Older science articles that I would normally send to trash, but they may still be of interest to you
Readers should note that I may now not necessarily identify with some of the content of this older material. My views about science and my ability to express such views have changed over time. Also note it is likely that most of the hyperlink connections are no longer functional. However, I still believe that you will find a considerable amount of scientific knowledge within this blog that you have never heard about before. Have a great read!
1] What is the Planck length?
I refer to it as the Planck line
Throughout my science writings I refer to the expression Planck line. I have done this because I feel it is an easier concept for layperson readers to identify with rather than its proper physics name the Planck length. The definition of Plank length below is a very elementary one. can be found in Wikipedia. What is the Planck length? It can be broadly seen as follows:
“Physicists primarily use the Planck length to talk about things that are ridiculously tiny. Specifically; too tiny to matter. By the time you get to (anywhere near) the Planck length it stops making much sense to talk about the difference between two points in any reasonable situation. Basically, because of the uncertainty principle, there’s no (physically relevant) difference between the positions of things separated by small enough distances, and the Planck length certainly qualifies. Nothing fundamentally changes at the Planck scale, and there’s nothing special about the physics there, it’s just that there’s no point trying to deal with things that small. Part of why nobody bothers is that the smallest particle, the electron, is about 1020 times larger (that’s the difference between a single hair and a large galaxy). Rather than being a specific scale, The Planck scale is just an easy to remember line-in-the-sand (the words “Planck length” are easier to remember than a number).”
The Planck length has a more formal meaning as well. I have copied and edited the following quotation on your behalf in order for you to better understand what I mean here:
Importance of Planck
“… The idea of a fifth dimension is not new (our fourth dimension including time, plus one other)” “… extra dimensions needn’t be curled up as small as the Planck scale, their effects could be felt by particles at lower energy” “… unification happened when the forces were still weak enough to be handled by conventional mathematical techniques” “… researchers were amazed because unification at a such low energy was supposed to be impossible” “… Fortunately, a fifth dimension comes to the rescue” “… The implications of being able to observe events on the GUT (grand united theory), string and Planck scales are truly mind boggling. We would for the first time be able to see strings, the ultimate foundation stones of reality. And with the Planck scale lowered, experimental tests of quantum gravity-the long sought unification of Einstein’s theory of gravity with quantum theory-might just be around the corner” “… For physics however, the consequences are huge” “… Suddenly, people are seeing extra dimensions as not just a theoretical theory but as every day things whose consequences we could actually measure” “… If (unification) occurs at lower energy, it would change everything, including our picture of evolution of the Universe from the big bang” “… Even simpler laws of physics would change …” “… the discovery (of a timeless fourth dimension) is simply another vital piece of the cosmic jigsaw”
New Scientist, Volume 2157, page 28
You will notice that this latter Planck article also talks about the possible discovery of other dimensions, including where I noted the possible discovery of a timeless fourth dimension within this process. I argue that the fourth dimension can be located at the Planck length and this is why I wrote a major blog entitled “Is the universe floating in a fourth dimension”. (1st August 2017 this blog is now being amended).
The following sound cloud presentation features Arthur C Clark talking about the Planck length and Clark also introduces another audio extract therein relating to the same subject and this is spoken by Stephen Hawkins.
2] The fallacy of the notion of pseudoscience
When is pseudo-science not pseudoscience?
My answer to this question is simple: I believe if the intent of the believers of a given hypothesis is honorable and peer accountable it is not pseudoscience. I believe decrying pseudoscience without rational debate is not credible science in itself. Because this topic is a contentious one in the science community I strongly urge my readers to peruse a blog Is the scientific method living up to its own expectations?
