Our experience is becoming excessively dream-like, unconscious, and inanimate -- as evidenced by television and its effects.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


uncle Tom wrote on May. 4, 2011 @ 04:58 GMT
Do you want a puzzle? The electric and magnetic fields are made of virtual photons. The photon is made of electric and magnetic fields. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on May. 4, 2011 @ 10:38 GMT
And here's a puzzle for you: An electric field propagates perpendicular to a magnetic field (thus the electromagnetic field is unified). Which came first: right, left, up or down?

Then answer, which came first: positive or negative?

Neither photons, chickens or eggs are as fundamental as the field.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

uncle Tom replied on May. 4, 2011 @ 16:07 GMT
T H Ray,

Positive or negative - quantum mechanics is RANDOM, therefore this information is hiden by uncertainty principle. But my question is more important; the ortodox physics tells us that the magnetic field is made of virtual photons. And the virtual photon is made of electric and magnetic field. How we can understand it? Inside of every virtual photon exists a lot of small virtual photons that performs the function of electromagnetic field?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 6, 2011 @ 23:28 GMT
:) I love your questions Uncle Tom, yes many many small little photons with their informations everywhere and with many bizare properties , and as that after they shall invent with these small virtual photons a time machine because the recursives series says that.

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on May. 6, 2011 @ 23:48 GMT
Tom,

The property interpreted theoretically as electric charge is not random or indefinable or negative or positive. Ridiculous? Well consider the fact that you do not know what electric charge is. For you, it is one of those freebies that dot your theoretical landscape. The electric 'field' and the magnetic 'field' are joined because they are not fields; they, are properties that pertain directly to the nature of photons. Photons are not fields. They are objects of the universe. So, what could possibly be the physical basis for ideas of positive and negative charge. The answer is that: Mass is the origin of polarity. I am not saying that mass is the origin of charge. I am saying that: Mass is the origin of polarity. Since physicists do not know what mass is, then, it is understandable that you would not know this. And, since physicists do not know what charge is: It is understandable that you would not know this. Afterall, theory rules right? Wrong! The universe is not theoretical.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on May. 4, 2011 @ 16:54 GMT
Quantum mechanics isn't random. Quantum events are random. Photons are self interacting. And virtual photons don't resemble classical particles.

Again, the field is the fundamental.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on May. 5, 2011 @ 03:15 GMT
Thanks William

I was not aware of this wonderful work. I enjoyed your blog because it touched on several aspects of my own experience and work. Maruyama's photos record spontaneous 'Zen calligraphy' brush-strokes in 3D space frozen in time. It can be seen as a type of 'drawing in space' as in my mechanical three-dimensional drawing instruments (3DD) developed in the days before the personal computer. You refer to a link between physics and art in the eighties. Leonardo Journal has published many interesting articles at the intersection of science, technology and art. I was involved in Leonardo as an International co-editor for the Middle East for a few years in the mid-eighties.

As a non-academic physicist as well as a practicing artist in watercolors I cannot help saying that the links between physics and art are tenuous in many of the creative workaday aspects of the two fields. I benefit from the intuitive creative passion and sense of beauty that art encourages when thinking about how Nature might work, but that is as far as the influence of my art on my physics goes. On the other hand a training in physics is helpful in the process of disciplined thinking that is sometimes needed in dealing with technical and aesthetic questions that crop up while making artworks.

Nevertheless I gave my physics theory an 'artistic' name Beautiful Universe and my training in the graphic arts certainly helped me illustrate it! Finally fqxi readers may be interested in a fascinating book that discovers historical parallels between art movements and physics theories: Art and Physics. Also in what I feel are significant forays into physics by sculptor and photographer Kenneth Snelson .

Best wishes to all from Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 8, 2011 @ 20:58 GMT
On the topic of art and science, I have to comment that the science fiction movie industry is stuck in a rut; there are about a million scifi movies about alien viruses, alen monsters, alien clowns, body snatchers and evil aliens in general. There was one B- movie I was fortunately warned about; the alien spaceships were made out of human brains. I can guarantee that alien spaceships are not made out of human brains. I'm guessing that science fiction writers don't read blogs for new ideas. But if they did, here are a few of mine.

