|Posted on Thursday, March 26, 2009 - 01:09 pm: |
THE UNIVERSE IS SIMPLE
Anthology - by Ivan D. Alexander - and all who contributed to the Humancafe forums
Universum - 1888, Paris woodcut - C. Flammarion
"As you simplify your life, the laws of the universe will be simpler; solitude will not be solitude, poverty will not be poverty, nor weakness weakness." - Henry David Thoreau
Anyone can understand this. There is no mysterious cabal to how works the universe. We humans are programmed to understand things logically, simply. We also have the ability to complicate things with amazing complexity, like the vast pantheon of ancient gods ruling the Earth, or the multiplicity of Deistic beliefs; or the mathematical complexity of modern cosmology into a neo-Pantheism  explaining “all that is” in the universe. The Big Bang multi-dimensional Strings universe is unbelievably complex. But universal reality exists with absolute economy, where nothing is wasted or wanton, a whole of reality interrelated infinitesimally to incorporate all that is the infinity of existence in every thing that is: a universe thinking itself as Logos . The logic of the universe, from its constituent material parts to the evolution of life, is absolutely simple to understand once we find the keys to unlock its treasures. When taken as an interrelated whole, a wonderful quality of infinity-being comes together in a kind of emergence , where our understanding distills from its multiplicity of ideas into simple principles  operable across a whole spectrum of related ideas. We understand things because we see the connections in our minds as a complete whole. And it is for this reason we can all understand it, once we have the key. Otherwise, our understanding, theories, belief systems, become unbelievably complex, and flawed, where we believe things that are fantastic and improbable. This is a fallacy, because the universe is supremely economical in its internal organization, and thus sublimely simple to understand. What the Humancafe forums anthology helped us formulate, though never anticipated at its inception (1998) , is that the thinking of many minds drawing from vast resources can formulate in principle this simplicity to help us understand the universe. We did this by bringing our minds together. As these short pages will show, in principle, the Universe is surprisingly simple.
1. A BASIC PREMISE: Universal Constants
Energy in modern physics is always Energy , which means E=E in all its forms, such as kinetic energy, work energy, heat energy, or electromagnetic energy; including famous E=mc2 . This Energy equivalence also applies to the famous de Broglie E=hf equation, where Energy equals Planck's constant times electromagnetic frequency, the basis of Quantum physics. However, where all mechanical and electromagnetic energy may be interchangeable, gravity stands out as something different. Gravity may have more to do with inertial mass than electromagnetic energy , and in fact may prove to be inversely proportional. In effect, where today's Cosmology is based on Gravity as a universal constant, taken from Newton's gravitational constant G, and enhanced relativistically with Einstein's General Relativity mathematics; this universal constant may not be as now postulated, but is likely a variable constant, a constant on a curve .
This means some universal constants, which are measured and true in our region of space, may be variable elsewhere; in particular gravity's Newton G, which may be “constant” on a curve  with distance from our Sun or any hot star. Per force, this means the interaction within Quantum theory's E=hf and gravity theory  become paradoxical because they are both constants and variables. What this means in the end is that gravity is not a "universal constant" as now believed, but dependent inversely upon the Energy density where G is measured, so the universe may be "isotropic and homogenous" at gravity levels far greater than now assumed . This also means the atom is more than a positive charged proton-neutron nucleus with a negative electron shell, but is mass defined by the level of Energy received , inversely proportional. And that, as the Humancafe forum discussions showed, there is no cosmological need for Dark Energy, nor Dark Matter, if Newton's G is a variable. In the vast stretches of deep space, far from hot energy, G is very high, perhaps five orders of magnitudes greater than measured on Earth, and the Dark Matter implied is dark gas and dust at higher G. The corollary to this is, taken as a line-of-sight 'tunnel' of light traveling through dark intergalactic dust, the distant photons traveling through this higher gravity arrive redshifted as observed. The redshift is at about the Hubble constant, and Einstein's universal constant  as predicted in General Relativity; but not from Doppler-like expansion of space, which changes everything: If gravity G is not a universal constant, then light traveling at c can bend and redshift as Einstein predicted, but observation of cosmic phenomena is gravitationally time-dilated by light c, not space expansion in flat-gravity G. Time, though an apparent variable observationally, nevertheless remains a universal constant . Time is time, no matter how we define it.
The immense complexity of a General Relativity universe, of a 13.7 billion years old Big Bang origin, with Dark Matter halos around galaxies , very high gravity fast rotating stars, super massive galactic black holes, deep space hydrogen gas collapsing under high gravity into star combustion, extreme atmospheres for distant gas giants; all these begin to make sense in a variable G universe . They reduce to a simplicity where Einstein's relativity and Lorentzian transformation  are mathematically brilliant and useful observationally; but in a universe where G is variable and time is an artificially defined construct, time-dilated observations are merely relativistic (observation) formalism. The universal reality becomes immanently simple: Energy is still Energy, famous E=mc2 remains (modifiably) operable, but where Gravity was one of the four fundamental forces with electromagnetic Energy, it now stands apart as inversely proportional. This is an alternate universe model to the one understood today, one much simpler. And therefore the universe is not expanding space, because redshift of distant cosmic light is an optical illusion; and per Occam's razor  we are not the center of the observable universe, though we are the center of our own existence in it.
2. AN INTERRELATED REALITY: A Basic Premise of Reason
Once the universe is simplified, a new emergence comes forward to further simplify reality. The observational limitations from light c time-dilation no longer rule all universal phenomena. All of universal reality is now interconnected with a geometric instantaneity, a superluminal interrelationship* capable of spanning infinity instantaneously. Same as gravitational potentials are infinite (there are no gravitons traveling at light c, for gravitational potential is felt infinitely and instantaneously), so all of reality is interconnected in real time , and it is all totally logical. Quantum entanglement communicates at near infinite distances, so all reality is interconnected . Within this infinitely interconnected universal reality emerges the phenomenon of Life, which itself is nearly infinitely interrelated to its universe through a continuous line of living beings, both externally as Being and internally as Consciousness . Within this external and internal interrelationship interconnectivity the mind forms another emergent quality, that of personal Identity, which is what our consciousness defines within itself: We are the Who of being human in All that Is . Superluminal information is what holds together an infinite interrelationship of nearly instantaneous communications , within a universal reality not constrained by limiting light c information, but holding together as a whole totality known as each thing's identity. For us that Identity is known to us in the mind  as our mind consciousness. In a simple universe, we exist to bring fulfillment to consciousness , this "Who I am" that is for each our identity. We each living thing are interconnected infinitely into the fabric of all existence infinitesimally, at every level of our existence. What we dream, search for, what we love, is all what we were born to do; it is also how the universe connects with us personally: This is Who we are  at all levels of existence.
It is for our reason , our critical thinking, to unlock the keys of the universe that will enable us to reach our full human potential as wholly conscious human beings, both personally and globally. In a simple universe, this key is simple and understandable for each one of us, as the three keys of reason: subjective, objective, and universal . The last “universal” is still formative for us, where an idea is self defined to think itself from its interrelated totality. What it says, simply, is that the conscious human mind is infinitely connected of necessity to its Identity in the universe, and that mind has a right to be Who  he or she is. This is a fundamental definition of human Freedom , that we have a right to be ourselves, the Who we are.
3. PRINCIPLES OF A CONSCIOUS UNIVERSE: Our Interrelated Being
The "Who we are" of universal reality exists at both points of the interrelated Cosmos , at the infinite of "All that Is"  and the individual person, our Who. Together, our interrelated reality works as one with us, when certain principles of mind and identity are observed: That we are truthful with one another in all things , and are mutually respectful equally. All reality "knows" itself instantaneously both within our being and that of all others around us. But reality can only work with us in truthfulness; it fails when we either deceive or are deceived. Either we are conscious of our universe and work with it, or we are unconscious and suffer without its consciousness. This is the Opus Rex  of our universal existence built on the principles of Existence, Belief, and our Social Reality. When we work together truthfully and with care for one another, as a work of service to ourselves and fellow human beings, we bring forth another emergence from the universal reality: a society globally conscious of itself . And that propels us into a planetary consciousness future we have yet to experience, perhaps in ways most surprising to us . As we reach out into infinity, in a simple universe, infinity reaches out to us at the same time. To respect all of existence, all life, and all of each other's humanity, our Who, is paramount to our working with a universal reality working with us: Each one of us, and every living thing, is a separate and unique identity, a whole universe due respect, within this infinite interrelatiionship reality. This is how we must interact, and is how our being in freedom with mutual respect of each other's humanity creates the universal consciousness in our earthly reality. When achieved, this consciousness is that which empowers us to seek our supreme potential as a human species.
These are the Principles  of a Conscious Universe, conscious of itself in us. We had done it before, with great leaps forward in human consciousness: a paradigm shift emergence of new understanding, a new public awareness that changes the world's belief systems , not always for the best. We as a human species in search of consciousness will falter, but ultimately as we had always done, we will move forward in time. This is our destiny, to become in our being the fullest manifestation of universal consciousness, our being interrelated into the Being of a universe conscious of itself. But this can be achieved only if human beings are allowed their freedom  to pursue this, to be truly Who we are. This is the greatest reason why we must have Freedom as a condition of our existence - each one of us to reciprocally be Who we are - to become fully human in Universal Consciousness - in a universal Life, a universal Love consciousness. This is all Habeas Mentem.
Imagine a world without war . This is the threshold of emergence, to reach that next level of our human consciousness, both personally and globally. We must obey certain basic principles of human freedom, or we remain locked in a regressive cycle of conflicts, of social-unconsciousness immaturity, of violence and abuse, and tyranny of mind. In our present state we are like galactic orphans unconscious of the great simplicity of a conscious universe alive with Life, so stumble in a darkness of pantheistic illusions, unaware the universe is already designed for us to grow within it. All we need do is reach out with our minds and deeds, through intellect, both mind and soul, in a healthy body, and the Universe will open its infinite eye upon us. All human ideologies reduce down to the simplest, because we are already pre-designed to know this: Seek with joy and personal fulfillment a universal Consciousness designed as the very fabric of total existence, of Who you are. We are of necessity a part of that design because we have a mind. When we choose to reach for that universal Mind, we will usher in a millennium of exploring our God Consciousness, if we will it. All we need do is reach for it, be curious and be surprised. In a universe infinitely interconnected through an interrelationship reality capable of producing life and mind, this is Who we are as a human species. It is that large, and that simple.
FOOTNOTES, from Humancafe forums:
 Pantheism is still with us in the current belief systems
 Universe thinking itself as Logos
 Quantum foam 'Emergence'
 Concepts, misconceptions, and Principles of Belief
 The People's Book archives
 Energy equation revisited
 E=9E+16J atomic mass paper (Axiomatic Eq)
 The Modern Universe in G -flat- or is it curved?
 Variable G paper
 Quantum Theory made 'easy'
 Mining 'deep space' gravity
 The Atom, what is it exactly?
 Cosmological constant, Hubble constant, Doppler redshift
 The Woo-woo Universe of Dr. Who
 Modified Gravity? Maybe 'variable G' too?
 In Principia Gravitas
 Time-dilation may be a function of electromagnetic information
 Missing piece of the puzzle on Variable G
 Is Reason a Good Tool?
 Squared-circle in 'real' time
 Unlocking the secret of God Consciousnes
 Each One of Us, Conscious
 Faster than light 'entanglements'
 Does "random" really exist?
 To Bring Fulfillment to Consciousness
 Who answers to 'who'?
 Teaching Critical Thinking
 Three keys of reason: Objective, Subjective, and Universal
 Be True to your Cosmic space
 Five basic Human Principles of Freedom
 Universal Computer -the Cosmos
 The Idea: All that Is
 The Given Word: Who we are
 Opus Rex - the Love of God and Humanity
 A Society Conscious of Itself
 Writing letters to the Aliens
 Principle as a rule
 World Belief systems, and sudden leaps
 The Reason of Freedom, as an inalienable right
 On the Axiology of War
*(Totality interrelationship reverses universal entropy, why we have Life.)
In these four short pages (with forty references, under three thousand words), we can see the universe is simple, but only on condition there is no war: no coercions, no abuse of the human spirit, no enslavement; but rather have the universe work simply on the principles of truth, mind consciousness, and human decency towards one another, equally. Through the fractal nature of information, and universe, this discussion can stretch easily to a thousand times; the search for understanding our universal reality remains open ended, into infinity. Yet everyone can understand this because in the end its principles are simple. By scrolling up and down the referenced pages, valuable discussions amplify this short treatise, contributed by many fine minds, and extends further out with external links. We all contributed to this, as a planet worldwide. To all "Thank you!" -- Humancafe Eds
Also see: On Emergent Universalism
|Posted on Saturday, May 02, 2009 - 01:59 pm: |
Count-down to Strangeness.
Is it not a strange coincidence that all these improbable factors of how works universal gravity come together with such ease into a strangely simple universe, if gravity G is variable? It all started here: A UNIFIED THEORY of Gravity and Energy: The Axiomatic Equation - September 2003
9. A VARIABLE MASS PER VARIALBE G HYPOTHESIS, per the Equivalence Principle and the Axiomatic Equation
The Pioneers Anomaly as measured shows a constant rate of acceleration towards the Sun at –a = ~8E-8 cm/s^2. This can be interpreted, in reverse order, as a gravitational phenomenon, whereby Newton’s ‘constant’ G is shown to grow at a steady rate over distance to cause this anomalous acceleration; which shows ‘as if’ G is growing at approximately 1 G per AU. This same result can be achieved in a modified Quantum equation, here called the Axiomatic Equation©, where Newton’s G grows in inverse proportion to solar energy received at a distance from the Sun, at about 1 G per AU. The resulting inertial mass acceleration towards the solar system’s largest mass, the Sun, is likewise shown per the Equivalence Principle to approximate the Pioneers Anomaly.
Is it not strange that a growth of 1G per AU, when taken as its square root, translates into an approximation of the Pioneer Anomaly?
8. HYPOTHETICAL ATOMIC MASS AS A GRAVITY AND ENERGY FUNCTION
Mass is both a function of energy, as per Einstein's famous equation E = mc^2, and also a Quantum function of Planck's constant times c, divided by lambda l times the proton mass, also known as the Planck-DeBroglie equation. It will be shown that in addition to these, mass is also a gravity function, as defined by the Axiomatic Equation, derived here, as an extension of the DeBroglie-Planck-Einstein equation; where the proton mass is a variable, leading to a proton-to-proton gravitational coupling constant variable, which can then be computed into Newton's G gravity 'constant'. This Newton's G becomes a function of the Energy region where it is being measured, where for our solar system its delta G increases linearly at the rate of ~7.24E-11 Nm^2 kg^-2 per astronomical unit from the Sun, one AU = ~150E+9 meters. The hypothesis is that what happens to atomic mass at the quantum level is how it converts into Newton's G gravity at the macro level, per the Energy regions where G is measured.
Why would a Quantum equation matched against a modified equation for gravity, G^2=g(c^2pi^2), yield a value of Newton's G variable for our solar system?