By way of example it is common practice for persons who dare to think about science from a philosophical perspective to be seriously maligned characters. I point out that just as metaphysical science is called crank science so is pseudoscience. I point out that within this webpage I quote Albert Einstein as saying throughout his life metaphysics was a key player in conventional physics and furthermore if one investigates Wikipedia they will find that metaphysics is a legitimate part of cosmology. The article quoted below is one that sets out to demonstrate that pseudoscience is a very ambiguous label that often unfairly derogates philosophy that has a legitimate scientific value. The author gives sound reasons for drawing these conclusions. It seems to me that it is inappropriate to say that creative thinkers in the realms of the sciences are titled metaphysical or pseudoscience cranks. I have also noticed in the literature that mathematics is open to philosophical interpretation, often creatively so. Some contemporary scientists such as famous cosmologist Lawrence Krauss are also stating that physics should be similarly daring and creative and look beyond blinkers. I quote Donald E. Simanek regarding this topic as follows:
What is science? What is Pseudoscience? by Donald E. Simanek
“A visitor to my web site asks “What is the definition of pseudoscience?” That’s a fair, but challenging, question. Normally one would expect the practitioners of a discipline to define it, but in this case the practitioners of pseudoscience don’t recognize the validity of the label. The question translates to “How does one distinguish between science and pseudoscience.” Perhaps we should first settle on a definition of science. Even that isn’t an easy task, for it has so many nuances. Whole books have been written on the subject. The scientist might answer “I know pseudoscience when I see it.” But the boundary between science and pseudoscience is murky. Sometimes it’s hard to tell cutting edge scientific speculation from pseudoscience. Let’s recognize two uses of the word ‘science’. First, it is an activity carried out by scientists, with certain raw materials, purpose and methodology. Second, it is the result of this activity: a well-established and well-tested body of facts, laws and models that describe the natural world. Scientists accept that the observations and the results of science must be “objective.” That is they must be repeatable, testable and confirmable by other scientists, even (and especially) sceptical ones. The edifice of law and theory that science builds must be representative of a “shared” perception that can be observed and verified by anyone equipped with good observation skills and appropriate measuring tools. Much of modern science uses language and concepts that go far beyond the directly and immediately observable, but there must always be logical links and experimental operational links between these concepts and things we can observe. As part of the process of crafting scientific models and theories, scientists must brainstorm, innovate and speculate. That’s the creative component of the activity. But they must also maintain a disciplined rigor to ensure that their theories and models fit into a logical and consistent interrelated structure. The final edifice called science allows deduction of predictions about the world, predictions that may be tested against observations and against precise measurements made on nature. Nature is unforgiving of mistakes, and when experiments disagree with the predictions of scientific laws and models, then those laws and models must be modified or scrapped. Scientists’ personal styles, prejudices and even limitations are ever-present realities in the process. But rigorous and sceptical testing of the final result must be sufficiently thorough to weed out any mistakes. It’s fairly easy to distinguish science from pseudoscience on the basis of the final product, the laws and theories. If the results (1) cannot be tested in any way, (2) have been tested and always failed the test, or (3) predict results that are contradictory to well established and well tested science, then we can fairly safely say that we are dealing with pseudoscience. At the level of speculation, it’s not so easy. Consider these two examples.
- Is the notion that hypothetical particles (tachyons) may travel faster than light a pseudoscientific idea? Well this speculation was proposed by scientists with perfectly respectable credentials, and other respectable experimenters took time to look for such particles. None have been found. * We no longer expect to find any, but we do not consider the idea to have been “unscientific”.
- Is it scientific to hypothesize that one could build a perpetual motion machine that would run forever with power output, but no power input? Most scientists would answer “No.”