Alien hyper-drives and gravity field generators are elaborate constructions of lasers and optics that induce gravitational curvature by exploiting the, as yet not discovered refresh rate. There is a naturally occurring refresh rate for the physics implementation field. By generating frequency shift photons at a rate comparable to the refresh rate, a gravity field generator can overcome gravity.

Galactic corporations have placed the first Galactic Adventure Mall in orbit around the sun, opposite to the earth. It has to be out of sight because human governments are not willing to sign galactic treaties without leadership from the United States. Without such treaties, the sale of galactic patented products is illegal. However, there are other attractions at the Galactic Adventure Mall.

For Sale: Hyper-drive starter kit. Comes with three lasers of equally spaced frequencies; and a 1MHz demultiplexer that steps between each frequency. The beams are combined using a prism. A simple optical system produces a cone of light that curves space-time.

Come visit the Galactic Adventure Cantina, popular hangout for women seeking love from across the galaxy.

For sale: magnetic sand. Magnetic sand is used on the outer hull of spaceships. Given the harsh conditions of interstellar travel, magnetic sand can stop tiny high velocity meteorites from penetrating the hull. Magnets prevent the magnetic sand from floating away. If a smooth outer hull appearance is important to you (more important then toxicity levels) than a barrel of magnetic mercury can be mixed in for a very small fee.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on May. 9, 2011 @ 08:00 GMT
For a contrary opinion of the value and reason for human space travel see "Dark side of the Moon. The magnificent madness of the American Lunar quest" By Gerard De Groot 2007. "Caustic, absorbing and astute" Observer.

The final 3 sentences in that book are..

"The moon voyage was the ultimate ego trip. Hubris took America to the moon, a barren , soulless place where humans do not belong and can not flourish. If the voyage has had any positive benefits at all, it has reminded us that everything good resides on Earth."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on May. 9, 2011 @ 10:39 GMT
Georgina,

It seems that the space station also falls in that category, as quite a number of scientist think the money and effort would have been far more productive using robotic means.

I think some of this, at a fundamental level, has to do with the intellectual dominance of the linear left brain, over the non-linear right brain. I think the evolutionary function of the right brain is to evaluate context, while the function of the serial left brain is to navigate a path through that context. Since our cause and effect rationality is an effect of left brain thinking, we tend to project much further along the path than our non-linear thought processes could ever reasonably fathom, given the exponential increase in potential information with every moment. The practical result is that we are destroying the health of that non-linear environment in order to project as far as we can. Not only as individuals do we obsess over financing our entire lives by draining resources from these very lives in order to perpetuate the global financial ponzi scheme and creating the enormous economic hurricane about to topple much of society, but to the extent we have learned to cooperate, it is also in various linear "pipe" dreams that are supposed to take us to some religious, national or corporate promised land.

All the while laying complete waste to the only viable environment we will ever know. It would be sort of ironically funny, if it wasn't so moronically pathetic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 9, 2011 @ 12:53 GMT
John,

The whole Einstein quote is "People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

I think he said it on the occasion of his friend Michel Besso's funeral. Einstein knew that personal distinctions are just that, and not of the objectively physical world.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on May. 9, 2011 @ 17:33 GMT
Tom,

At some level, we are all as separate as fingers on a hand.

Sometimes though, one hand isn't quite sure what the other is doing.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 11, 2011 @ 14:19 GMT
John,

I don't know what that means.

I do know, though, that we only describe information flow from past to future as a matter of convention, and we can as easily reverse the direction as a matter of convention. I said in my ICCS 2007 paper : "1.3.8 Consider some arbitrarily chosen future state space as the initial condition -- consider the present state as chaotic. We would find that this model is dual to the second law of thermodynamics -- energy flow toward disorder -- because what we perceive as movement toward a future state is exactly the same as the future state movement toward the present. We already know that we choose the present state only by convention; what would be the difference, though, if we reversed the convention? Does this reversal of the time arrow commute? -- we shall see that it does not commute, the consequence of which is that change driven by a physical interpretation of time increases the availability of useful information (i.e., the potential for negative feedback) in the present state, from the future. Positive feedback informs the future state."