7. Boltzmann Constant numerical value, and a Gravitational G variable relationship
I keep asking myself this question, because as described in this post on Boltzmann's Constant here, the numbers seem to work out (though one order of magnitude apart) to support the variability of Earth's known G from its calculated orbital Energy, per the Axiomatic. This is a perpetual question for me, can it be right? I don't know. There is always the danger of concidental mathematical results, so what appears right may not be. Another danger is the 'preloading' mathematically of values sought for, so that it becomes a self-fulfilling methodology. In the above referenced post, I might have done what is a pre-destined result, by taking Joules for Kelvin for Earth's black-body 255 K (or 2550 K for Boltzmann equivalent), and then reverse engineering it back to a hypothesized variation in Newton's G for Earth due to its black-body Kelvin temperature. So if this is all that was done, nothing was proved, except that 255 K is the same as ~0.15E+16 Joules for Earth's total mass (vs. 1.5E+16 for Axiomatic Energy equivalent). But if the numbers work out for Earth's gravity to be relative to its orbital Energy, viz. 9E+16 Joules, and by raising that energy, in Joules, by 255 K (times 10) equivalent matches the expected variance in Newton's G, from computed 7.24E-11 down to measured 6.67E-11 G, then perhaps the fact that these two separate calculations for 255 K black-body yield the necessary adjustment to G, i.e., minus ~0.57E-11 G, from its orbital computed G, then is there justification to think that perhaps this is not a mere coincidence?
If Earth's interior heat is approximately 2500 Kelvin, then Newton's G at 6.67E-11 is about where it should be. Coincidence?
Also see how CMB matches with Boltzmann's as 'deep space gravity' 5 orders of magnitude greater than here on Earth.
6. Mining 'deep space' gravity (and why redshift is at Hubble constant)
What it shows is how deep space gravity G must be about 4 or 5 orders of magnitude greater than Earth's known G. Here's is the reprint of the original text (see original for additional links) to review this very interesting phenomenon, also pointing towards why the Pioneers are slowing in the outer solar system:
(Please note this below was derived from the Pound-Rebka Harvard experiment, showing how light redshifts gravitationally.)
G-deep space, is the "gravitational G" for hydrogen gas over the distance of 1z. In effect, this is the amount of gravitational G needed to make light redshift delta 1 z.
The answer is: G-deep space = 0.347E-6 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
Note this answer to 'deep space' gravity G is within approximation of another way it was derived, where E/c=1, as a relative 'limit' to deep space gravity: G = ~12.6E-7 N... approx. ~1.3E-6 N. (See more per post of March 30, 2005: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/70/108.html for details, where deep space G=~1.3E-6. The significance here is that if 'cut off' photoelectric effect happens at lambda=~4E-7m, so that E=mc, then using Axiomatic the gravity G equivalent for deep space is in X10^-6 range.)
Similar result was also computed using Boltzmann's at CMB temperature 2.725 K, where G =~3.4E-6. Note how of the Four Fundamental Forces, the Weak force is also at 10^-6 level, same as where G flattens out in deep space. Again coincidence?
Also see: How fast can we travel in space?
5. Deep Space Gravity may be 5 or 6 orders of magnitude greater than Newton's G on Earth, or in our solar system (per MOND equivalence)
This is a continuation of the Physics Forum post: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=161315 where MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) like effect may exist in our solar system, but at a much gentler rate. The two results for deep galactic space, per Milgrom's calculations is: a_0 = 1.2E-10 m/s^2, while per my calculations (shown below) in our solar system, it is 6 orders of magnitude lower: a_0s = 1.09E-16 m/s^2. If we find that within our solar system Newton's G is not a constant, but varies at the rather rapid rate of about 1G per 1AU, so that by Pluto's orbit, G is about 40 times what it is on Earth, but still of the order of magnitude 10^-10. However, per earlier work, out in deep space, this G grows (and perhaps levels off at) to a level of about 10^-6, which is about 5-6 orders of magnitude greater than here. But that was a rough 'guesstimate' and it may in fact be more like 6.
Is there one MOND for deep space, and another 'gentler' acceleration MOND for our solar system?
Also see: Why Dark Matter 'appears' non-baryonic and What is the Mass of the Universe?
4. Earth's inner core 'boundary'
Wiki's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth , says the inner structure of the Earth is taken from seismic shear waves, and at this time the figures for depths and size of inner core are 1210 km radius, and outer core is 2560 km thick (though this latter number may be inexact), which together give us a boundary of about 3770 km radius.
The reason I bring this up is that the inner core, from seismic wave shear refractions, remains a mystery. Why should the inner core show such incredible density? Why do seismic waves not penetrate it? It might be explainable in another way, that the micro-black hole at Earth's center acts 'as if' it were immense gravity. ...
Using the Schwarzchild equation for a black hole event horizon, for Earth's mass:
G=6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
c^2=9E+16 m^2 s^-2
R_s=G2M/c^2 = 8.85E-3 meters
This could mean, not definitive, that Earth has a tiny micro-black hole at its center (per Axiomatic Equation, where when all energy lambda cancels, E=(1-g)c^2, so g=1 when E=0, and converting to Newton's G, where G^2= (g)(c^2)pi^2, so G=c if pi drops out), which may account for the inner core's strangeness.
If G equals its (hypothetical) maximum potential, G= 3E+8 (m^3 kg^-1 s^2), where G=c at its maximum (per Axiomatic), then if taking R_s and multiplying by this, 8.85E-3 times 3E+8 = 26.55E+5, or 2.655E+6 meters, which is the same as 2.655E+3 km, or 2655 kilometers. (This is about 40+% of Earth diameter.)
The same calculation figured for the Sun's 'inner core boundary' was found to be at about the Asteroids belt. Strange?
Also see: Sun's radius to solar energy relationship
3. A New Spin on Earth's Rotation
Notice how the Earth's spin slows a millisecond during Winter, and speeds up a millisecond during Summer, for a full variation of 2 milliseconds from trough to peak. In the earlier posted on planetary spin (Mar. 2, 2005) there was found a relationship between perihelion, where spin slows, to aphelion, where it speeds up, as a function of internal planetary heat and background space temperature. (Closer to Sun means warmer 'background' so spin slows.) All planets exhibit a distance to internal heat versus background space temperature spin ratios.
Earth is closer to the Sun during Winter (northern hemisphere). This is not insignificant, given the regularity shown in graph above. Please note this is most marked by Mercury's spin (Sept. 12, 2006), which slows at perihelion where it temporarily 'stands still' for a few days. This is more than mere coincidence?
Though we cannot measure different G, nor different kilograms, during the Earth's solar cycle, since per Equivalence they remain constant for us, there may be a tiny measurement, not related to seasonal winds, in the Earth's spin. Again, coincidence, or variable G effect?
Also note: Venus super rotation atmosphere was discussed here, on Humancafe:
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/185.html#POST3619 (April 11, 2007)
2. Titan's atmosphere 10X taller than Earth's because it's less than 1/10th its mass
EARTH: (@ E=9.0E+16 J) proton mass= 1.67E-27 kg, for G=6.67E-11
SATURN: (@ E=0.1004E+16J) proton mass= 1.498E-25kg, for G'=68.5E-11
Earth's mass is 5.97E+24 kg
Titan's mass is 1.35E+23 kg
These are both in Earth kilograms, but the Saturn mass (roughly 10 AU, so 10 G equivalent to Earth's) is about 100 times equivalent mass for proton, for that orbital region (though Titan is so much smaller mass). Now look at Titan (moon), with an atmosphere similar to Earth's, largely nitrogen, the atmosphere is nearly 10 times taller than here. But the mass of Titan is less than 1/10th of Earth's! In fact, it is less than the total mass of Mars (all figured in Earth's kg at 1G). How can that be?
The same as for Titan's atmosphere would be true for all the 'gas giants'. How they have such large atmospheres? Especially if their rocky core is small, how can this be?
Another curious atmospheric phenomenon: Are Mars and Venus related?
1. Neutrinos are at femtometer wavelength
It seems there are other factors involved, as per Wiki's description of the Neutrino, though no lamda is mentioned there. However, checking on another paper: "Nonuniform Neutron- Rich Matter and Coherent Neutrino Scattering" by Horowitcz et al, I discovered it comes in femtometers in the range of one fermi = 1.0E-15 meters, so interesting. This is significant because I long puzzled over the Axiomatic Equation's lambda in E=hc/l*(proton mass) on the left side, where one kilogram of mass equals 90 petajoules, which makes l = 1.32E-15 m, at the output of our Sun (to give us proton mass of 1.67E-27 kg), which then translates into the proton-proton gravitational constant g = 5.9E-39 on the right side's E=(1-g)c^2; which itself translates into Newton's G, as per this paper: Variable G. So it all fits, except that Newton's G on Earth is only 6.67E-11, while per the Axiomatic calculations it should be 7.24E-11, but this was later found to be accounted for Earth's internal energy, using the Bolzmann constant, where Earth's interior works out to be about 2500K, probably close to its mean interior temperature.
This later dovetails into another discussion What's in between 'space' or inside the SMBH?, where there is a recap of the above. If all ambient light cancels inside the galaxy center, a 'super massive black hole' must result there, per the above variable G scenario, since it is hot energy at the femtometer wavelength that 'modifies' atoms into their respective mass. No light energy means total maximum mass. Was Galileo almost right? Coincidence?
This is the count-down to 'Strangeness' in a Simple-Universe. Or perhaps it is not strange at all, and today's Einsteinesque Cosmology is set for a count-down to total revision. It all fits: once G is found out away from Earth's known, the Universe is simple, and so beautifully balanced.
Also see possible 'inverse' relationship between Coulomb constant k and Newton's gravitational 'constant' G in the Addendum to Electricty made easy:
[Addendum: Coincidentally, the inverse of Coulomb's constant k is 1/k=~11x10-11, which is surprisingly similar to Newton's 'constant' G=6.67x10-11, though not significant except as a N force value (multiplier for F); strange, but not so much if gravity and e.m. energy are inversely proportional, which may lend credence to aforesaid: "To balance out this gravitational remainder (Strong force residue, what causes gravity to exist between masses), this attractive force is countered by a repulsive force, so positive charge of space is countered by the gravitational force of matter, which balances out with a repulsive force for like charge." This makes gravity and e.m. energy linked as inversely proportional, as per how Axiomatic Equation was derived; Coulomb's constant k should measure variable with distance from the Sun. Perhaps should also be found for universal Coupling Constants, when measured away from Earth's known values?]
Also note: "Accelerated expansion" of observed universe may be redshift artefact in variable-G deep space optical line of sight cone geometry.
0. Quantum Entanglement
The universe in 'real' time? Viz., Zero x infinity = One
Why Universe is Mathematical
Gravity, the perfect illusion
"BREAD CRUMBS" trail - a chronological anthology
Simplicity is key
|Posted on Friday, May 22, 2009 - 03:16 pm: |
Simplicity is the key.
There is a human tendency to think that a very complicated question will yield a very complicated answer. But that is a logical fallacy, because in fact complicated solutions most often prove to be quite simple. This is the Occam's razor principle, that when all the complicated ideas, or complex mathematics, are finally cut through the answer shines illuminated as pure elegance and fundamental simplicity. Simplicity is the key. So in the (above) Simple Universe the answers to so many puzzles in cosmology, or human interrelationships and social interactions, including moral issues, the basic principles at work are most simple. So until we have that "ah ha!" moment where everything suddenly falls into place, we are lost in a cobweb of confusion. And when clarity is finally achieved we understand. That is the beauty of how the Simple Universe is built, with an absolutely elegant infinity of simplicity.
This is simplicity of the Tao, Tai Chi Chih, the calling upon the Chih to enter our personal being, the oneness of an infinite universe in Who we are, the Buddhist removal of illusion, the "love one another" of Jesus, the One God principle, the Golden Rule, and the simplicity of a universe working with us. It is that simple.
|Posted on Saturday, May 23, 2009 - 01:01 pm: |
I am sorry to hear about your experience with stroke in December, and I hope you will make the recovery you desire. You certainly have the right outlook.
In regards to your statement about simplicity, I believe you are correct about our tendency to complicate things. It's natural for our brains (when we don't completely understand a thing) to postulate a variety of possibilities. Once we discover the answer, on the other hand, we get a sense of epiphany because of the certainness we feel about the truth of our discovery. In essence, we may have an intuitive sense about what "rings true" to our sensory capacity. Information is never physically pushed into the brain, thus the potential for all that we can know already exists in our unformed neural networks. Learning is the process by which we turn the difficult into simplicity.
New gravity research?
|Posted on Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 05:23 pm: |
New gravity research papers.
There seems to be a growing awareness that perhaps gravity in deep space is not the same as measured here on Earth. See recent papers per this post (Jerry) on BAUT: Are we on the verge of a paradigm shift re: gravity?
If we find this to be true, then the above hypothesis that deep space gravity is higher than here becomes a reality, and the Simple Universe theorem comes one step closer to being fact.
[Thanks Naive, nice to hear from you. Re urs
Isn't that the truth!]
Learning is the process by which we turn the difficult into simplicity.
|Posted on Sunday, May 31, 2009 - 04:01 pm: |
Space is a omni-dimensional pathway that energy travels across. It seems that the amount of energy occupying space dictates gravity's effect. I wonder, however, what is the cummulative effect of matter or energy upon the "fabric of space"? In other words, as stellar bodies move through space, do they "wear it out" for lack of a better term?
I visualize your "hot star energy" hypothesis, as defining the range of a star's gravitional pull as similar to the range of light from a bulb in the middle of an otherwise dark area. For example, if you put a bulb in a giant airplane hangar, the light would not reach the outskirts of the entire enclosure, but instead would fade out at a certain range. If the bulb's radiance could be increased, so too would be the range of its influence. Is this how you "see" your variable "G"?
Here's another question: Suppose we coud design two, star-sized magnets (both in mass/density) that were similarly charged. Would they repel each other in space or collide? In other words, In physics the electromagnetic force is supposed to be stronger than gravitation. Is there a limit, however, where the sheer scale of mass will cause gravitaion to "win out" over the electro-magnetic force? What if they were traveling toward each other at tremendous speeds? What role would that play? These may seem like a foolish questions, but I believe the only way to understand gravity, is to understand the atomic nuances that contribute to it? I believe the standard answer is that they would repel each other, regardless of size, even though the gravitational pull of these giant bodies would be enormous. What is it about the electromagnetic force then, that allows it to "defy" gravity, and what does this say about the nature of what space or gravity is? How do you fit this into your variable "G" idea?
|Posted on Friday, June 05, 2009 - 03:33 pm: |
The Universe is Simple Wordle.net generated 'verbagram', frequency of all our words, page above.
http://www.wordle.net/ (image interactive) - a computer generated pictogram
Universe, Energy, Gravity - three key simple words, the rest simply follows.
|Posted on Sunday, June 07, 2009 - 01:30 pm: |
Stroke suvivor: Jill Bolte Taylor racconta il suo ictus
(Video- interactive- subtitles in 15 languages- click image)
Which do we choose? 'Who' do we choose?
Also see how chaos drives the brain, NewScientist article & video.
And Why are our brains shrinking?
Discover Magazine: If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking?
Some believe the erosion of our gray matter means that modern humans are indeed getting dumber. (Late-night talk show hosts, take note—there’s got to be some good comic material to mine here.) Other authorities argue just the opposite: As the brain shrank, its wiring became more efficient, transforming us into quicker, more agile thinkers. Still others believe that the reduction in brain size is proof that we have tamed ourselves, just as we domesticated sheep, pigs, and cattle, all of which are smaller-brained than their wild ancestors.