* Note, what is stated above is not necessarily correct. “Tachyon fields are an essential tool in QM, nevertheless, negative squared mass fields are commonly referred to as “tachyons”, and in fact have come to play an important role in modern physics.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon “What is the essential difference between these two examples? In the first case, the hypothetical tachyons would not violate any known principles of physics. In the second case, a perpetual motion machine would violate the very well-established laws of thermodynamics, and also violate even more basic laws as well, such as Newton’s laws, and conservation of momentum and angular momentum. But are the laws and theories of physics sacred? Of course not; they represent part of the logical structure called “established physics” that is the culmination of our accumulated scientific knowledge. We fully expect that future discoveries and insights will cause us to modify this structure in some ways. This won’t invalidate the whole of physics, for the old laws and theories will continue to work as well as they always did, but the newer structure may have more precision, power, breadth or scope, and may have more appealing conceptual structure. Such continual evolution and modification of physics is gradual and generally changes only a small portion of the vast edifice of physics. Once in a while, a “revolution” of thought occurs causing us to rethink or reformulate a major chunk of physics, but even that doesn’t make the old formulations wrong within their original scope of applicability.” http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/scipseud.htm.
3] A seven point guide to the day to day workings of reality
It is important that you view the contents of this blog in relationship to my new blog entitled: “The fundamental universe revisited“. This new blog is designed to be the master science referential blog for all my science blog postings in my website.
The following words have been written in order to assist you to understand how I look at, interpret and broadly describe reality
I consider that…
1] All phenomena in reality as being either virtual or real. Virtual (metaphysical) means it either has not yet scientifically discovered characteristics or it is not materialistically observable or testable. On the other hand, real phenomena are phenomena that are scientifically known to exist and are observable, describable and testable.
2] The laws of physics are different throughout what ever the multiverse may be (reality as may be mathematically described). Furthermore these laws are forever changing and this includes the role of nature throughout reality.
3] These same laws of physics exist in both real and virtual phenomena, which continually interact with each other within an all encompassing atmosphere of clock-timelessness; that is, absolute (Lorentz) time that has no real ending. It can only be considered to have a virtual ending.
4] My words in item 3 suggest that what most people may perceive as reality is virtual and not real.
5] There are numerous common features that permeate reality. They include consciousness, awareness, thought, timelessness, clock-time, energy and waves. All of these features may be either virtual or real, or virtual and real at the same time because of quantum entanglement. Or they may be in a separate concurrent relationship with each other. In layperson’s language, it could be said that reality is an analogical, boundless cauldron of inexplicable activity [information], and as such reality is not, and can never be, materialistically understood or even testable. Reality is simply what it is. It is “something” and this “something” can perhaps be best described as an experience of both real and virtual phenomena.
6] I suggest that real experiences are explicit, and virtual experiences are implicit. This means that you and I have both implicit and explicit characteristics that are entangled with each other, and this entanglement process is the natural essence of all cosmic life. Furthermore I suggest that your life experiences are also virtually entangled with mine. All things are somehow connected to each other.
7] Real and virtual mathematics is the common language of reality and all of its entangled experiences as well.
I suggest that the foregoing words mean that anything whatsoever, regardless of circumstances, location or time is both possible and feasible within my concept of primordial reality.
4] Unity science endeavour
Commencement of my unity blog
I have hesitated commencing to write this blog because I have not been sure as to how to go about it. I know the sorts of things I would like to say and discuss with you. I have most of the material on hand to achieve this objective, but the appropriate methodology I need still eludes me. My problem relates to the substantial volume of information I have available. I confess that in my mind I already know that I will never complete this retirement project. It will remain a work in progress. I believe that this blog will proceed under its own weight and will include any circumstances that may prevail in my life at any given time.
I will make modifications to my presentation as I see fit along the way. I will add new ideas that I had not considered before. I will modify existing ideas. I will remove some ideas and I will add others that you may present to me via emails, or at lectures that I intend to conduct from time to time (in South Australia only). Please be aware, because of my age and other domestic circumstances, this project could cease at short notice.
Notwithstanding my previous words, I believe an appropriate start point is a lecture that I am currently preparing to deliver to students and other interested parties at a major tertiary institution in South Australia. The topic is
Is there a virtual matrix pertinent to reality? If so, what are we to make of this?