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on May. 11, 2011 @ 17:40 GMT
Tom,

Keep in mind that it is past events which evolve into future ones. You can't really "pick" a time in the future, without having that multitude of possibilities which the current reality could develop into. The problem is the underlaying process is non-linear, so trying to model it as linear does create serious conceptual problems. You lose information as well as gain it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 13, 2011 @ 19:28 GMT
So order is constantly receding into the past, as the future emerges from chaos.

Which creates the impression that the structure of reality is only falling apart, thus entropy increases and usable energy, ie. what we can control, is decreasing.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on May. 13, 2011 @ 20:50 GMT
John,

You've given us another sound bite, that sounds good but does not precisely explain what is happening.I've already questioned the meaning of "recede into the past" but when you say "order is constantly receding into the past" I must question that too. A lot of order seems to be retained over time. The great red spot of Jupiter is an example of something persisting amid chaos. But many forms go from experienced present to experienced present seemingly unchanged at the macroscopic scale. The new forms that are actualized and manifest may be subtle or gross alterations of existing forms building up or wearing away structure, such as developing patterns in sand dunes, the development of living organisms, or a river carving out its course, not a continual new beginning morphed entirely out of energy and the chaos of numerous influencing variables.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on May. 13, 2011 @ 22:34 GMT
I should have mentioned not just building up and wearing away of structures but also changes of position of structures, such as translations and rotations. Development of human face, video and BBC article

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on May. 14, 2011 @ 02:11 GMT
Georgina,

Any system or structure which gains more energy than it loses will grow and vice versa.

The great red spot on Jupiter is some form of vortex or gyre, which would mean its form is a function of gravitational pressures and how that affects material of different consistencies and and temperatures.

So there is a balance between the expansionary energies pushing out, vibrating, etc. and those forces of attraction pulling them together and all the varied forms which emerge from the interactions.

Einstein originally proposed that gravity would cause space to collapse to a point and is was to maintain stability that he proposed the cosmological constant. As far as I know and Tom will likely correct me, this idea of gravity causing space to a point was the original inspiration for "the" singularity.

Stephen Hawking proposed the expansion of the universe as a primary arrow of time. This presumed expansion is a function of energy, singularity, inflation, dark, whatever.

So these are effectively opposing arrows of time; That of mass falling inward and that of energy expanding outward. Obviously and in fact, they co-exist.

As I've mentioned before, the present moves from past to future events, as these events go from being in the future to being in the past.

I think these two processes, that of collapsing mass/expanding energy and the two directions of time are ultimately the same. There is a very large conceptual issue this raises though. As I pointed out above, to the extent structure fades over time, it is due to loss of constituent energy. Greater entropy and less usable energy. When mass falls into gravity wells though, it is assumed to simply get ever more dense. Yet many gravitational systems do radiate away a lot of energy and it does seem that whatever eventually falls into the "blackhole" at the center of a galaxy gets either radiated or jetted out the poles. There is much to unravel, as to the relationship between gravity and light.

Something to think about.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 14, 2011 @ 20:39 GMT
The ultimate and required understanding of physics combines and includes opposites.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 14, 2011 @ 20:42 GMT
The flattening of space -- to attain gravitational and inertial balancing and equivalency -- requires balanced attraction and repulsion and energy/force that is equivalently expressed as distance.

Quantum gravity requires that distance in/of space be expressed in a fashion that is gravitationally and inertially equivalent.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 14, 2011 @ 20:45 GMT
Georgina,

You said, "IMO There is only space and the matter and energy in space changing universal position and arrangement. Not spread across time but in a singular time, which is always singular. Nothing comes from the past or the future or goes to the past or the future."

I pretty much agree with your view, although I may have left out 'universal' in the above; it's hard to define and brings up something like Mach's principle that "a particle's inertia is due to some (unspecified) interaction of that particle with all the other masses in the universe...".

The C-field circulation associated with local momentum provides another view of local inertia (a measure of locality) and Peter's ideas provide a (related) conception of local reference frames.

You continue, "Instead I think we should talk of what was and what will be. "What was" is in records [NOW]. "What will be" is nothing but potential etc. That gets rid of the ambiguity of those temporal terms that belong only to space-time models and psychological interpretations of reality based on imagination and memory."