Could it also be part of having to use less memory in our everyday? Back before writing and machines, we had to remember so much more. Now we can 'remember' with aid of technologies, like this internet phenomenon, but it was already evident with drawings, writing, books, to store information. So the brain could relieve that portion of its memory activity and relegate it more efficiently to other portions, such as critical reason, and more. (Late-night talk show hosts: Go back to sleep.)
|Posted on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 12:11 pm: |
Greco-Buddha of present day Afghanistan, Pakistan, north Indian regions
There had been many theories of the universe throughout human history, and likely in prehistory, to explain the state of our human being under the cosmos. There are many studies and ideas existing today, all competing for our attention as being the true teachings, or the right path, for all humanity. The universality claimed by these teachings are often so forceful to regulate human lives, body-mind-soul power, that to resist them leads one into either social ostracism or severe punishments, even unto death. Such had been the force of power behind 'universal' religions claiming to be speaking for God on Earth through the voice of one man, or group of men, as the true teachings of what our human condition under the heavens are all about. That was how they pulled together into one whole complete theory of existence, or moral social prescriptions, with force of power. Either believe as told to believe, or face dire consequences either in this life or after death. The core power of such beliefs were force and punishments, or coercions, to bring it all into a complete whole. But this was false.
The time for such total human control, body-mind-soul controls, over our lives has come to pass. We no longer need coercive religions to tell us how to live. Modern religions have evolved to promote spiritual growth, not social controls, where each person is free to pursue a greater being, a greater consciousness, within the parameters of their chosen belief. It is not something automatically cast upon us at birth or early childhood, but is a spiritual belief system chosen consciously to promote our greater being within a higher cosmology of Life existence in the universe. Each human being of conscious mind has the right to choose their beliefs as it is reasonable for them to believe. That is the ultimate freedom for humanity, and it is the only path to a higher human universal consciousness of the planet, what will be our future as a collective humanity. That is the way to the truth.
Same as we need to strengthen our body's core muscles in Pilates to give health to the whole body, so must we find our universal 'core strength' to promote a healthy planet. All life and all humanity will benefit when we find the traction to give this core strength of what we believe universally. But not as we believe per coercive religions, rather only as we believe in the freedom of human reason to believe what is true. What we believe is truly our own, and exists only as a communication between ourselves and God, or the universal cosmos-consciousness. This is the major separation of religion and government, that where our beliefs are free to be chosen, to have freedom of religion, it is never imposed on another by force of action, or legally imposed on another, for this violates our core social values. We are individually free within the legal parameters of our constitutional democratic governing body, but we are wholly free to believe within the parameters of universal beliefs and religions. This is a core value of our civilization, our Opus Rex that has made us free and what sets us apart from the slavery of the past. This central core value, already tried and tested in most modern states of the planet, is the future that will take human consciousness to the next level. This, counter intuitive as it is, is where we as a collective humanity bring God consciousness into our world in a gentle conclusion. That will be peace.
See also: Natural Universalism
|Posted on Sunday, August 02, 2009 - 01:51 pm: |
The popular allure of an Einstein universe is in its inherent paradox:
"A paradox is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition; or, it can be an apparent contradiction that actually expresses a non-dual truth (cf. Koan, Catuskoti)." -- per Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
In the above written "Universe is Simple" paradox is removed, since the universe is inherently non-paradoxical. But Einstein's paradoxical universe will remain popular, because of its inherent 'brain tease' complexity which gives it popular appeal. People love paradox!
a simple test G
|Posted on Saturday, October 24, 2009 - 12:06 pm: |
A simple test is all that is needed to 'prove' the above simplicity of our Universe: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/20123
Pioneer anomaly put to the test
Sep 1, 2004
The European Space Agency is considering a unique experiment that could explain strange gravitational phenomena in the outer solar system.
Track the G. All else will fall into place.
* * * * * *
...To be continued at "What do You think?"...
Also see: State of the 'Gravity-G' message
|Posted on Monday, May 10, 2010 - 12:59 pm: |
The Universe is Simple, but also 'unfathomable' with present science.
This article in NewScientist today explains how GUT is highly unlikely, if not impossible:
The imperfect universe: Goodbye, theory of everything by Marcelo Gleiser
Like all good physical theories, GUTs make predictions. One is that the proton, the particle that inhabits all atomic nuclei, is unstable. For decades, experiments of increasing sensitivity have looked for decaying protons and failed to find them. As a consequence, the models have been tweaked so that protons decay so rarely as to be outside the current reach of detection. Another prediction fared no better: bundled-up interacting fields called magnetic monopoles have never been found.
For superstrings, the situation is even worse. In spite of its mathematical elegance, the theory is so detached from physical reality that it is exceedingly difficult to determine what a measurable string effect might be.
So it goes, that if gravity and electromagnetic energy are mutually exclusive, per the Simple Universe idea, then a reconciliation is unlikely. Now for science to find the same, that Newton's G is a variable.
More likely is this 'reality', that we discover in time the universe is a 'personal' identity of 23 dimensional being, integrated and interrelated not only laterally in our physical dimension of being, but also vertically in our spiritual dimensions.
In a simple universe, a refinement of the 'wisdom of the ages' will make rational sense to us, in time.
Electricity made easy
|Posted on Thursday, June 24, 2010 - 11:47 pm: |
Electricity made easy.
Let's take Coulomb's Law and do something creative with it. We know electricity works, much of modern society is powered by it, even the Mac on which I write this. But why is there a positive and negative charge, and why do like charges repel while opposites attract? Our understanding of electricity is well defined mathematically, but do we really understand what causes electric field to flow between positive and negative charge? Perhaps there is a novel way to look at this that may offer some insight into why this is so. Also, why does magnetism come in dual charge only? Let us consider.
Ben Franklin's kite electricity experiment (click image for interactive article)
From Coulomb's Law we have the following equation:
F = k q1 q2/ r2
Coulomb's constant k = 1/4pieo = 9x109 N.m2/C2 but can also be described as Volts per meter.
[This is somewhat similar to F=GMm/r^2 on a superficial level, but not directly the same, since charges are not only attractive but can also repel, so only superficially the same.]
Now, if k is taken as a constant, can it be also the constant as it applies to our place in the solar system vis-a-vis our locale's energy density of the Sun? This is how Newton's G is treated in Variable G gravity discussed on Humancafe forums. If so, hypothetically, then this Coulomb's constant is not really 'constant' but perhaps a variable in the same way as G, so with distance from the Sun it would be inversely proportional. In effect, k becomes smaller with distance from the Sun. We on Earth are close to the Sun, so its value, 1/k (inverse, see Addendum below), is actually a large value... but I digress.
Taken as a scalar function, Coulomb's Law becomes in effect a function of F= kq2 over distance r2, where E=kq/r2 is the Electric field.
Now, let us consider the Electromagnetic field, where a stationary charge has an Electric field, but a moving charge has a Magnetic field. Together, mediated by photons, both fields act as a combined force that causes interaction between electrically charged particles; the areas in which this happens are called electromagnetic fields. If this does not yet appear easy, it is because as currently understood it is not. Electromagnetism is one of the four fundamental interactions in nature, along with the Strong interaction, Weak interaction, and Gravitation. The way to 'simplify' this electromagnetic field interaction is to first look at the Strong interaction, specifically that this interaction occurs only within the atomic nucleus, but virtually disappears beyond it. This makes it interesting, because there may be a way to understand the Strong force as a 'positively' charged force, while the interaction of the electromagnetic field, with photons mediation, is a responsive 'negative' charge, which results in the electron. And that electron moving over time is what causes electricity to flow as an electromagnetic field incorporating both charges.
Still not easy, but let us take it one step beyond. Let's hypothesize that it is all about positive charge, as found in the atomic nucleus, and the negative is only an incidental deviation from the positive. Let me illustrate it with an analogy to lightning: According to the Electrostatic induction hypothesis, updrafts in the atmosphere supercool water droplets into ice (-10 to -20 °C) which forms a positive charge at higher altitudes; the lower or middle section of the clouds have a slight negative charge at the cloud's base. Earth is positive charged, so as the negative charge of the lower portion of the cloud accumulates it 'sparks' and lighting occurs. But to look at it in another way (lightning has never really been explained fully), let's imagine that the upper regions of the thundercloud, which are positively charged, are more charged than the planet's surface; the electric potential accumulates as negative charge at the cloud's base, which means electrons accumulate and are ready for discharge. What this also means, in effect, is that both the upper cloud and planet's surface are both 'positive' charged, but because upper is more than lower, the difference in their positive charges manifests as a negative charge, such as at the cloud's base. Now, this is significant, because it relates back to the atom's Strong force, which is always positive charged.
Lightning discharge (click image to see animation)
The obvious assumption for this hypothesis is that colder atoms are more positively charged than warmer atoms, so the Strong force 'charge' exerts more positive on cold than hot, which would account for the colder top of thunderclouds have a higher positive charge than the planet's positive at the surface below. And the corollary to this is that this differential in positive charges is what defines the negative charged electrons as the mediators between these two differentials. Now, how does this apply to electromagnetism per se? The lightning example is merely to illustrate a concept, that the difference between positive charges, which is all the nucleus can have, is what generates electrons as mediators, same as photons, for this charge differential, that which causes electricity to flow from positive to negative. In effect, it is actually flowing from positive to less positive, which interprets into a negative filling the gap. (Please note: the Axiomatic Equation has an analogous concept, that colder regions of space have higher G, which using the Equivalence principle means that colder is also more mass, which would be equivalent to greater positive charge, per this example.) Therefore, it basically comes down to a variable positive charge, which when differential causes an electrical potential, which is negatively charged.
Lightning potential on Mars dust storm (click image for original article)
These hot-cold differentials not only release electron mediators, but also higher energy Gamma rays and x-rays, which is significant. The Standard Model also covers the electroweak interactions in nuclear decay, how neutrons decay into protons. They are all related to this positive-positive interaction differentials. The neutron is 'hot' with electrons (positive made neutral), but 'cools' down into a proton, if so, resulting in beta decay. Electricity and electromagnetism are all related to this positive-positive differential phenomenon. But it does not explain magnetism itself, which is another matter, though related.
Magnetism, per this hypothesis, is a phenomenon that is the signature of the positive-positive differential incorporating both charges, the positive and negative together, produced by the resulting electric current. Hence, why we have 'electromagnetism' as a final product. It all relates back to the atomic nucleus, which is differentiated by hot-cold conditions present, which will result in the electric potential. In a bar magnet, this 'signature' is fixed, so positive and negative poles remain as long as the magnetization is present. But heating a magnetic iron bar, beyond its annealing point (Curie temperature), will break this signature and the magnet will lose its charge. However, if left in its magnetic mode, breaking the magnet in half will leave us with two magnets, both sections equally bipolar. This is the result of the magnet having 'rearranged' itself with the same signature which defined it in the first place. Breaking that signature can only occur when it is heated to a temperature above that of the positive-positive differentials, at which point it ceases to remain a magnet.
So, how does all this make electricity easy? The answer is because the phenomenon of the electron, like the photon, is a 'mediator' between positive charges. Whereas the electromagnetic energy will modify the positive proton, and inertial mass (per Axiomatic Equation) as a function of the modified Strong force, it will also mediate the charge potentials of the nucleus depending upon the level of e.m. energy received. The resulting differentials will then generate electrons, which will flow as an electric current between the resulting positive and negative potential charges. That brings us back to Coulomb's Law with which this discussion started, and from which I digressed.
If electromagnetic energy is a 'modifier' of both gravity potential G and electric potential, then k must also be modifiable by the level of energy density in which is resides. The result of this would mean, coincidentally, that in colder regions of our solar system, at smaller Coulomb's k, electric force modified weaker, our space craft should exhibit greater electrical longevity than warmer regions, where it is very strong (inversely to gravity-G). This would mean, in essence, that a probe sent to Pluto should prove longer lasting electrically than one sent to Mercury. Has this happened? Can it be measured? Mars rovers have lasted longer than designed, for example. But this is not a definitive proof, merely an anecdotal observation. The Pioneer probes, and Voyager, have lasted a very long time as they exit into the colder regions of space beyond our solar system. Coincidence, or is it merely a greater k effect? This is for science to discover, and measure. We here are only presenting a simplified version of electricity. It could be electricity is that simple: it is a differential of positive-positive nucleus charge, nothing more exotic. The result is negative charged electrons, including the eletroweak interaction.
That leaves a final question: Why do like charges repel? This goes back to the 'bungee' force within the nucleus, as defined by the Strong force. It can only attract within the diameter of the nucleus, ceases to exert force outside it, and therefore it must repel. Positive charge will repel positive charge, or else it would violate the tight diameter of the Strong force. Opposite charge attract almost by definition, because a negative charge is a filler for positive-positive differentials. But the same charge must be opposite in action, or else the Strong force would dominate outside the nucleus, which it cannot do. The bungee force 'pushes' it back both inside and out.
So, why do opposite charges attract and same charge repel? The answer has never been given in physics, but accepted a priori that they do. However, looking into the atom as an analogy of positive-positive Strong force interaction, the answer may be surprisingly simple. Taking the lightning analogy again, the nucleus has a strong positive charge. But atoms do not exist in the dark anywhere in the universe, as they are constantly bombarded by electromagnetic energy. Light and other frequencies, especially those at the femtometer wavelength, interact with the atom's Strong force (positive charge) in such a way that the dual charge of these photons are split into their positive-negative components when they hit the atom, splitting off a negative charge counterbalancing the nucleus' positive charge. This leaves a remaining weaker (vis-a-vis the Strong force positive) negative charge surrounding the atom as an electron shell; with the weaker positive charge of the photon then anchored as a counterbalance to neutralize the atom's magnetic charge, same as in the lightning analogy, so the atom remains magnetically neutral. To preserve the electron shell surrounding the atom, the remaining weaker positive charge is cast off into space along the P-wave of the photon. By this mechanism, space is positively charged same as the nucleus, evidenced by super massive black hole axial jets at galactic centers shooting out positive charged particles into space. But like the remainder force from within the atom (vis-a-vis the Strong force and 1/137 e.m. interaction), this positive charge remainder is essentially gravitic in nature, an electro-gravity effect, which counter balances the gravitational effect of the atomic mass. To balance out this gravitational remainder (what causes gravity to exist between masses), this attractive force is countered by a repulsive force, so positive charge of space is countered by the gravitational force of matter, which balances out with a repulsive force for like charge. (It may be tempting to suggest here that this positive-space repulsive charge is the so-called 'dark energy' causing space expansion, but that is false; the gravity and positive repulsive interaction balance out exactly, so space is not expanding #6 but remains totally balanced; which also explains why high energy density regions of space will have low gravity, while lower e.m. density is higher G, all balanced out.) The negative charges repel as well, at least in the magnetic sense, though electrons flow in a current without repelling each other; it is only in the bar magnet scenario that negative and positive like charges both repel. It may even be considered that it does not matter whether the magnetic poles are positive or negative, since their charge signatures are both positive-positive in nature at either end, as a product of their atomic structure, and only manifest as dual charge because of how the atom is structured. When all is said and done, the atom is really what defines for us dual charge behaviorism, attractive when charges are opposite, but repulsive when the same. Space and gravity, like the Strong force nucleus, are all positive-positive phenomena, and the negative charge is nothing more than the counterbalancing charge of photon bombardment of atoms in space. This is true anywhere in the universe (with the exception of inside the super massive black hole where gravity mimics the Strong force), and which leaves the electricity generated by these dual charges as a natural phenomenon of how atoms are affected by electromagnetic interaction. Electricity in this scenario is merely the byproduct due to electron flow in positive charged space. (Now we can see why F=GMm/r2 is similar to F=kqq/r2... but we digress.)* The reason charges either attract or repel is that they are an interaction between the atom's Strong force and electromagnetic energy, with electricity and gravity as mere remainders. The atom is key to this dual charge phenomenon.