As an intuitive scientist and philosopher, I believe that an imaginative construct can be created which supports my notion that reality can be secularly described and explained. I see reality as being an imaginary virtual state, which I have called “primordial awareness”. I suggest that primordial awareness is like an imaginary backdrop of phenomena that have been, is, or will be. I further suggest that this backdrop is capable of enabling virtual waves that, under certain cosmic conditions, can also become scientifically measurable waves. I believe that primordial awareness is also a state of absolute simultaneity includes absolute time. Under such conditions nothing is scientifically happening, but from a metaphysical perspective, I believe there is. I discuss these things and draw attention to the possibility that we may also be cosmically entwined within this wider process of metaphysical primordial entanglement.
Hence that I believe that:-
1. It is possible to secularly describe a matrix of reality that may be applicable for the later formation of a holistic (all-inclusive) science model.
2. It is possible to build upon this matrix a description of my concept of reality that makes some sort of sense to both laypersons and science-minded persons alike. However, such a story is heavily influenced by the speculative and descriptive nature of Philosophy.
3. Since the earliest days of recorded history, philosophy and science have consistently worked hand-in-hand with each other, and they remain partners even to this day. This happens through intuition and associated descriptive metaphors relating to the (holistic) real life experience we commonly share, such as consciousness. Orthodox science can cater for such abstract connections via quantum non-locality and entanglement theories. It is in this light that I feel that I can demonstrate (via some elements of contemporary scientific thinking and philosophy) that my concept of a matrix of reality may be described and explained. However, I point out that within this construction process you will find that I have been flexible of thought with my interpretation of some elements of the contemporary scientific method. For example the word “virtual” in physics has a specific scientific meaning, because it relates to quantum particles as well as any described scientific state or scientific process. So then, I am saying that my concept of such a matrix is a virtual (imaginative) state but is not necessarily imaginary in a long-term sense because it can be later non-locally (metaphysically) described otherwise. Keep in mind that I talking about an imaginative abstract cosmic environment, where there is no relative time (in such an environment it is known as absolute time) and no rules of materialist (local) physics exist. Thus I have nominated this matrix as having imaginative features that all have the capacity and propensity to ‘do something’. So, when we begin to introduce maths to this process, I suggest that we have something to work with in building a holistic model pertinent to understanding and describing reality and how this reality may work. Remember this is a theory.
4. In addition to (3) above, I think it is important for my readers to understand that cosmic particles can influence each other without breaching the rules of particle physics — an analogy being perhaps like blowing a spider off a wall and not touching it in the process. Furthermore physicists still do not know the origins of particles in the first place. I have added these words to this separate section to item three because I believe that they significantly add to the mysterious nature of the wider cosmos. Anything can happen within such a cosmic environment, and it does. This is why cosmic randomness keeps physicists puzzled and confused. This is what the science of physics is mostly all about. Why is the cosmos so crazy? I think my readers should also be aware that the physics community is progressively beginning to realise that at the point of cosmic singularity (the Big Bang) it is likely that the rules of cosmic activity and gravitational motion of the universe were established. This implies that the inherent rules of the universe were set in a predetermined instant immediately prior to the rapid expansion of the universe, if not prior to the Big Bang itself. You may reference these words by referring to a story in Quanta Magazine dated February 7th 2017. It is entitled ‘Experiment Reaffirms Quantum Weirdness’
5. As I indicated in (3) above I do not set out to prove anything, and as a scientific philosopher I am not capable of doing so anyway. My words today are simply to encourage you to think about the phenomenon of reality. Perhaps it is possible that I have provided you with enough cues to think about developing your own abstract reality model? Why care if your model is scientific or not. Why care if someone tells you your ideas are irrelevant pseudoscience? Albert Einstein is quoted as saying words to the effect that his education was the greatest handicap to his scientific life. I think what he meant was that his education hindered his imagination.
6. I am planning to leave what I consider to be the most important part of this blog to the closing stage. This particular part relates to how I believe my concept of a matrix reality and its ‘possibilities to do something’ may impact upon us as we go about our daily lives. This includes the sub-quantum mechanisms (non-local) through which we make decisions and subsequently behave. I believe that this relationship between my concept of a matrix reality, our thought construction processes and subsequent behaviour can be described and understood by quantum psychiatrists and psychologists.