I think your focus on Now is the appropriate focus. Past and future are ideas.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on May. 15, 2011 @ 00:13 GMT
Edwin,

thank you for your appraisal, much appreciated. OK- Re universal, I mean changing its position in the -object universe-. Not just changing position according to arbitrary observer perspective of the image.(I also didn't mention particles and the medium but that was just shorthand rather than writing out a comprehensive list. I think John knows my opinion on that.)

If a body is interacting with the environment and that environment interacts with all other matter and fermion particles in the object universe then Mach is probably close.Starting the body moving and stopping it moving are alterations of object's object-universal trajectory. I think inertia is due to the extra energy required to change object-universal trajectory through that environment or medium. At great speed the harder it is to alter the trajectory, so inertia increases, which would be observed as increasing mass. But there is no object-universal trajectory in space-time only an observer's viewpoint of the motion from a certain reference frame. Which is why it has been overlooked, imo.

Edwin I think "Now", as in objective uni-temporal Now is very important indeed. Thank you for appreciating its significance.It is not the experienced present and has not been recognized in physics being confused with ideas about the future, time travel and arrows of time.I do not know how to effectively focus on it in isolation from all of the other connected ideas. As you can see from the diagram I posted its all connected.

Regarding the C-field I am unsure whether you are putting forward the C-field as something observed, (you have mentioned experimental evidence of it) and thus related to experienced space-time or as something that exists unobserved in object reality, the environmental disturbance associated with local momentum. (Which I have also talked about, but not in the same sort of language. Incidentally I did like the description of waves interacting that came up in your discussion with Peter.) You have said you can derive Schroedinger equation from the C-field. Which might make it an unobserved reality giving the potential for change. So it seems to me that you are saying that it is both. However the observed C-field would be a product of the unobserved objective C-field, not identical. Please put me right if I have misunderstood and clarify for me which it is, or whether there is any mathematical difference that you have included between the C-field in space-time and the C-field in uni-temporal object reality ie how do you mathematically change the C-field between the different models of reality?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on May. 15, 2011 @ 04:06 GMT
Georgina,

I assumed you had something in mind for 'universal' and I think "changing its position in the -object universe-" is about as well as it could be stated. I like that.

I agree that 'Now' doesn't seem to be widely recognized by the physics community, though I assume the fqxi 'Nature of Time' essays treated it. I haven't read them all. I suspect 'Now' as a universal phenomenon...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on May. 16, 2011 @ 21:45 GMT
Edwin,

thank you. Its good to know when I have said something clearly.

Yes I agree, if the space-time model is accepted as a good model of reality it seems to refute the possibility of a uni-temporal Now. However as the diagram on my essay thread shows it is possible to have both without contradiction. How that is possible is the important bit,imo.

I would expect a mass in motion to have a field associated with it. It can't pass through the medium without having some kind of affect upon it.It seems you have two different mathematical descriptions relating to the two different realities of the C-field. One the mathematical description of the effect observed in space-time, the effect being identified as the field and the other the source of the observed field, your particle plus wave described mathematically. Two realities, what is and what is observed is how it should be for something real, imo. So I like that. Being able to take into account the affects of various fields should also be very helpful in modeling causality and so being able to make predictions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on May. 18, 2011 @ 20:27 GMT
It occurs to me that perhaps the world isn't ready for gravity field generators. The ability to lift and move millions of metric tons of cargo around the world and into space would be lead us to unimagined levels of economic growth and wealth. But at the same time, it would allow governments to move millions of metric tons of military hardware around the world very quickly. The ability to rage war anywhere in the world would suddenly become easy for many nations.

The unavoidable conclusion appears to be that the human race needs to evolve more spiritually before such advanced technology can be introduced.

The logical mind cannot see the value of spirituality until it is faced with the ultimate fruits of efforts: war.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 25, 2011 @ 18:56 GMT
F=ma ultimately indicates combined and included opposites as balanced/equivalent inertia and gravity/acceleration in conjunction with balanced attraction and repulsion. This gives us quantum gravity, and HALF strength/force gravity and inertia, with balanced attraction and repulsion in keeping with the MIDDLE distance in/of space.

These are the definitive theoretical requirements for unifying/balancing inertia, gravity, and electromagnetism -- and for giving us quantum gravity as well.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 25, 2011 @ 19:03 GMT
Vision begins invisibly (AND gravitationally) inside the body/eye. Vision (and full gravity) end with the earth and feet.