Now, isn't that electricity made easy? Simple, no?
*[Addendum: Coincidentally, the inverse of Coulomb's constant k is 1/k=~11x10-11, which is surprisingly similar to Newton's 'constant' G=6.67x10-11, though not significant except as a N force value (multiplier for F); strange, but not so much if gravity and e.m. energy are inversely proportional, which may lend credence to aforesaid: "To balance out this gravitational remainder (Strong force residue, what causes gravity to exist between masses), this attractive force is countered by a repulsive force, so positive charge of space is countered by the gravitational force of matter, which balances out with a repulsive force for like charge." This makes gravity and e.m. energy linked as inversely proportional, as per how Axiomatic Equation was derived; Coulomb's constant k should measure variable with distance from the Sun; as should the alpha constant.]
Also see: Nuclear positive modified by e.m. energy
23 Dimensions of Being
|Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2010 - 04:15 am: |
Posted on Monday, May 03, 2010 - 01:24 pm:
Pure love energy
Eternal universal love
Eternal love personal identity
Universal eternal mind personality
Universal eternal personalities interrelation
Universal total personality, Life conscious identity
Astral healing life consciousness, Astral dreaming creation
Astral identity personality plane, Astral full colors energy plane
Astral plane of universal existence energy, Total mind consciousness
Pure consciousness, Pure light existence, Gaia consciousness dimensions
Life consciousness dimensions, Life healing, Dream state dimensional existence
Interrelationship dimensions - all philosophies, religious beliefs, physical reality, ideas
From "23 Dimensions of Being"
See also: Working the Subjective Mind
|Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2011 - 01:44 pm: |
We can't live without it, nor with too much of it. Water must be balanced for Life.
Three forms of Reasons
|Posted on Monday, June 06, 2011 - 11:29 am: |
One of my personal 'philosophies' is that there are Three Forms of Reason: Subjective, Objective, and something new, called Universal.
1. Subjective reason, the sense of cognition, the self-defining feeling of "I am" each person has. This is also where story telling comes from, what we weave in our imagination, going all the way back to primitive, mythical times. (Ego)
2. Objective reason, the mental ability of discerning fact from falsehood, an operative abstract reason needed for survival in reality. We are genetically designed to do this, though this is still challenging to us in that we must learn it. (Ego detachment)
3. Universal reason, where our mental ability is detached from either subjective or objective, but connects directly into how the universe operates on its own terms, which for us is not a natural ability but exists only as an intellectual potential. (Total detachment)
The first and second forms of reason are innately familiar to us, we all have it. It is the third form that is still mysterious, because we are unfamiliar with it. We may not yet have evolved the genetic ability to use this form of reason, since our minds are not designed to see things as the universe 'sees' itself. This form of reason is founded on the concept of 'emergence', where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and where complex systems evolve from simple interactions. Therefore, this emergent whole then modifies its parts, where a universal totality may actually define them in terms of itself: Everything is exactly 'where and how' it is because of where and how is everything else, in toto, both in time and space... to infinity. (repeat) In effect, this is where the 'emergent' interconnected, interrelated parts are all redefined by the whole, what I call the Universal Mind. It is a 'mind' for which we must still work very hard to connect with, because it is not yet natural for us. We can't see all the infinite interrelations with our minds that define Universal emergence, though we can logically know it exists, at least conceptually. But it is not easy for us to understand this, as we are not programmed to do so.
Emergence happens in the quantum foam, for example, how from basic particles form the laws of physics; or in the Game of Life computer simulations. It happens in Artificial Intelligence programming, where computers can 'learn' things. It's also evident in life's evolution, why there seems to be a progression in the complexity in species over time. Clearly the world-wide-web is 'emergent'. But the only time, I suspect, we can connect with this Universal mind is in sudden flashes of insight from intuitions, though we do not know how that happens. Maybe music is a part? Or poetry? Art? Or perhaps prayer and positive affirmations?... The brain is always processing, synapses working even when we sleep, so such 'emergent' flashes are not consciously willed but happen to us subconsciously. The brain is always observing, listening, thinking, and somewhere it 'connects' with all the parts put together into a whole, then something 'emergent' happens. We have that "Ah ha!" moment. This may be (my hypothesis) where the Universal reality 'connects' with us at the personal brain level, since our minds live within this reality. I don't actually know this. Though, I suspect it actually raises our consciousness.
So this third form of reason is looking into the 'God mind'. But it is not yet natural. We haven't yet evolved the mental physiology to do this, so it takes a lot of personal effort to get there. It is also, for me, the most exciting form of reason, because it opens new vistas of exploration transcending the subjective and objective mind, from what is 'personal' to the universal, viz. from selfishness to humility before the All. I also believe that if we work at it, consciously seek it, we will in time, over many generations, actually evolve the mind that can access this Universal reason directly. In those still, quiet moments, like in meditation, or in creative intuitions, when we are truly connected within ourselves; we may be actually hearing the Universe 'talking' with its Universal Mind... to us. And if so, though still highly mysterious, that is potentially very exciting.
Is this fiction? ... Listen for it.
(Above was gleaned from earlier papers, August 5, 2006, on Humancafe forums: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/89.html#POST1446 , titled THE THREE REASON(S): SUBJECTIVE, OBJECTIVE, AND UNIVERSAL; and from http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/180.html#POST4552 , titled "Quantum foam 'Emergence' and the evolution of life consciousness", Feb. 16, 2008)
Addendum: I thought of this at the end of my yoga class today during savasana, that the above Three Reasons have a seeming parallel to our emotional states as well: Selfishness, Altrusim, and Humility. They are not so far removed from Subjective, Objective, and Universal. … Now that I think about it, is the Universal Mind the mystery of the ages, from religion to philosophy? (Where an 'emergent' balance of one leads to greater Consciousness, while balance of the other leads to greater Compassion.) Why has it been so hard to see? Because we are not there yet in our DNA? … In time, then, we will join the greater Universal Humanity. 16 June, 2011
Working the Subjective Mind
Living Fountains of Reason
|Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 - 06:22 pm: |
Living Fountains of the 'Three Reasons', and how to access them.
"Man's mind, when it is most intent upon any work, through its passion, and effects, is joyned with the mind of the stars, and intelligences, and being so joyned is the cause that some wonderful virtue be infused into our works and thing."
- Henry Cornelius Agrippa, Counselor to Charles the Fifth, Emperor of Germany, c. 1530
Fountains of Rome - Via Giulia (interactive)
In the earlier post on the Three Reasons, in the above The Universe is Simple, I talked about the Subjective, Objective, and Universal forms of human reason, and how the first two are natural for us, though may need to be learned, while the third is still only conceptual, something mysterious and barely attainable in our present state of mental development. In this article I hope to show that there are pathways our brain neurons can take to help us achieve that still mysterious Third Reason, what I call the Universal, which is an 'emergent' state of mind. I then wrote:
This form of reason is founded on the concept of 'emergence', where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and where complex systems evolve from simple interactions. Therefore, this emergent whole then modifies its parts, where a universal totality may actually define them in terms of itself: Everything is exactly 'where and how' it is because of where and how is everything else, in toto, both in time and space... to infinity. In effect, this is where the 'emergent' interconnected, interrelated parts are all redefined by the whole, what I call the Universal Mind.
We at present are still unable to 'connect' with this form of Universal reason, though it exists in our everyday reality, because our brain neurons are not yet programmed to do so. But brain plasticity is a known phenomenon of how it can restructure itself (I experienced this first hand as a post-Stroke [Dec. 2008] brain-damaged recovery patient, and know it actually happens, it's marvelous!), so that what is the brain today may be a different brain in the future. If after many generations of this 'brain plasticity' exercises the genetic code gets re-written, then it is possible for future generations to have it embedded in their DNA, so they will access Universal reason more naturally and with less effort. This will be a human consciousness-emergent moment when it happens. However, this for now is mere hypothesis. Perhaps something like it happened eons ago when humans first started to use logic and Objective reason for problem solving and survival; where they transcended the Subjective mind of personal cognition and imagination (i.e., story telling), when they began using tools, fire, and strategic forethought, which was 'learned'; we may now be in a position to learn how to access this 'fountain of third form' of reason as well. It would mean exercising our cerebral neurons in ways that align us more closely with how this Third Reason operates on its own terms.
Third Reason is something that for now happens to us involuntarily, usually unexpectedly in quiet moments, such as sitting by flowing water, or a mountain glen, or desert vastness, and feeling suddenly 'connected' to all that is around us. Such 'emergent' moments are still rare, and somehow magical when they happen. Rarer still are their useful manifestations, or what we call insightful "intuitions" that help guide us through life. In our present state of mind, these are still 'spiritual' moments, where we feel connected with something larger than ourselves. It also happens during meditation, yoga relaxation, deep prayer, in spiritual social congregation, or just in those quiet moments when we feel at peace. But it will not always be so mysterious to us, nor esoteric, once we develop the brain-neurons ability to access this Third Reason naturally (though this may still be a distant future). Of course, when and if this does happen, it places our universal planetary consciousness on a whole new level, and our being in it operative in ways we now can only imagine. But if it is truly there, we will in time access it. But how?
Here is a list of some possible cerebral pathways to help us get to that Third universal Reason:
- Stillness epiphany of being: This is those moments when we are very still, like in meditation, or resting quietly, and something 'emergent' happens, that we suddenly have insight or a feeling of connectedness to all that is around us. We suddenly feel "in the moment", and it feels good to be there, serene, alive.
- Deep concentration flow: Whenever we are deep in thought, or seriously focussed on any task, we often enter that emergent moment where everything suddenly flows with clarity, and we have that "Ah ha!" moment, often solving some deep problem that had long eluded us.
- Total immersion surroundings: This is like some form of 'baptism' we suddenly experience when surrounded by beautiful environment, whether socially, the arts, music, or natural settings. We have a sudden sublime feeling inside that connects us to the whole environment in an instant, and a response from deep within the soul acknowledges it. It is also one reason most people love Nature, because there it happens more frequently, and it lightens the burden of life momentarily with its beauty.
- Powerful water flow: Ever sit by a waterfall and feel its roar in your whole body? That is also emergent, a total immersion into the moment, and it feels like it enlivens us to the foundation of our being. It also explains why waterfalls are so appealing to us, and so popular. The same is felt from ocean waves, or from white water rivers. They 'feel' emergent, somehow.
- Positive affirmations: We do not know why this works, but for some mysterious reason "positive affirmations" either spoken or thought have a way of redirecting our lives, often in positive and surprising ways. Like in prayer, we may be connecting to the Third Reason of the universal Mind, though we cannot see how this happens. It just does.
- Times of extreme stress: All of us felt that sudden 'intense focus' during periods of crisis or danger. This is more than mere adrenal reaction, but it places us totally in the moment where danger is a real threat, and our mind reaches out to some other succor than mere logic. It dives into a greater depth within itself and responds, often in unexpected ways, to what saves us. Survivors of wars, attacks, accidents, will often tell it so, as have heroes. They do not know how, but that moment was 'emergent' for them, and they lived.
- Sincere compassion: This is perhaps the most difficult to access, because it demands a total ego detachment to be truly compassionate. For most of us, compassion is fleeting, as is reciprocal understanding, where our personal subjective mind wants to dominate, to not be dominated in return. Understandably, but there is also a detachment of mind that allows for the other to not be dominated naturally. To do that, one must have a compassionate, patient understanding of the other, and allow for the other to have their imperfections, as they should allow them in us. We all must learn from imperfections, because when we do, and are compassionate in the learning, with compassion for all life, we gain that special privilege of being in the Universal mind. Traditionally, such higher compassion had been called the Golden Rule. But it is more than that.
- Creating beauty: Not all art is beautiful, sometimes it needs to tell an ugly story. But when focussed on beauty, or beautiful prose or music, it brings out a spiritual feeling that transcends the ordinary, and communicates that same feeling to its recipients. Perhaps that is what defines "beauty" in the first place, that it connects us somewhere deep within ourselves into that 'emergent' Mind of the universe, so it moves us, and others admire the work. When a sculptor brings life to form, or a painter sees with the soul, we see it and we 'know' it instantly. It is beautiful.
- Intense listening: This is a 'person to person' immersion, where deeply attentive to the other's thoughts, or feelings, one suddenly has a 'merging' of minds, of souls, of emotions. These are magic moments we seldom really experience in life, since we are too busy talking to really listen. But when they happen, like lovers on a higher plane, we are suddenly connected with something much more beautiful on a higher scale of being. That is emergent, to truly listen, and care, soul to soul.
- Appreciating all life: Whether admiring the delicate wings of a butterfly, or majestic dive of an oceanic whale, or wolf nursing her pups, it is all beautiful to our senses, to see real life as it is in nature. Those are magic moments, when our mind detaches from everything except the beauty of the living event. Who has not marveled at the innocence of a child? Or the magic of a living garden? Then we reach into that other emergent world, where we appreciate, however fleetingly, the universal beauty of all living things, and we are totally a part of it. Life is wonderful.
- Being in love: The mind of a lover is not the ordinary, everyday mind of a thinking, working being. Rather, it finds itself immersed into some other reality, one that need not necessarily make a lot of sense, certainly not logical, but that guides us with almost unbearable lightness to the other, even if unrequited. The object of our love borders on obsession, can be sublime, and wanting nothing more than their happiness, as they make us happy. This is truly an irrational feeling, especially if it is challenging, to be so committed to another's love, while seeking the same in return. But it happens, and it is so common as to be universal for all human beings of the planet. We all, at one time or another in our lives, will fall in love. When it happens, it becomes intensely 'emergent' for us.
- Natural vastness: Not everyone is drawn to natural vastness, and in fact I have known people to actually shy from it, wanting to hide or run away. But for those drawn to it, as is often experienced in the stark beauty of the desert, or on the vast seas, or under an infinite canopy of stars, where you are so alone, so in tune with your isolated existence then and there, that it becomes something more than merely 'being there'; strangely, that same can be felt in a cave; the experience becomes one of 'emergent' total connectedness to all around you. It is so grand, and feels so intense inside, that it can make you cry. I know.
- Freedom of being: There is no possibility of happiness without the freedom to choose our being. This is a universal need of humanity, that each person seeks his or her being in reality within their capacity as best they can. But when enslaved to another person, that capacity is jeopardized and the person suffers. In fact, this may be the primary requisite of attaining Universal Mind and reason, is to be free to do so, as it is something distant and illusive when we are unfree. Under slavery, humanity was severely restricted in its ability to grow into the Third Reason. We needed to achieve Laws of Freedom protecting us from coercions, violence, and slavery to be able to come to the threshold of this Universal reason. Fail that freedom, and you are failing the Universal Mind. Without personal freedom, reciprocally responsible in every meaning of the word, our brain-neurons development remains stunted, and we cannot rise above the Subjective-Objective reason paradigm. It has taken a long time for Earth's humanity to get here, now we can move to the next level, if we choose. Freedom of being, enforced gently but firmly, is a mandatory first step to our next human-consciousness evolution.