7. In this unity blog you will find that I have drawn heavily upon existing material in my website in order to compliment the comprehensiveness of this blog. I feel my readers will appreciate this because it will expose them to much greater learning material and commentary than if I had done otherwise.
I trust that this elementary road map relating to my long term objectives with this matrix of reality blog makes some sort of sense to my readers. I hope that you appreciate why I have been compelled to write this blog as if it were driven by the educational discipline of philosophy, rather than materialist (local) physics. I believe it could not have been effectively written in any other way.
As an adjunct to these words I suggest that you visist my blog “Defining and describing holistic-cosmic influences and processes“.
Note 18th September 2017. I will be returning to move forward with this blog sometime late this year.
5] The physics pertinent to my beliefs about our having dual consciousnesses
Random event generators help provide the evidence for my ideas
Some readers will already know that I am a firm believer that we have two quite different consciousnesses. I say that one of these consciousnesses is implicit (metaphysical) and the other one is relativistic (scientifically materialistic). You will find my wider ideas on this subject in my blog entitled “The finer aspects of reality – a secular argument”. However, for those of you who have an interest in physics, I have created the SoundCloud audio (available below) which is an extract from a full length video entitled “The 5th dimension: Mind over matter”. I feel the most relevant section in the video is from 38 minutes onwards, and it is this section that has been recorded for you. You will notice that the audio mentions that it seems our subconsciousness can subtlety influence the movement of materialistic phenomena. I claim this subconsciousness to influence objects is from our implicit consciousnesses. In other words they are the same thing. Another similar blog has been created that is pertinent to the empirical evidence now beginning to emerge from the medical profession in support of the same physics experiment.
6] The real and the flippant nature of science
The dangers of confusing the two
I believe that real science is an honest and dedicated pursuit of facts and theories. Such facts and theories should be specifically related to the real environment within which we all live and interact with each other, as well as the wider [holistic] universe.
I see flippant science as being the converse of these words. I see flippant science as being dishonest in both its intent and practice. I see the unnecessarily derogatory statements and behaviour made by flippant scientists against mainstream science and scientists as culturally mischievous.
I see investigative science and practice as having no specific boundaries or limits. Scientific thinking and practices apply to all things whether it be to the highest realms of existence [and its meaning] or to the lowest nooks and crannies of existence, such as that of a single grain of sand on a beach. I also include the various fields of thoughts that take place prior to our embarking on an act of behaviour in some way.
As an analogy to what I am talking about, consider a five year-old-boy who has accidentally come across the breeding ground of albino ladybird beetles. Can we call such a child a scientist? The child stops to witness the habits and experiences of these ladybirds day after day until such time as he informs his mother of his scientifically unique discovery. I see such a child as a dedicated investigative scientist.
I see no limit to the extent by which we can describe the word ‘scientist’. I see honest scientists as being implicit [holistic] and those that are not inclined this way as being flippant. By the word flippant I mean of an explicit nature and behaviour. This is especially so if they act in a manner that is not conducive to wholesome and constructive scientific practice over all, i.e. holistic reality science.
In summary I see us all as being scientists. I also see that it is our choice whether we choose to be implicit or explicit scientists. Furthermore I believe that we should all see our planet and the wider universe as being of both an implicit and explicit nature. I believe that it is only when we seriously acknowledge this intimate [entangled] relationship that I feel we can live and exist at peace with both it and one another – and perhaps this includes reality too?
7] Can Einstein’s theory of relativity be written in words of four letters or less?
Yes it can, here’s the proof!
Someone has rather ingeniously taken time out to write the article in the attached PDF file. I think you will find it entertaining, clever and funny.