We must combine, enjoin, and balance invisible and visible space in order to balance gravity, electromagnetism, and inertia in conjunction with MIDDLE FORCE/ENERGY AND MIDDLE DISTANCE IN/OF SPACE.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on May. 25, 2011 @ 19:16 GMT
I missed a few weeks because of travel and even wasted a few of those moments posting a couple of messages elsewhere. It's good to be home.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lev Goldfarb wrote on May. 25, 2011 @ 21:55 GMT
Hello everyone, including William, ;-)

I would like to run by you one really, really crazy book I started to write and get your initial impression, *especially about its readability*. Its title is "Redoing Our Science: Integrating Mind Into the Universe".

It goes without saying that all your comments are greatly appreciated.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on May. 27, 2011 @ 10:04 GMT
Lev

Some brilliant stuff there, and important points, though I admit I had to speed read most, due to time, so will have missed much nuance. My comments;

1. Readability; Writing Style fine and organisation seemed ok, but could be crisper, and I felt more subheadings would help, to 'package each punch'.

2. Most will need far more convincing and examples of why the present system is inadequate. The 60% here may drops to 6% out there!

3. I'm a little worried about the flip side of 'Classes' and think you need to make it clearer that it is not forcing things into categories but perhaps 'identifying similarities' and things may overlap classes.

4. For the BIG issue and result I'd like to direct you towards classes of 'Inertial Frames'. It's emerged from the DFM that there are TWO basic classes, and only ONE is valid for measurement. I'll tack a short 'abstract' file on below. This agrees completely with your and Prigogie's view, and derives an even neater equation, but for time, than e=mc2! Which leads me to;

5. You will certainly still need a big splash success for anyone much beyond f&f to buy the book and take any note, however brilliant it is. You could have an 'each way' no lose bet on the 'inertial frame' class as your philosophy is fully compatible. Do read and see if you can now understand it from the abstract.

6.My view of the shortfall of present concepts and maths is it's inadequacy in dealing properly with just 3Dimensions let alone complete failure at motion. Yoou should particularly read the last reference to the attached file.

7. You may like a short glance at Shakunle transfigural maths (TfM) and 'Natural Inclusionality' A bit ethereal but extends some of your concepts. "L Shakunle and ADM Rayner 2009) Transfigural foundations for a new physics of natural diversity vari able inclusion of gravitational space in electromagnetic flow-form. Transfigural Maths 1 (2) 109-122"

8. I feel your diagrams should maybe represent something more 'real', i.e. not just almost amorphously similar shapes. Perhaps a 'catty' thing with 4 legs, etc? Our minds work best with pictures - we need to USE that important fact!

(try remembering 5 phone numbers, and then 5 pictures with similar density!).

I hope that all helps a little.

Best of luck

Peter

attachments: E_GUT_Abstract26511pj.doc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lev Goldfarb replied on May. 27, 2011 @ 19:20 GMT
Thank you very much, Peter!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Jun. 3, 2011 @ 02:08 GMT
Lev,

It's interesting to see, from your perspective as a professor of computer programing, how you perceive the limits of our computational processes.

I think that rather than rejecting the numerical paradigm, you would do well to dissect it first. As a neurological function, it isn't flawed, it is just one side of the fundamental dichotomy.

We are mobile organisms and as such our individual lives are a sequential series. So it is entirely logical that our primary concept of rationality is linear. The problem is that the larger reality is profoundly non-linear and so it is our insistence on projecting this very useful conceptual system beyond its applicability which causes us these myriad problems.

Even the insistence that space is "three dimensional" is an example of this myopia. Dimensions are linear projections, so we are defining the non-linear volume of space to a reductionistic three projections of linearity. In reality this just locates the focal point of the grid. It no more captures the reality of space than longitude, latitude and altitude capture the essence of this planet.

Biologically, you might say the linear is the organism and non-linearity is the ecosystem. Newton said "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." What he failed to mention is that while any action is defined by its linearity, or else it would be a multitude of actions, the reaction is fundamentally non-linear. Move you finger through water and the water reacts by moving out of the way and filling in behind your finger. The result is the same volume of water, as of your finger, moving in the opposite direction, yet there is no defined linearity to it. It is simply a process of displacement.