Now, this was written by me in a kind of stream of consciousness, but certain recurring patterns are evident. Some key words: intense, beauty, vastness, lover, flow, connectedness, quiet, insight, emergence, affirmation, nature, water, feeling, compassion, happiness, life, freedom. These are all "code" words for when we reach into the Third Reason of the universal Mind. It happens naturally, it is usually very pleasant to experience, and a certain joy fills us at that moment. It livens our spirit and engenders health in us. These are the things, patterns and words, we must "listen" for in our hearts and minds, because that is when we are "connecting" with the Universal Mind. We had already been programmed, however crudely, to respond to this Third Reason, as shown above, but it manifested in us more as awe, mysticism, spiritual encounter, or luck, rather than something tangible we are actually entitled to connect with in our minds. It had been mysterious, probed from ancient times in a legacy of religious aspirations, mystic mysteries, even the occult seeking God, etc., then it fades out again. It had not yet been understood as something rather rational and innate in our brain functions, that we can understand this form of reason and work with it. But think about it, have not these "code" words been the themes of all our human endeavors, in the arts, in literature and theater, in film? What do people talk about, what do we yearn for, if not the Universal Mind?
So this is the big test of whether or not we have achieved true consciousness as human beings, when we can access this Universal mind naturally, propelled by our natural freedoms, almost instinctively, to manage our temporal lives. It is a given all understand and accept. At present, this is still too illusive for us, so we often fall back upon superstitions or confused mysticism, and their corollary coercions and deceits. But it is not so mystical an idea, merely one we still have difficulty connecting with, because we are not yet programmed to do so. Our evolution is still lagging. Rather, Universal reason should be in same category as Objective and Subjective thinking, just human brain-neurons connected on a Universal plane. Once we know how to do this, it will not be so strange anymore, and in fact will take our world into a whole new dimension of positive, healthy activities. We must work on it, for that is a beautiful future to reach for... Drink from the Fountains of Life. It is that simple. We can do this.
Waterfall - of Universal reason (articles embedded in image)*
Be free of the Ego, and you are half there, the rest is natural.
Verbagram for Third Universal Reason
*(Be aware, in reading these philosophy articles on 'Universal reason', remember the test of credibility: the Universe is not a paradox of magical absurdities. Beware of 'word tricks'.)
|Posted on Friday, October 21, 2011 - 11:38 am: |
A Journey Through Space and Time
The Illuminated Universe (interactive)
Maybe not the real truth, yet, but we are still gathering information.
|Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2012 - 11:11 am: |
King David as a shepherd, Psalm 23
I wrote on the Why is it still 'Hell on Earth' thread:
"When Earth's climate was changing and the grass savannas of north Africa and eastern Mediterranean Canaan were drying into desert, up on a grassy knoll by a fireside sat some shepherds, maybe in Sinai, who were discussing their lot under a star lit sky. Why was life so hard? It was already believed in Egypt under the Pharaohs, there was but One God, the Sun god Pharaoh as a failed representative on Earth now parching their pastures; so even within living memory forage and feed for their flocks was more plentiful. How could this god be so cruel to them? But as talk night after night lingered into dawn twilight, a consensus slowly emerged, that it was Man who was at fault. Long before science understood climate change and how overgrazing would turn their land to desert, humans were speculating on their existence in their changing land. Could it be that Man was fallen in the eyes of God? Somewhere in dim history we made a mistake? And since then had been cursed with hardship, so now all men are born of sin, of woman, and that paradisiacal existence of long ago had turned to suffering? It must have been so, they reasoned, or how else to explain their hardship when flocks die from drought and lack of feed? People, whole clans, were starving. The idea spread steadily as popular legends do, so by the time of Moses it was already well believed, that Man is born of Original Sin, and only God, the One God, was perfect; a Deity that would make a covenant with Man. Live by My rules, and you will be saved suffering, but disobey and you will be punished. The priests of the Temples liked the idea very much, as it could help them consolidate order and power over the people. The Egyptian Sun god failed them, but their new understanding of their One God, YHWH, "I Am that I Am", would deliver them from their hardships and failings of their Pagan ancestors. Moses assured them as much, and it was written into Genesis of the Bible, the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The rest is history. Thus was born the Abrahamic trilogy of faith, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam."
Is this not the fount of all world Biblical religions, that Man is fallen in original Sin? Is it not Man's fault that we suffer for being lesser beings, born of 'sin' and made to feel 'guilty' until redemption? And was it not around this "Original Sin" that world Biblical religions constructed salvation and redemption from it? I wrote in the same thread Is Original Sin necessary for all the Abrahamic religions?, that without this 'original sin' imputation in the Bible, the whole structure of Adam's fall and mankind's Messianic liberation from 'sin' becomes a house of cards. Remove Original Sin, and the whole structure comes tumbling down. Do we really need world religions' messianic redemption from original Sin? Or is it really 'redemption' from original Guilt?
Jesus as the Good Shepherd
The whole superstructure of religion is to impose God's Covenant on Man's fallen nature. This in itself is an inherently coercive structure demanding obedience from Man to allay Adam's sin in us, with punishments to follow if we disobey. But too often these punishments are man-made, so rather than await an inevitable death with its post-mortem punishments in Hell, humans take it upon themselves to punish disbelievers temporally. Repent or suffer is the modus operandi of this religious superstructure imposed on all humanity, in lesser or greater degrees. In Christianity the punishments have become, in modern times, rather tamed: excommunication, damnation, denial of communion, possible shunning socially; but in Islam the punishment, in these same times, is often severe: flogging, stoning, amputation, spiritual damnation or death. But is this necessary to fulfill God's Covenant with Man? No, not if Man's original Sin is nothing more than original Guilt. The Supreme Being of the Universe is far greater, and simpler, than the imputed mythologies of ancient religions, and far purer in our gnosis of belief experiences within our lives in it. We are indeed 'children of God' and there is no 'saving' us from this, because we are already made in the image of that Being. This is why the Universe is understandable to us, and why we can operate within it with abilities that to our ancient forebears would have appeared miraculous. There is no need to feel Guilt over any imputed 'original Sin' because it never existed in the first place. Remove the coercive superstructure of religious punishments, and you liberate the soul to seek God naturally, as it was meant to be.
Did religion civilize humanity in ancient times? Without a doubt, as missionaries from all religions, Buddhist, Christian, Judaic, including Islam and Hindu, have brought law and order, and some form of morality to barbaric tribes. But in modern times, though religions still hold commendable sway, this is more simply achieved by being mindful of when such morality and order encourages 'human agreements', as opposed to enforcing coercions. The only coercion necessary to achieve moral behaviors is to stop coercion. The rest follows of its own accord, naturally. In fact, is this not the whole principle of Habeas Mentem, that humanity has a greater consciousness, both personally and in toto, through personal agreements than coercions? We need not feel guilty over this, because it is our natural birthright. We as a rising human planetary consciousness have the right to seek each other out in agreement, and to be protected from others' coercions. That is a far greater reality to aspire to, and far more durable morally than any religious superstructure imposed on us, to achieve our true human Being. It is that simple.
the shepherd leads and protects his flock, with love
The true Messiah had a simple message, "Love one another." There is little else that truly matters. The rest follows simply, with beauty, elegance, greatness, they all follow, with love. This is the simple Message for all humanity for all time, not with guilt, or sin, but with Love. And the Universe opens to you.
Also see: And Adam gave Eve the Apple
One vs. Two? - a philosophical question
The Messiah Paradox
New Age bunk
|Posted on Monday, June 04, 2012 - 02:15 pm: |
What if "New Age" is speculative 'new bunk'?
(interactive - video, 10 mins)
The Illusion of Reality ~ Consciousness & Quantum Theory
That the whole of reality and the universe is all Consciousness may be true in some way. But that this inner consciousness in each one of us is what forms for us the physical reality in which we live, stretching from our personal existence to billions of light years away where the universe seems to peter out, is a vast stretch of imagination, and wishful thinking. It is a projection and has no real substance under serious scrutiny. For example, there is no way for our 'consciousness' to will itself to rise up from death, nor can it relieve the pain associated with real suffering in our physical state of being; predation is painful, to eat and be eaten is a natural state of physical being for most species, but the pain is real only for the one being eaten and not the one doing the eating. That the atom is a vibration of energy may be true (Humancafe article shows the atom as an interaction between a strong gravity nucleus with electromagnetic energy received), and it may even be a 'holographic' projection of universal consciousness, but it does not negate the reality of that projection as having real cause and effect independent of our participation in it. Things exist of their own, not of our volition for them to exist. To think otherwise, a basis for New Age thinking, is to project our "wish model" onto all of reality, so it is speculation at best, and grossly disingenuous, inaccurately irresponsible at worst. It is bunk.
The Universe may be participatory, and evidence seems to indicate at the sub-atomic Quantum level and marco-universal level that it is, including concepts of infinite interrelationships discussed here; but it is a gross oversimplification to think this is in any way a personal wish experience, such as insinuated in New Age speculations. In effect, this whole process of thinking ourselves as mere projections within a universal Consciousness is lovely as an elegant theory of existence, but it is not usefully practical in our everyday existence. We still have to eat, to stay warm, and to safeguard ourselves from being abused and attacked by others, whether animals or human, as well as natural disasters. Here is the danger of oversimplification of universal reality into a pop culture thinking it can raise its consciousness by us willing it to be so. Not that easy. The universe has certain rules and logic behind its structure, and it is far more demanding than our simply wishing it to be in our image. Scientific approach to all these questions and issues of consciousness is a better way. And once understood, it is simple. But there is no easy short-cut to us raising our human consciousness within the universal Consciousness, except through a rigorous understanding of how the universe works. And that's Science, not New Age. At the social level of inter-human interaction, wishing for good things, for peace and love, for mutual respect and affection, is simply not enough. Meditation, yoga, good thoughts and healthy living, joyfulness, all have their place in the human arena of existence, and they should be encouraged for personal well being and health, as well as a smooth flow of beneficial social interactions. But reality is very demanding. And to make the world work, it takes a lot of hard work, not fuzzy wishful thinking.
Peace and love
Gravity 'remainder' of Strong force
|Posted on Thursday, June 28, 2012 - 10:19 pm: |
In the May 2012, issue of Scientific American, in article titled: Loops, Trees and the Search for New Physics, it says (fair use):
Gravity does look like the other forces, albeit in an unexpected way. It behaves like a "double copy" of the strong subnuclear force that binds the constituents of nuclei together.
What is String Theory?
This little innocuous sentence captures the essence of where gravity comes from -- what we know as the weak force of G=6.67x10^-11 m^3 kg ^-1 s^-2 in our Earth orbital region -- as the "remainder force" from electromagnetic energy density from our local hot star, the Sun, and its interaction with the Strong force equivalence in the proton nuclei, as it is modified there and kept in a state of equilibrium, what we call the atom. (Per Equivalence, that remainder gravity also accounts for atom's inertial mass.) I doubt the writer, or physicists studying this, actually see it that way, yet, but in time it will become more evident. The search for 'gravitons' will prove illusive, as the remainder Strong force resulting in gravity has no such particles radiating it. It merely exists as a gravitational potential 'spooky action' at a distance, to infinity. Gravity is inversely proportional to hot energy, whereby gravity G is weaker closer in to hot star, but stronger further out, and some five orders of magnitude greater in interstellar space; so it is inherently different from radiant energy. Gravity stands apart as a force, has no polarity, and does not radiate anything; it merely is. Nor is it a 'universal constant' as now believed, but is variable in direct proportion (per Axiomatic Equation) to the inverse of the energy density received; in effect, it is a 'constant' on a curve. It is not coincidence that all the forces of nature are interrelated. That is how is structured the universes, and it is totally balanced as a cosmic whole, except for its 'emergence' evolution. But disambiguation of the Strong force is the key, as modified by radiant electromagnetic energy, whereby the remainder force is Gravity.
And no, there was no Big Bang (sheesh), it's all deep space gravity redshift. For Unified Theory to come together it will have to factor in Variable-G.
Also: the missing Higgs boson might be found after all, at 125 GeV range, as expected: New Particle at World's Largest Atom Smasher is Likely Higgs Boson - Space.com.
It sounds like a rather messy way to find 'intertial' mass, which is not a 'particle' but that's where they're at, for now.
RE 'Dark Matter', see Giant Dark Matter Bridge Between Galaxy Clusters Discovered. It may be nothing more than non-luminous molecules scattered in intergalactic space regions of sparse e.m. energy resulting in exceptionally high gravity-G, some 5 orders of magnitudes higher than Earth's G region, so interacts gravitationally only, not visible to us.
Also see: 'Dark matter' is structure of the universe? Still groping in the dark, regardless of Higgs.
Standard Model deviant
Also see: Gerber's Gravity
The contribution to the Newtonian potential at a given location in space at a given instant due to a mass m is strictly a function of the distance of that mass from the given location at the same instant. In other words, if we let r[t] denote the distance from the given location to the mass particle at the time t, then the contribution of that mass to the gravitational potential V[t] at the given location at the time t is V[t] = -m/r[t]. Thus, Newtonian gravity represents instantaneous action at a distance, because the effect of changing the position of a gravitating mass is "felt" throughout the universe at the instant when the mass moves. Needless to say, for the simple two-body problem this potential gives stable elliptical orbits.
Smashing tea cups
|Posted on Friday, July 06, 2012 - 10:15 pm: |
Maybe atom smashing in Large Hadron Collider is like smashing tea cupe?
HOW THE HIGGS COULD BECOME ANNOYING
3D visualization of a collision event inside the Large Hadron Collider. Does a Higgs particle hide inside all that carnage?
Imagine you design an experiment where you are going to smash tea cups in a large 'smashatron'. Then you will measure the residue from the smashed cups. You will count the number of 1 millimeter pieces, then 2 mm. then 3 mm, and so on, until you get to the largest millimeters of 'expected' according to theory. Now, once these cups are smashed, do a statistical analysis of the pieces from each experiment, and repeat thousands of times. The measured pieces of cups are then recorded on a bell graph, according to the resulting distribution of shard sizes. So it looks like this:
Then you analyze the results and give them 'names' for each size shard recorded, and finally you come up with a standard chart of what you found. Unsurprisingly, the cup shards fall into a recognizable pattern that fits your theory as to how they are supposed to smash up. And voila! You have a 'standard' theory of smashed cups. To take it beyond here is problematic, since all we did was measure how tea cups smash up, of different sizes and shapes, until we have fitted curves for the results. But this is not too far off the mark as an analogy of smashed atoms and molecules. The decaying particles from LHC collisions are the shards. The results are skewed by what the theory predicted would happen. So when Higgs particle was finally discovered, statistically, after much effort and progressively more expensive colliders, you basically got a fit. That is not to say Standard Model is wrong, nor that atom smashing is invalid. But the similarity is striking.
Then break out the champagne, and get a standing ovation. It's the best we've got.
And then it goes into hyperbole:
Higgs bosons imply the existence of a Higgs field, which is envisioned as a "condensate" that slows down speed-of-light particles and encumbers them with mass. If we find a way to "turn off" the field or create a local anomaly, we could end up with super-fast, super-express highways with mass-on / mass-off ramps. Miss your exit, though, and your next U-turn could be 100 million miles ahead.
What can we say? Is this boson the 'right egg'?
Also see: Hints of New Physics Detected in the LHC?
More at: Tracking high energy particles in a Bubble Chamber
|Posted on Monday, January 21, 2013 - 03:51 pm: |
a simple man, Galileo
I am a simple man. Some say I am delusional. But after a long life of trials, and vagaries both human and natural, I can say I am of sound mind. Except I see things in the world differently, so I may appear delusional to some, or wise to others. I will let history judge my works. It is not for me to do otherwise. It is in my vanity I write this testament, to be opened upon my death, for many have misunderstood me. I wish to clarify I am a simple man.