The fact is that the right side of our brain, the intuitive, emotional side, is designed to be non-linear. That's why we cannot seem to explain it in clear, rational, linear terms. It is like a thermostat to the sequential clock of our left brain. The reactive compilation of the multitude of stimulation.

So don't get rid of the numeric sequence. Put it in context. Allow those who would never question the viability of their sequential logic to see its function in the larger reality. Let them understand why, no matter how far the sequence goes, it will always be just one tread in an infinite tapestry, not a string following the path of the ultimate rope. No less important, but far more subjective.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on May. 25, 2011 @ 22:44 GMT
What makes thought fundamentally more like sensory experience in general?

Here is where the unified understanding of physics is found.

The ultimate understanding of physics combines and includes opposites.

The body is fundamental to thought and physics. That is obvious.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on May. 25, 2011 @ 22:59 GMT
Home isn't just Colorado. Home is also fqxi.org

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on May. 25, 2011 @ 23:15 GMT
http://www.cs.unb.ca/~goldfarb/BOOK.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on May. 29, 2011 @ 06:37 GMT
I found an interesting video about black holes.

http://kotorac.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/the-black-hole
/

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jun. 8, 2011 @ 16:35 GMT
Emotion is manifest and differentiated as sensory experience and feeling. Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. Physics goes way beyond what is considered here at FQXi.org.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jun. 8, 2011 @ 17:28 GMT
Why would the force/energy that is responsible (and REQUIRED) for our growth, sensory experience, thought, and our [linked] becoming other that we are not remain with us? Indeed, dreams (including what I have demonstrated/proven about them) clearly prove that it does.

We originate at/from the center of the human body.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jun. 14, 2011 @ 23:00 GMT
Quantum gravity represents -- inasmuch as it is able to -- space as it is felt equivalently as it is seen. This means middle force/energy inertia and middle force/energy gravity as the middle distance in/of space. This is as fundamental as fundamental gets. LARGER AND SMALLER SPACE -- UNITY IN VARIETY.

Balanced attraction and repulsion.

Accordingly, quantum gravity means enjoining and balancing visible and invisible space in keeping with equivalent electromagnetism, gravity, and inertia (including balanced attraction and repulsion). Space then manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational/inertial energy.

I have fundamentally unified physics. OPPOSITES COMBINED, BALANCED, AND INCLUDED. ANYBODY GOT ANYTHING BETTER -- NO.

FQXi.org, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jun. 15, 2011 @ 00:58 GMT
What makes sensory experience in general fundamentally more like thought (in general) fundamentally extends and unifies physics. Dreams do this.

I HAVE GENERALLY AND FUNDAMENTALLY UNIFIED GRAVITY, INERTIA, AND ELECTROMAGNETISM -- INCLUDING QUANTUM GRAVITY IN KEEPING THEREWITH.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jun. 16, 2011 @ 17:01 GMT
In the experience of smaller and larger space, dreams involve balanced attraction and repulsion.

Can any of you even begin to counter my unification of physics? You don't even try.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jun. 22, 2011 @ 15:18 GMT
The natural (and typical/full as well) experience of reality/space is where the fundamental, extensive, linked, and intelligible understanding of physics is to be found. This includes dream experience, of course.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jun. 22, 2011 @ 15:39 GMT
You've seen all of my posts FQXi.org, and the growth of my ideas over time.

I have clearly unified gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism theoretically and actually as dream experience.

All of this will be published shortly, so lying about it and evading it isn't going to help you at all. It's all documented here. You're looking really bad on all of this.

Money/control/power/lies/business/physics as usual over truth FQXi.org?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 4, 2011 @ 01:34 GMT
Utterly brilliant 3D mapping projection onto on Mikailovsky Castle. I love this work. On many levels.

Here is an example of different facets of reality superimposed. The manifestation observed through the interception and processing of em data and what exists although we can not see it directly beneath the observed manifestation, the actualised concrete reality of the building. Its actualisation is absolutely necessary for the projection to be reflected and hence observed as a manifestation of reality. It is still there even when we are seeing something completely different. It is not the observation of the building that is giving it its reality. In this case the observed manifestation is not coming primarily from light passively reflected from the building but from the active projection of light onto it which is reflected.