When still a young boy, my life in Pisa was uneventful, I found a love for mathematics. It came easy to me as I helped my father with calculations when building his musical instruments. Only later at university did I find the love for geometry. It was my fascination with scales and pendulums that led me to open my eyes to their mathematical wonders, of how the universe is a perfect harmonium of forms and numbers explained with mathematical precision. This was the wonder that cleared my life's path away from a life my father ordained for me, as neither the priesthood nor medicine could match my first love. Geometry became my mistress and mathematics her handmaiden. So I ordained myself to a life of study. Was that delusional, as they say of me? Is pursuit of God's truths, in observations and their mathematics, an error?
I had been called many things, even a "vehement heretic"! Yet I would delude myself to think I had actually found something unknowable to the mind of man, or God. Of course I would never challenge the holy Scriptures. If it was God's way of saying His truths to mankind, then I cannot improve on that. But man is a fallible creature that misunderstands often. So my instructions were to clarify understanding, not to confuse with heresies. Did I do wrong to try to find the answers with simplicity and truth? Oh yes, they honored me at the Academia dei Lincei in Rome for my 'eye glass tube', what they called in Greek "to see at a distance', their tele'scope. I am not vain to consider it a glory. I merely did what I had to do, and look. The planets came clearer, Jupiter with its garland of moons. The phases of Venus proved it went around the Sun, though I was much maligned for it. I was first to map the mountains and mares of the Moon. When I looked into the heart of the Milky Way, I was richly rewarded with stars and more stars. Was it delusional to look into the heart of God? No, I am a simple man who is curious, and no more. The perfections of the heavens are in the image of that perfection of God. My favorite is the circle, perfectly complete and infinite at the same time. Geometry's perfect forms are but His language, and I a humble student.
Oh yes, I had also done useful work. My technical inventions, with improved geometric calculations, found ready takers. The Prince hired me to calculate projectile parabolas for his canons, which I did, as well as the compass for military use. Did I sell my epistemic soul for technic pursuit? Perhaps. But are they not both God's works? The telescope, and then the microscope, and the thermometer are my greatest achievements. They solved problems by offering vision and right calculations. How could inventions that aid us be "heretical"? Yet, the telescope caused me much trouble with Church authorities. Even my daughter Virginia, whom I fathered with my beloved Marina, found fault with my explorations of the heavens. By then she was accepted into her convent, so perhaps I should not be critical of her ecclesiastic views. We are fallible beings beneath the perfection of the heavens, so must be forgiven for our limitations. I am not a proud man, but merely a humble servant of knowledge. For this they called me a "heretic"? "Don't persist, Papa, with your ideas of the Sun as fixed in the heavens" she would say. "You know it is in the Hebrew bible that it is the Earth that is fixed." We wrote letters. "But the oceans are not fixed, are they?" I would write back. "The tides flow to and fro, just as the Earth spins around the Sun, is it not so?" She could not answer to this, but to beseech me to be circumspect, prudent. Her love for me warms even now, though she had already passed to God… It seems only yesterday.
I learned they burned Giordano Bruno at the stake in Campo dei Fiori, but then I said nothing. I suppose I am to consider myself fortunate that I too did not share the same fate in Rome many years later. The Holy Fathers were severe with me, they showed me instruments of torture. To this day I shudder at the sight, it so filled me with fear. How could humans be so cruel to humans? They say it is to keep the Holy Catholic Church pure, to free her of the viles of the Evil One. But does the Devil work to show us truths with reason, only to confuse us with errors and heresies? No, I cannot believe that. Reason and truths are from God, not the Devil. I think they burned Bruno unjustly. Same as they silenced me unjustly and kept me my final years imprisoned from the world. I have been judged unjustly by the Church authorities. Is that delusional of me to think they are fallible? Was it delusional that I thought comets went around the Sun in their fiery paths, gaining grains of sand when far, but shedding them in giant tails when near? The mathematics make sense, though it is puzzling their paths are elliptical and not perfectly round? Why is that? Surely God in His perfection would have made them perfectly circular orbits, same as for all the planets and moons. But my mind wanders now, I am not saying what I wanted to clearly. Same as when I wrote in my notes, my mind sees things backwards as well as forwards, and sometimes the two mix together, so something surprising and totally new emerges. I am not always in control of what I think and say, so help me God. Yet, I do believe Reason is from God and not the Devil. Bruno was burned unjustly… May the Holy Fathers forgive him.
It is God's simplicity I worship most of all. In my delusional moments, I imagine myself actually understanding Him in His own language. But it passes quickly, and I am again left to wonder alone in my solitude, watching the fire crackle to warm my feet. The mind wanders, then finds a safe rock to hold fast. I turn to the Bible and find His language there, simple and easy to understand. The universe is too complicated for one man to fathom, certainly to understand it on its own terms. It is easier to turn to one's fellows and ask them. Whatever the scholars tell you, accept it as said true, and life simplifies immensely. But I am cursed with wondering, so cannot long find solace in their stories and myths. No matter how clever and complex, the truths of life scream at me in their simplicity, and I cannot turn a deaf ear. God forgive me for my vanity, but I want to hear His voice clearly, such as it happens sometimes inside my head. Is that delusional? Then I am a simple man who is delusional.
May His Holy Father Urban VIII forgive me for my obstinate intransigence in my search for knowledge. He called it "vehement suspicion of heresy", as ruled by the Holy Inquisition. I am not guilty of such. My only guilt is that I did not better explain myself, so they misunderstood my fallible words. It was not philosophy that I sought, nor sophistry or polemics to challenge Church doctrine and dogma. Nor did I wish to place myself above others on whose shoulders I stood, their knowledge holding me up like a Prometheus on the shoulders of Titans. No, I am a simple man who craves no such glories. My life was a parabola that reached its apex early, and now well into its decline. I look back at the first conic section with wonder, and the second coming with dread of the unknown. Where do we go from here? What trajectory shall we follow when our soul joins with the stars? That is the heart of the matter, in fine, that we are born and then we die. To have lived a truthful virtuous life is the apex of man's achievements, all else pales in comparison like ruins. Yes, the glory of Rome was great once… But then they too died. May the Holy Father forgive me for my failures as a man, as the circle of life closes on itself, and save my soul in His infinite mercies. I wished to be a simple man. In my delusional dreams, with the clarity of Pythagorean scales, I thought I was. Or perhaps not... I let history judge.
G. Galilei (fiction)
Galileo Galilei Linceo
|Posted on Monday, July 15, 2013 - 12:36 pm: |
GALILEO GALILEI LINCEO
Galileo and Federico Cesi, founder of Academia dei Lincei
While staying in Rome we had the opportunity to attend a symposium at the Academia dei Lincei, Lincean Academy at Palazzo Corsini in Trastevere, on Galileo Galilei for the 400 year anniversary of his book published by the Academy on Macchie Solari (On Sunspots) 1613, in honor of the man who may very well have been the father of modern science. As one of the early members of Academia Lincei, Galileo added Linceo to his signature, so he signed his name "Galileo Galilei Linceo". The Academy was founded in 1603 by Prince Federico Cesi (1585-1630), making it the world's earliest Science academy. It was dedicated to the then novel idea that Natural Science and inductive reasoning was the way of the future, and their purpose was to publish and promote new scientists and their discoveries. Galileo had already published three years earlier his Sedereus Nuncius book of astronomy, showing the mountains and mares of the moon, and later phases of Venus and four moons of Jupiter. This launched modern astronomy and the 'scientific method' introduced by Galileo (and Kepler, Bacon, Descartes, Newton, Alhazen et al) where observation was followed by inductive reasoning to form hypothesis, and where the language of science became mathematical. (Note, Royal Society in England was founded later, 1660, but unlike Lincei it was in continuous operation to the present.)
Galileo's "Starry Messenger" Sidereus Nuncius; Academia dei Lincei symbol (photos by Celsia, library at Palazzo Corsini)
The purpose of the symposium (most of it in English) was to explore both the history of Galileo's science and where we are going forward in the 21st century. The focus was primarily on future missions in the solar system, from missions to the Sun as well as out into the solar system with robotic spacecraft observations. The past, however, as illustrated in the corollary publication "Galileo, I Primi Lincei e l'Astronomia" (Italian) given to attending members, there was also awareness of what odds Galileo and Academia dei Lincei faced during the times of the Holy Inquisition 400 years ago. Galileo then published at the Academia his Macchie Solari (On Sunspots), 1613. At the time, science was still a debatable idea which was enthusiastically supported by the intelligentsia of the time, including members of the Catholic Church (Jesuits, cardinals) who welcomed progressive ideas on science. But where these ideas conflicted with Holy Scripture, Church dogma and 'mainstream' Ptolemaic doctrine, they would be uneasy in appearing 'heretical', so treated such conflicting ideas as 'speculations' and not to be proven as absolute truths. This ran increasingly into conflict as scientific evidence continued to militate against the Ptolemaic geocentric system in favor the the Copernican heliocentric solar system. So what was at first gladly entertained by church scholars initially came into increasing suspicion of being treasonous to Church doctrine, and hence 'heretical' in nature. There were numerous attempts to fit, however uneasily, the new scientific astronomical observations with the new telescope popularized by Galileo into some framework that would appeal to Vatican scholars, and the Inquisition. For example, Tycho Brahe's creative compromise Tyconic solar system had the Earth at the center with the Sun revolving around it, and the planets in turn revolving around the Sun, not a comfortable fit but acceptable to some for a time.
(The great Biblioteca of Cardinal Casanatense -17th century, next to Convent of Santa Maria sopra Minerva- in Rome then had some 25,000 books, some of which are heretical, but referenced by Inquisitors, as well as the metal orb of the Tychonic solar system.) Giambattista Della Porta wrote his "De Refractione" (1593) in support of Galileo's optics and astronomical observations, but not his scientific conclusions, as well as "Maggia Naturales" (1589) which merged alchemy with science. The telescope was then still debated as to whether or not its optics 'distorted' the reality it was observing, as argued by Christoph Scheiner (1573-1650), who also disputed Galileo's hypothesis, though aware that the old Ptolemaic system needed revision. In his letters to Archduchess Cristina de Lorena, Galileo made the case for separating Scripture from Science, and that biblical references were not to be disputed by scientific discoveries, as they were two separate forms of God's truths revealed to man, in essence. However, these debates did not endanger Galileo, nor the Academia, until he published his "Dialogo" (1623) as a fictional dialogue between Copernican and Ptolemaic philosophers, Ptolemy being represented by Simplicius (and vaguely Pope Urban VIII), that the Catholic Church (and Pope) took offense for openly challenging orthodoxy. Galileo was summoned by the Holy Inquisition, sanctioned for suspicion of 'high heresy', silenced and put under house arrest for the rest of his years. And thus was made the difficult transition from Scripture based 'science' to the modern Natural science, where dogma no longer ruled the intellect, but deferred instead to observation and hypothesis, with mathematics the new universal language of science. This was the legacy of Galileo.
Macchie Solari "Sunspots"; Ptolemaic book (Celsia)
Kepler book; occhiali 17th century with manuscript (Celsia)
Duchess Cristina de Lorena; Galileo letter to Duchess de Lorena (Celsia)
Cardinal Bellarmine; Christoph Scheiner - detractors of Copernican system
Cardinal Casanatense Library with Tychonian solar system (upper center globe); Tychonian system
Dialogo by Galileo (interactive); Dialogo, Simplicio et al (Celsia)
400 years hence… Is the Galilean 'scientific method' at risk in the 21st century?
This is an ongoing concern in the scientific fields of today. We see it in the Creationism versus Evolution debates, as well as debates between believers and doubters in other mainstream ideas of science. For example, is the evidence for the Big Bang hypothesis compelling beyond doubt? Or is there room to challenge the ideas: that cosmic light redshift is from necessity from the Doppler expansion of space, that there cannot be other compelling reasons that are non-Doppler? Perhaps instead it could be gravitational (Dark Matter gravitational redshift, line of sight) in origin that would invalidate mainstream cosmology? Or perhaps going beyond the Standard Model? These debates are at risk as they were during Galileo's time. Today's charge of scientific 'heresy' no longer carries a death threat. But there are many subtle ways to silence those who are considered 'pseudo-scientists' because they challenge the Mainstream ideology, such as cut off research funding, silenced publications, loss of employment opportunities, academic ridicule, etc. Are the Galilean challenges to authority still with us? Is the scientific method alive and well today? Or is it faulty when driven by hypothesis bias orthodoxy (inadvertently enforcing scientific 'dogma'), to the detriment of science? Therein lies the Galilean dilemma in our 21st century...
IDA & CB
One vs. Two?
|Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 - 01:21 pm: |
One vs. Two?
Fractal Gordian Knot
There is something in the mind that wants to unite all into wholeness as a concept of Unity. However, this is frustrated by a universe that seems to be composed of opposing factors, or a duality of polarity that perpetually Divides rather than unites. How can this be understood without falling into the old traps of "us vs. them" or "good vs. evil", or light vs. dark, plus vs. minus, hot vs. cold, macro vs. micro, etc., and all the permutations in between? In observing reality, we see this duality multiply fractal like into a kaleidoscope infinity of diversity and multiplicity. So how can one derive unity from such diversity?
In a simple universe, there is no distinction between unity and duality, merely distinctions within Unity as it plays out in vast panorama of existence. In the end, it is all One. But from our observational perspective, there is in fact a great variety of 'ones' that make up the world we know. It seems to us that duality exists at all levels of the universe, from the biblical Genesis duality of 'God and the world', to the scientific world's duality of positive and negative charge, to the Standard Model 'duality' of a multiplicity of fundamental particles, to socio-economic rich and poor, even to gender male and female. So how could Duality ever be denied? It is obvious that 'here and there' are two distinct categories our human mind must accept as true. We are hard wired to see the universe that way, and our desire to reduce this to Unity is likewise a construct of our mind in it. It is the same with the ancient Egyptian, or Zoroastrian, Hebrew, Christian, idea of 'good and evil', which though a purely subjective idea is nevertheless a reality for us as a human species. We make distinctions, which in itself implies a priori a sense of duality. But there is a way around this problem of duality by introducing another term, and that is by adding one to it, which makes it a Triality. This once more brings it back to Unity. But how?
Three involves the basic common denominator of all the interconnectedness of things in existence, or their 'interrelationship' all the way to infinity. Nothing is left out of total interrelationship, as nothing can be exempt from its interconnected web of existence. And it is from that totality of interrelationship that a new thing is born out, or emergent, that adds to the totality value that did not exist before: It adds One. Together, the totality again becomes this One, and the original duality plus one, as it is three, is always One.
This may seem paradoxical, but it goes a long way towards understanding what the ancient Hindus' 'Advaita and Advaya', and later Hua-yen Buddhism's interpenetrated reality came to understand of the Universe, that it is all a Unity. The ultimate greater goal of these non-dualistic spiritual philosophies is to join with a greater universal consciousness by dropping the ego, which can also be found in elements of Christian and Sufi mysticism. What they all hold in common is an understanding of the Universe as non-dualistic, but an interpenetrated reality that is totally interrelated back into our being-consciousness, which allows us to 'emerge' into our godhead, or the One. So strange that it seems, the Three is central to Unity, same as implicated subliminally in the Trinity of Christianity. When religions stayed focused on Duality, the 'good and evil' or 'light and darkness', they reached only part way into the whole truth, or it now seems in retrospect. There is a third factor that brings All to Unity, where the objective and subjective, Zen like, are brought into unity by human consciousness. And this is the same Consciousness that is brought about by a universe that is interrelated to infinity from three.
Duality vs. Triality
So what is the outcome of One vs. Two? It is Three. And that natural addition is what in final analysis identifies the meaning of One: the universal Unity. Every child knows one and two is three! It is that simple. But it takes a spiritually mature, conscious mind to understand that in the end, one and two is both three, and universally One.
Also see: Working the Subjective Mind
Government best, least, equal
|Posted on Saturday, November 02, 2013 - 03:36 pm: |
Government governs best
Government that best protects the interests of free people in ways agreeable to the common good;
is government that governs least;
that where constitutional protection for all individual human rights from criminal coercion is its prime directive;
with equal protection for all.
irrespective of gender, spiritual beliefs, ethnicity or race, equally before the law.
Gravity, perfect illusion
|Posted on Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 06:12 pm: |
Gravity, the perfect illusion.
Ancients knew it, that it is easier to roll stones downhill than up; philosophers of Ancient Greece knew it as a downward force; Egyptian-Greco-Roman builders used it; it was Newton who identified it as a force, F=ma, to be same as G_F=GMm/r^2; so all knew it as Gravity. But it was Einstein who ultimately defined it totally geometrically in his General Relativity, that curved space-time around a massive object acts as its gravitational attraction, where G=(8piG/c^4)T, which completed the hypothetical notion of what Gravity is. In fact, it was an illusive hypothesis, because it measured exactly what we perceive it to be without betraying its true nature. We still are uncertain of what is gravity, perhaps even totally ignorant of it, though we think we know it. Why is that?
Looking at the bigger picture: The space-time equations of General Relativity are foundational on Special Relativity's basic axioms, that light speed is constant, and that same laws of physics apply for all reference frames. However, there may be a problem with this, that GR and SR are incompatible: in Special Relativity space-time is flat, while in General Relativity it is curved; (though Energy Conservation is same, as expressed by the tensor T;b=0 in both cases.) This then leads to a contradiction of sorts, that flat space time must equal curved space time in all reference frames at light speed c.
For example, we know from amply verifiable observations that light will curve around massive objects like galaxies (gravitational lensing, even for dark matter galaxies) so it will arrive at light speed c in observed measured time. But will this time observed equal for same light arriving directly from the source (same distant star) and not curved by gravitational lensing, so both are equal at light speed c? One path of light is direct from its source, while the other is curved; yet light cannot exceed light speed c; so the time observed must be the same for same light (at c in all reference frames), viz., same time for light curved by gravitational forces around a galaxy as for light direct. If so, because curved path is longer, the only possible solution is to change time in curved space-time, so gravity lensed light will not exceed c, and both photons (from same source) will arrive at the same (adjusted) time. Otherwise, the longer curved path will take longer to travel than the direct one, so their respective times of travel would differ; or light would be forced to exceed c for curved path. For simultaneous observed time (for both paths of unequal lengths) to be the same, we must allow that time differs for one path versus the other; and that flat space time of SR is same as curved space time of GR, when adjusted for "proper" Time. It is now believed relativistic gravitational lensing shows time delay, but mathematically adjusted to relativistic time (slight gravitationally redshift for curved path), the light arrives simultaneously.
Carried over into gravity, we have a 'flat space' equivalence in Newton's gravity G, and a 'curved space' equivalence in Einstein's General Relativity. Both will give readings correct within their domains of applicability, though only if adjusted for relativistic observations: they appear Newtonian at low velocity, but Einsteinian at hypervelocity, though both observational readings are correct, as adjusted. In both cases, gravity is axiomatically a universal constant G, and acts on mass to infinity, so in both Newton's G and Einstein's G there is a simultaneity of force potential over distance, to infinity. Where Newton has no time restriction on gravitational force, the other has a mathematical geometric time adjusted restriction: GR gravity waves cannot exceed relativistic speed limit c. This of necessity means gravity action at a distance cannot have simultaneous cause and effect at relativistic cosmological distances.
Newtonian gravity applied to space time of our solar system does not pose difficulty, and all works as it should. But with time delay of relativistic orbital gravity calculations, there should be discrepancy in how gravity waves time delay affects orbital behavior perturbations over greater distances; something not found observationally. For example, close to home, the eight minute light delay from our sun -same c as propagating gravity waves- should register during solar eclipse, where gravitational effect is delayed by eight minutes; in fact, the opposite is true, gravity acts in real time and affects Earth's tides eight minutes earlier (Allais Effect, unconfirmed?)* than visible eclipse. So rather than flat space time, we find gravity at curved space time equivalence, where gravity effect must be adjusted for real time, or in effect, 'proper' time, if it acts Newtonian. Then its effect, though time-delayed by graviton speed c, shows up in real time gravity effect (viz., gravitationally instantaneous). At least that is how it could be understood if General Relativity is correct. But if it is correct, and time is an illusion, then Gravity adjusted for time likewise becomes an illusion.
Another complication is General Relativity's incompatibility with Quantum Mechanics. Though both theories are well tested within their domains, they are irreconcilable except at the earliest instants of the Big Bang origin of the universe, and its first instances of time. This Big Bang theory is derived from both Einstein's General Relativity mathematics, in that its cosmological constant points to such an origin, and its implication from the Hubble constant, which confirms it. The Hubble constant is a distant cosmic light redshift phenomenon, implying the universe is undergoing a Doppler like expansion shifting distant light towards the red part of the spectrum. This too had been amply measured and proven correct, so it is now standard cosmological theory. However, this too may be an illusion. If distant light redshift is from causes other than space expansion, the Big Bang origin may not exist, throwing GR theory back into its cosmological constant foundation without supporting space expansion. And if so, the QM incompatibility becomes a fundamental basis for suspecting GR as illusive, that though Einstein's theory has been well confirmed, what we see from astronomical observation is not what it is. This is a case of observation giving off false readings, except within their domain of applicability, so they appear correct even if they are not. Distant light redshift could be gravitational redshift, except to make this work deep space intergalactic gravity would no longer be a universal constant; it would have to be orders of magnitude greater than measured here on Earth. In effect, the universal constant would be an illusion, one that could not be unmasked without measuring Newton's G far from Earth's measured value. This remains for the future, as at present we have not measured it so.
Gravity may be more illusive than we ever anticipated, and its illusiveness had remained well concealed by all the astronomical observations proving Einstein right. Yes, he was right if gravity acted in same manner as electromagnetic energy, provided we adjusted Time to make the relativistic math work; but it would prove illusion if gravity is not a universal constant, but perhaps G variable on a curve, so the equations of General Relativity would have to be adjusted for such. If so, then GR is incomplete, and may even in the end prove spurious, in that it gave us a perfect illusion of gravity that mimicked light c. To prove otherwise we would need to measure Newton's gravity constant G on a cosmological scale. This is not new exotic physics, just simple physics. And if proven, then perhaps a modification to Einstein's gravity geometry may bring us closer to meaningful unification with Quantum Theory.
Some disturbing elements of General Relativity, and its attendant Big Bang theory, is that formation of the universe was so fast, nearly instantaneous in cosmic time. Fully formed galaxies within a few hundred million years of BB origin, with already massive black hole galactic centers challenges the imagination; same for near instantaneous inflation in first seconds of the Big Bang. Is it all illusion? How many collapsed stars would it take to make supermassive black holes within the short time of star creation, galaxy formation, and subsequent collapse? How hot would the universe need to be at its imagined birth for this to happen within a few hundred million years? (We may discover the further we look back in time, the more we will see, all already formed!) Unless gravity G was very great then, how did hydrogen collapse into star birth so quickly? If the universe is expanding, why is there no local evidence of this? Why is dark matter excluded totally from local observation? Could CDM be a high gravity G phenomenon, so it interacts with matter gravitationally only? We know dark matter galaxies can bend light for gravitational lensing, so it mimics large mass on a cosmological scale, but it is invisible to General Relativity theory. Something is missing, and finding it is the great challenge to gravitational theory if we are to crack the illusion of what we think it is. Not new physics, just good science.
Our astronomical measurements confirm gravity theory within decimals tolerance, giving us near perfect readings within our theory's expectations. But it may be, like adjustable time (fully acceptable within its mathematics), merely a very fine illusion. In fact, gravity may be the perfect illusion. Regardless, the ancients were right, it is easier to roll a stone downhill than up. We in modern times still need to figure out why. It's just a matter of time.
*(See original by Maurice Allais: Should the Laws of Gravitation be Reconsidered?, first article Pdf, page 5, see Fig. 7a & 7b for time phase differences on maximun gravity effect and visible maximum eclipse time lapse. Also see Speed of Gravity -Wiki)
Countdown to Strangeness
The Brilliant Beautiful Mind of Albert Einstein
The Mass of the Universe
Binary asteroid instabilities
Gravity Waves Found?
Also see: Gerber's Gravity
The contribution to the Newtonian potential at a given location in space at a given instant due to a mass m is strictly a function of the distance of that mass from the given location at the same instant. In other words, if we let r[t] denote the distance from the given location to the mass particle at the time t, then the contribution of that mass to the gravitational potential V[t] at the given location at the time t is V[t] = -m/r[t]. Thus, Newtonian gravity represents instantaneous action at a distance, because the effect of changing the position of a gravitating mass is "felt" throughout the universe at the instant when the mass moves. Needless to say, for the simple two-body problem this potential gives stable elliptical orbits.
How old the universe?
|Posted on Wednesday, June 25, 2014 - 12:56 pm: |
How old is the Universe?
Space Today says:
Many astronomers say the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, plus or minus 10 percent.
How do they know? There are four approaches to calculating the age.
1. One method of judging the age of the Universe involves its expansion. Astronomers see the Universe expanding. Galaxies around our Milky Way galaxy are moving away at a significant speed. That is one of the reasons cosmologists believe the Universe began in a Big Bang and has been expanding ever since. Using powerful instruments like the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers have been able to look at objects dating back most of the way to the Big Bang. This has allowed them to estimate the rate that the Universe has been expanding in the past. Projecting the data backwards, they calculated the Universe shrank to a single point somewhere between 13.5 billion and 14 billion years ago.
2. A second method of measuring the age of the Universe involves the age of white dwarf stars. A white dwarf is a small dense star, about the size of Earth, that has undergone gravitational collapse and is at the final stage of its evolution. Initially all stars are powered by hydrogen fusion but, after they run out of fuel, white dwarfs keep shining because they are hot. However, hot things cool off. White dwarfs gradually cool at a rate astronomers have calculated. The oldest white dwarfs have ages that range from 13.0-13.5 billion years.
3. A third method of assessing the age of the Universe is the study of star clusters. As with white dwarfs, astronomers have found that the oldest star clusters are 13.0-13.5 billion years old.
4. A fourth method of finding the age of the Universe looks at cosmic microwave background radiation. CMB radiation is a faint microwave electromagnetic signal that comes from all points in the sky. Scientists explain it as fossil radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the Universe. They consider CMB to be strong evidence of the Big Bang. They say that during the first 300,000 years of the Universe, it was filled with a foggy plasma. As the Universe expanded and cooled, hydrogen atoms began to form into protons and electrons. As a result, space became increasingly transparent. CMB seen today is light that was released when most of the hydrogen atoms formed and that has been traveling through space for billions of years. By analyzing variations in the intensity of the CMB radiation, astronomers calculate the age of the Universe at 13.72 billion years. ...
The answers given may be more to do with our observational limitations, that light gets too diffused at 13 billion light years to get a realistic observation. If the universe is infinite in space and time, then these may be conclusions based on such observational limitations. In a Simple Universe (where gravity-G is not a universal constant, and Hubble redshift is a deep space gravitational phenomenon) we may have to rethink on what we think we see. The paradox is that the universe is simply too old and too large to measure.
Also see: How 'big' Big Bang?
|Posted on Tuesday, September 23, 2014 - 02:45 pm: |
Deconstructing renormalized infinities.
Renormalized infinities (interactive)
It seems that whenever we speak of 'infinity' we enter a realm of science fiction. In common parlance 'infinity' is any amount that is too large, or too many, something beyond human comprehension. But in theoretical physics, such infinities do pop up in calculations, so they must be dealt with. Often, these infinities are found in Quantum Electro Dynamics (per Feynman, Schwinger, Tomonaga), where the mass-energy of electrons become infinite. The way to resolve these puzzling infinities is to do what is done with exceedingly small quantities, but in reverse: they are subtracted out or ignored, what is called 'renormalization' in QED mathematics. But there may be a conceptual way to understand how this renormalization occurs, if reality does this within itself naturally. This may explain why negative electrons, those with positive charge, positrons, pop into existence when in QED the electron sea energy rises to infinity. It may be nature's renormalization process at work, where 'infinity' is reversed back on itself with reverse electrical charge. So instead of infinite negative charge, a counter positive charge is created in response. The same may occur in the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' where higher energy on progressively shorter wavelengths tend towards infinity, but are 'cut off' to fall back into the ultraviolet range instead. It seems the universe likes to trip its own infinities.
But there may be a place where infinities are naturally 'renormalized' in reality, and that involves how the universe is interrelated, to infinity. If we think of infinite series of integers, 1, 2, 3, etc. and their inverse 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, etc., then taking either to infinity makes for infinitely large, to infinity, or infinitely small, to zero, which track each other in inverse proportion; yet their respective product of integer-infinity times its inverse-infinity is always equal to One. So in this sense, infinity applied against itself always 'renormalizes' itself to 'one', no matter how large the infinity, or how small its corresponding inverse tending towards zero. At the limit, infinity is always equal One.
Now, taking this into the real world of our physical universe, the one existential on its own terms, if not in our understanding or measurements of it, where all reality is interrelated into itself, to infinity; the default process is that its reflexive definitions from infinity, what gives each existential thing its universal identity (in terms of totality interrelationship to infinity), is what makes it be what it is from the 'pressure' of the rest of existence; therefore, the universe finds itself 'emergent' with an additional function of itself that did not exist prior, viz., the defined identity. So instead of closing itself off in a natural renormalization, it flips in reverse and creates an emergent effect instead. But this too is now part of the infinity, by default, so it reverts back on itself again. This process is theoretically infinite, but there is a limit where it trips itself, just like it did in the infinite electron sea by creating positrons: this infinite progression manifests itself in a single unity, what might be called the first molecule of life. In effect, an infinity, or what tends towards infinity, has its infinitesimal renormalization, which tends at the limit towards zero, and which is the foundational block of life. This does not explain infinity in its totality, something that remains in the realm of human fiction, but it does rechannel itself into its inverse image, which product is again One, i.e., one basic element of life.
We need not understand infinity to use it. Same as Giordano Bruno said four centuries ago, that infinity has no boundary and no center, it can be assumed his definition holds today. It may be as he had thought, that all points in infinity are its center. And that is where it closes in on itself, at its infinite centers. (In effect, when infinity is renormalized, you have a 'thing'.) Infinity exists in a drop of water as much as in the whole universe. Same as infinity fractals, there is no center and no end. In the end all measures are interrelated into their inverse, and where infinitesimals tend towards zero, at the limit infinities tend towards their inverse. Does zero times infinity equal one? We don't know for certain, but it tends that way, infinitely.
So using renormalization is not outside the bounds of infinity, nor outside the bounds of reason. Infinity both closes itself off, and continues indefinitely. But same as zero has proven itself useful calculus, at the limit, so has infinity. They are merely perpendicular functions of each other. Renormalized infinities is a fine fiction we can live with.
Tracking in Bubble Chamber
|Posted on Friday, October 03, 2014 - 01:43 pm: |
Tracking high energy particles in a Bubble Chamber.