About the artists and the Yota space festival.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Jul. 4, 2011 @ 09:30 GMT
More food for thought on reality. Does seeing really make something real or is what is seen a different facet of reality from what really exists unseen?

The material structure of the clock tower exists whether it is seen or not. The animated clock tower exists because the observer makes the received em data into the manifestation that is observed. Prague astronomic clock 3D mapping projection. Very impressive, rather long video clip.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jul. 4, 2011 @ 12:50 GMT
Georgina

Excellent videos. But you said; "..the observed manifestation is not coming primarily from light passively reflected from the building but from the active projection of light onto it which is reflected."

Scientifically there is no difference. It's all Raman scattering (in this case reflection) and there's no such thing as 'actively' or 'passively reflected', only that someone is choosing what light hits the reflective planes. - Which of course reinforces your point.

I went further in a recent paper - with the principle that we can only EVER see ANYTHING via scattering.

Light waves reaching our eye are scattered at the lens (refractive index n=1.38)

A light pulse passing us in space will be unseen without ions to scatter the new light waves to us, at c of course.

Now a question. If we move on the opposing vector, parallel with the pulse vector, will that make;

A) The light pulse pass through the ions any faster than c.?

B) The scattered light move sideways across space from the particles to your eye any faster than c?

If you consider this very carefully you may see how the Discrete Field Model proves that velocity addition is fine, and resolves one or two other problems in physics. Lorentz's "reservation" about it (1913) proves well founded.

Please do reply with your answers/guesses or any questions.

Thanks

Very Best regards.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dr. Cosmic Ray replied on Jul. 4, 2011 @ 16:10 GMT
Hi Peter,

Talking about art and science, Jonathan Dickau and I just published a paper that ties into the "donut" conversations that you and I had a couple of months ago. The math gets a little wierd (quaternions and octonions), but Figure 2 inspired me greatly, and I hope it inspires you as well.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 5, 2011 @ 16:09 GMT
Reality is the integrated/linked and natural extensiveness of being experience, thought, space, feeling, etc.

This is critical to truth and proper/full understanding in physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Best facts replied on Jul. 10, 2011 @ 02:28 GMT
Nature is so much smarter than man.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 6, 2011 @ 16:26 GMT
What is the fundamnetal nature of force/energy? That is a great question. Don't run, and look away, from the toughest questions and reality/nature FQXi.org. I am very hard/tough FQXi.org,, as you have learned and are learning.

Your credibility is seriously in question FQXi.org. That's clear.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 16:06 GMT
All of our thoughts are ultimately linked with the PHYSICAL experience of the HUMAN body. It is only because being and experience are ultimately inseparable that thought is so well matched/accurate in relation to/with experience.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 16:31 GMT
F=ma ultimately means constant force/energy in conjunction with balanced and equivalent inertia/resistance to acceleration and gravity/acceleration.

Dreams prove this. Dreams are the fundamental experience of the fundamental force/energy of physics. We originate at/from the center of the human body. Dreams are a linked center of body experience. I showed this.

FQXi.org, when are you going to acknowledge/admit to this?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 16:42 GMT
Modern physics, as is the case with televison, is in very primitive state actually.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 11, 2011 @ 16:46 GMT
Modern physics is in the business of making money, and not of making sense and truth. I proved that quite clearly with all of my FQXi.org posts.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Michael P. wrote on Dec. 8, 2011 @ 17:45 GMT
Another incredible Artist inspired by science and physics worthy of a look:

Alicia Hunsicker

She says of her 2011 paintings, "Originally evolving from the idea of a moment in time where thought is transformed into matter, these paintings capture not only the energy of creation but also decay. I am fascinated by nature's repeating patterns and see these forms as part of a cosmic language..."

Her blog:

www.aliciahunsicker.blogspot.com

attachments: Mana_force_28x51inches_oil_on_board_2011_Alicia_Hunsicker.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 1, 2012 @ 19:55 GMT
Reminds me of Dali and Man Ray.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


songjoong sdfsd df wrote on Dec. 27, 2017 @ 07:26 GMT
KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

Bookmark and Share
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.