Electron-positron first seen in CERN
This is follow up on Smashing Tea Cups discussed earlier as analogous to what happens in atom smashing experiments. For example, in the Strange particle interactions in a bubble chamber (Woit & Garlin), it is described how particle tracks are identified within parameters of energy conservation and their momentum, by their curvatures, so weaker particle have larger arcs than stronger ones, which reveals their mass, charge, and velocity. In Judson's book The Search for Solutions, he describes earlier methods used to identify particles in a bubble chamber:
Since then particle accelerating experiments have grown more sophisticated with higher energies, where products of collisions are recorded in 3D and digitized for computer analysis. These observations default to the Schrodinger probability functions of the wave-particle duality, allowing both the energies of a system and likely location of a particle, per its probability density. Thus combining Schrodinger's equation, after equation's renormalization, with the particle's quantum electromagnetic field leads to Quantum Electro Dynamics, which is a highly successful and well tested theory.
And yet agreement about the similarity of patterns is so natural that (in an example I owe to the English physicist John Ziman) people not specially trained in science are employed in particle-physics laboratories to search the thousands of photographs, produced there, of the tracks made by high-energy particles in bubble chambers or directly in film emulsion, to spot strange configurations, at best extremely rare, that betray the passing or the interactions of new particles predicted by theorists.
These quantum observations are then guided by The Energy Distribution Function, which yields particles with inter spin, bosons, and half-integer spin, fermions; where at T=0, absolute zero, the probability equals =1; at higher temperatures, above the Fermi energy, renormalization is factored in as the probability of finding a particle in a given energy state decreases exponentially with higher temperature. Progressively higher energies yield more exotic particles, electrons, positrons, pions, kaons, anti-protons, charms, bosons, all the way up to Higgs. But higher energies require greater 'renormalization' in the calculated probabilities of finding a particle.
Back to the bubble chamber, all this is reduced to visible and measurable tracks in the superheated hydrogen or helium condensate of the chamber, analogous to above mentioned 'smashing tea cups'. But with a difference. Mathematical equations drive particle identification rather than visual patterns in a bubble chamber. The results are clearly spectacular, though the theories behind it may still be models not fully understood, or 'renormalized' to make math fit.
Also see: Mass of the Universe
Why Universe is Mathematical
Why Standard Model Incomplete
Science, pseudo-science, and dogma
|Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2014 - 01:34 pm: |
Science, pseudo-science, and dogma.
Ideally theory and data find agreement, so the theory drives observational data, and data validates the theory. In pseudo-science, the theory is validated by 'cherry picking' data that suits it, but this does not validate it inclusively, since some of the data is ignored or thrown out if it fails the theory. In religious beliefs or dogma, including theory dogmas, the data is superseded by the theory, so no amount of data can suffice to over turn it, since it is believed on faith. But now what happens if a good scientific theory is tested with observational data, but some of the data is deemed 'incomplete' or faulty? Then, as Einstein said: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." In effect, if data driven by theory fails to support it, it is sometimes acceptable to ignore the data.
In some cases, this may still be good science, as data can be misleading. When I worked experiments in the physics lab, back in my youth, I often got data that was outside the norm of what theory expected (in fact I nearly failed physics, were my grades not marked on a curve). Bad data exists, and it must be discarded if the experiment was faulty or the examiner made observational errors. But the real test is if there are no identifiable errors and the data still fails to support the theory, is the data valid to contradict theory? Ignoring or discarding such data may put us into the conundrum of favoring some data over others, which defaults to 'cherry picking' in order to find agreement. And if scientific theory is so well established as to preclude observations that contradict it, are we not dangerously close to pseudo-science, even scientific 'dogma'?
There may be instances in the history of science where agreement between theory and data may be elusive, so it is ignored. If the evidence is in but does not fit theory, ideally one would want to change the theory. But as Einstein said "change the facts", which may happen more than one suspects in scientific research driven by funding, peer review pressures, academic acceptance, etc. Sir Arthur Eddington had said "Observation and theory get on best when mixed together", that observation is always flavored and sometimes saturated with theory. If you have a compellingly winning theory, one must be inordinately bold to not ignore the evidence and reject the theory, a psychological feat not given to most researchers. So if planetary atmospheric or mass densities, for example, are found different from what current gravitational theory predicts for the outer planets, and ignored, would it constitute good science? Or should we be alarmed that scientific 'dogma' is driving the theory? No matter how beautiful or mathematically elegant, theory must in the end submit to data, if it is to be science in its true sense. We can't see it if we don't look. For all the sciences from physics to biology, experiments and observations that contradict theory should be cause for closer scrutiny, not disregarded because they fail to find agreement with theory. In a simple universe, theory is only a model, idealized approximation of reality, but not the facts. As Galileo discovered, accepting observational facts may not be an easy feat, if theory dogma holds the reigns of acceptable 'evidence'. Or, as Philosopher of Science, Maurice Arthus, had said (1921):
"In reality, those who repudiate a theory they had once proposed, or a theory that they had accepted enthusiastically and with which they had identified themselves, are very rare. The greater majority of them shut their ears so as not to hear the crying facts, and shut their eyes so as not to see the glaring facts, in order to remain faithful to their theories in spite of all and everything."
Also see: Tracking Pluto's density
When science and politics collide
Devil Sugar, Demon Salt
Gravity, the perfect illusion
Nuclear positive modified by e.m. energy
|Posted on Monday, October 13, 2014 - 12:52 pm: |
Nuclear positive charge of atom modified by electromagnetic energy.
This is a continuation of Electricity made easy. What is the atom and why does it have dual charge? Can it be a positive on positive charge interraction?
Using the Axiomatic Equation we can derive the imputed gravitational G for where electromagnetic Energy is set to E=zero, which is where all ambient electromagnetic energy cancels on a point, what happens in a galactic black hole or inside the proton nucleus of the atom; where G works out to be ~3e+8 m^3kg^-1s^-2 (see below how derived)*, which is Newton's G equivalent of the nucleus Strong force.
This compares with background space gravity G, where it is orders of magnitude greater than measured on Earth; using the light redshift as a Boltzmann CMB model of space G, we arrived at G = ~3.4e-6 m^3kg^-s^-2, which is gravity G necessary for distant cosmic light to gravitationally redshift at about the Hubble constant.
Taking them together as an interaction of Strong force G and space background G, multiplying out their interaction, we arrive at:
3e+8 * 3.4e-6 = 10.2e+2
= 1.02e+3 as their product ratio.
Now compare the ratio of proton mass with electron mass, where
Proton = 1.672623e-27 kg is divided by Electron = 9.109389e-31 kg, we get:
Proton mass/Electron mass
= 1.836e+3 ratio (same as their ratio of electron Volts).
Which appears surprisingly similar to the above derived G ratio of 1.02e+3.
(Not a perfect fit, merely a rough approximation since the gravity-G values imputed are theorized only, not known nor measured away from Earth at this time; best guess, 1836 ratio known, space-G may be higher or lower than hypothesized.)
Why was are these two significant? Thinking 'outside the box', we might infer that the G relationships are analogous to earlier discussed 'positive to positive' charge relationships, which further imply that such positive charge differentials cause the negative charge to balance out the higher positive charge with the lower. Taking this concept to the atom, therefore, may explain how electromagnetic energy generated by our local star, the Sun, modifies the positive charged nucleus with negative charges electrons to balance them out into a charge neutral atom; locally modifying gravity-G as measured on Earth. In effect, if so, the Strong force positive charge is reduced by the lower amount space background positive charge by a ratio of 10^+3, which coincidentally approximates the same mass ratio, or electron Volt ratio, found in the proton to electron relationship in the atom. And if so, the electron is a product of these greater-positive (Strong) to lesser-positive (space) interactions, as mentioned in Electricity made easy article. It may also imply that the proton-electron ratio is a constant in space, no matter what is the local hot-Energy cum gravity-G, and thus why light velocity c is a constant isotropic through the cosmos.
Standing back from it a moment, we may have completed the quest for variable gravity-G and come full circle. What started out about a dozen years ago as an energy function using Quantum E=hf and Einstein's E=mc^2, further incorporating the proton-proton gravitational 'constant' (viz. g=~5.9e-39) to derive Newton's gravity G (6.67e-11) per the Axiomatic E=hc/(lambda*proton mass)=(1-g)c^2, has now morphed into a charge relationship of how is modified the positive atom nuclear charge with the negative electron charge, a function of Strong G versus space background G, as modified by the background energy of all space. The result is a charge neutral atom with the measured proton to electron energy and mass ratio. Both nuclear G ratio and mass-energy ratio are approximately the same. This does not constitute a proof of variable-G (must first measure it in space), but it may be an important clue of how electromagnetic energy modifies the nucleus into its positive-negative charge balance, what is the atom.
*(How Strong force G derived:
Newton's gravity G can be derived from the proton-proton gravitational constant (g=5.9e-39) per equation:
G^2 = gc^2pi^2, so that if g approaches =~1 of the nuclear Strong force, the value of pi drops out on a point, and G approaches =3e+8, which dimensionally mimics light c.)
This is merely anecdotal curiosity, but if we take Strong maximum G and multiply by Axiomatic light lambda, we get a modified Strong force of the nucleus:
3e8 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 * 1.32e-15 m = 3.96e-7 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
It approximates background space G, about order of magnitude weaker, which if multiplied by space G, we get a space electro gravity value, very weak remainder force:
3.96e-7 * 3.4e-6 = 13.464e-13 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
If this remainder force is multiplied by inverse of fine structure constant (like dividing by 1/137), we get a residual electro gravity value:
13.464e-13 * 137= 1844e-13 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2
This is a very small value, which if multiplied by photon (solar neutrino?) energy flux, we arrive at the proton-electron ratio:
1844e-13 * 0.996e13= 1836
This is a curious coincidence, and perhaps nothing more, but the numbers work out as such.
|Posted on Saturday, March 07, 2015 - 01:42 pm: |
Einstein's Relativity carousel, grabbing the brass ring.
Carousel brass ring
There had been prominent dissenters to Einstein's Relativity, some Nobel Prize winners, who failed to grab the brass ring from Einstein's carousel. Names like Michelson, Millikan, Essen, Rutherford, Ives, Mach, Tesla, all thought Einstein's Relativity was dogmatic nonsense, confused contradictory thinking that failed to clarify reality. Yet, how could that be, since experiments for past hundred years had proven Relativity correct?
How can so many Nobel laureates, inventors and great contributors to society go to their grave believing relativity was false? How could anyone not be convinced all the way into the 50s and 60s? Wasn’t it proven over and over and widely accepted by that time? Isn’t that what we are taught? History is written more by popularity than by fact and unfortunately science occasionally follows suit. There are logical reasons why these great men of science never accepted relativity. There exists very significant experimental evidence against it. Unfortunately, there are far too few people willing to challenge the safety and security afforded them by belief systems. Only those exceedingly strong in mind and of the greatest humility can stand to see that which they held in the highest regard, those things they trusted as universal truth, utterly fail. Only those with the greatest mental fortitude and confidence can become one of the few willing to withstand the onslaught of ridicule and not be swayed by the popularity of popular belief.
Who will in the end unseat Einstein's popular hold on physics and astro-sciences, to pull the brass ring from Einstein's carousel? The answer will come from rigorous science, where the tests and results will not be favored by Relativity's 'merry go-round' bias, but based in hard evidence from the real world.
In our crude, simple algebra calculations, we found many mutually supportive parallel theories that could prove Einstein wrong. First, gravity-G may not be a universal constant; second, gravity-G may be orders of magnitude greater in deep space than measured here on Earth; third, the CMB discovered may be a function of the Boltzmann constant, not echo of the Big Bang; fourth, Earth's inner core boundaries, and the asteroid belt, may be functions of interior mini black holes in the Earth, and Sun; fifth, the large atmospheres of solar gas giants and their moons may be function of higher gravity-G, same for highly eccentric comets gassing out in the inner solar system where G is lower; sixth, Quantum entanglement's simultaneity may disprove Einstein's Relativity; and there are more, such as the Time paradox. These had been simple calculations, not the sophisticated math to usher in new physics, but they show there could be cause for scientific doubt that Einstein's carousel, popular as it is, is not immutable. The Standard Model is incomplete. Good science will of necessity win out, and the prize go to whomever is best able to describe it in terms better than presented thus far. Who will grab the Prize? The brass ring is in the offing for those who dare. Meanwhile, patiently we wait.
Also see: Brilliant, Beautiful Mind of Albert Einstein
MOND Revisited, why it is valid
|Posted on Sunday, March 29, 2015 - 01:25 pm: |
MOND Revisited, why it is valid.
Comparison of the observed and expected rotation curves of the typical spiral galaxy M33 (per Wiki)
In Deep Space Gravity I had written:
Newton postulated that his gravity ratio between masses is a ‘universal constant’ G, and it had been used as such ever since. However, though we get good orbital results for our solar system, this ran into difficulty when orbital behavior for outer galaxy arms were observed, where they acted as if there was more massive matter there, invisible to us, so dubbed ‘dark matter’. Mordehai Milgrom’s MOND solution was to factor in an acceleration force, F = ma^2/ a_o, which translates using F = GMm/ r^2, into a = (GM a_o/ r^2)^1/2, where Milgrom calculated the value for a_0=1.2×10^-10 m/s^2 empirically. This does not invalidate Newton’s constant G, but it does indicate that over great astronomical distances, force from gravity may have a modifier in it.
I had also written earlier regarding MOND: Cosmological constant, Hubble constant, Doppler redshift, MOND, Pioneer Anomaly - Are they all the same? that:
The equation v=(GMa0)^1/4 allows one to calculate a0 from the observed v and M. Milgrom found a0=1.2×10-10 ms-2. Milgrom has noted that this value is also
"... the acceleration you get by dividing the speed of light by the lifetime of the universe. If you start from zero velocity, with this acceleration you will reach the speed of light roughly in the lifetime of the universe." (see Wikipedia on MOND)
There is speculation that somehow these coincidental relationships are significant, but as yet no cosmological theory unifies them. As per the Wiki page:
Indeed, the potential link between MONDian dynamics and the universe as a whole (that is, cosmology) is augmented by the observation that the value of a0 (determined by fits to internal properties of galaxies) is within an order of magnitude of cH0, where c is the speed of light and H0 is the Hubble constant (a measure of the present-day expansion rate of the universe). It is also close to the acceleration rate of the universe, and hence the cosmological constant. However, as yet no full theory has been constructed which manifests these connections in a natural way.
But there may be a way where these diverse theories can fit together, if we consider how distant cosmic light redshifts at the Hubble constant.
Quite simply, considering that light passing through deep space very high gravity-G is gravitationally redshifted at about the Hubble constant, then it can be implied that what we see here, both 13.8 billion years later, as light from 13.8 billion light years away, and that light had been 'decelerating' for all that time and distance (why it redshifted); then what we see at its source (CMB) is essentially equivalent to having had light 'accelerate' for the same time and distance. The two are inverse images of each other, so the analogy fits. Instead of light accelerating from v=zero to v=c, we have the reverse, where light decelerates (via redshift) from c to zero, and we have the strange phenomenon that at MOND's a0=1.2×10-10 ms-2 we have both the 'age' of the universe and its Hubble constant roughly equal. The devil is in the details, to better understand exactly what deep space higher gravity-G is, but we are not yet there. First we must visit gravity-G in our outer solar system and see what it is there. But it all fits, if gravity1G is variable as theorized.
Also see: Gravity-G Revisited