8] Arthur C Clarke talks about fractals
I think most scientists would agree that the Mandelbrot set is one of the most important scientific discoveries in history
In my blog titled Why I think we are all order within chaos you will find why I think fractals are the most important feature of both cosmological science and everyday nature as we understand and perceive it to be. I strongly urge you to view the Youtube video titled The Colors of Infinity that is attached hereto. I think you will find it fascinating. If you have not already perused my Why I think we are all order within chaos blog I think you should both view the video as well as peruse this particular site. The information about fractals, and more importantly, the inherent characteristics of the Mandelbrot set itself contained herein is enormous. However, if you do not have this luxury, you will find timeframes 8:10 to 17:36 and 48:41 to 49:45 as a reasonable overview of the video as a whole. This includes the important things I think you should know about Mandelbrot himself, his hypothesis of the Mandelbrot set as well as the high esteem Arthur C Clarke places upon Mandelbrot’s ideas.
There are two other areas I feel you should acquaint yourself within this video as well. Both these areas relate to my wider views about physics in relationship to my Awareness model. If you look at timeframe 29:50 to 31:08 you will see where the famous scientist Stephen Hawking suggests that the universe probably ends at the Planck length. I have regularly suggested it is at this same point my concept of the fourth dimension kicks in and it is at this junction all cosmic phenomena becomes virtual. In other words I agree with him.
The second timeframe I think you should be aware of is the timeframe between 46:10 and 48:51. This area relates to Jung patterns and consciousness theory. Jung believed that there are primordial images we all share. Fractal awareness provides new insight into how our minds work. I argue that because all of nature is fractal, our brains and minds consider all information in a fractal manner as well. If this is the case then I think my blog titled Your sense of “I” is different to your physical body is a useful instrument in helping to understand how we connect with nature at all conceivable levels, levels that include how we not only think but also behave. This is consistent with my original barcode hypothesis contained within my 2011 thesis.
9] Three important scientific phenomena that physics cannot yet explain
Is non-locality [a metaphysical phenomenon] involved somewhere here?
I feel it is strange that in so many different debates that I have read about the metaphysical nature of non-locality that the following three phenomena are included.
“Flaws in Current Atomic Theory
We have become so accustomed to the atomic models we have been taught that even our scientists neglect to consider that these are still mere models, which violate both the laws of physics as well as common sense when taken as the literal reality. We are taught that the nucleus mysteriously generates an endless “positive charge force” that pulls on the equally endless “negative charge force” of orbiting electrons. There is no explanation for the source of this apparently endless power output from both nucleus and orbiting electrons, nor is there any theory detailing a power drain from this effort. Further, the closely packed, strongly repelling positively charged protons in the nucleus are said to be kept from flying apart by another mysterious attracting force (Strong Nuclear Force) that for some unexplained reason only appears between protons when they are extremely close to each other in the nucleus. Again, this apparent attracting force in nature is completely unexplained, as is its unending power source. Atomic structure stays together and intact like this for billions of years with no explanation. Further, objects made of atoms also remain together, often under great mechanical stresses and strains. Again, this tremendous ongoing effort of atomic bonds holding together as molecules is completely unexplained. Endless strong nuclear force energy, endless positive charge energy of protons, endless negative charge energy of orbiting electrons, endless atomic bond energy and even endless gravitational energy emerging from atoms .. all at the core of today’s science and all completely unexplained. This is the result of our science legacy from a much simpler time that still remains blindly accepted and completely unexamined by today’s scientists.
As mentioned in relation to atomic theory, electric charge is a complete mystery in today’s science. Benjamin Franklin invented this concept as a useful model of observations, but never truly explained it. Two statically charged objects suspended from strings at a distance from each other will pull toward each other and remain angled toward each other against gravity indefinitely, as long as no external influence in the environment around them intervenes. There is no known power source supporting this endless effort, yet it is simply accepted as normal by today’s scientists and educators. The new subatomic principle replaces this flawed concept with the proper understanding of electric charge observations, resolving the mystery of electric charge and electricity in general via the same basic principle that runs throughout the book.
Magnetism is another mysterious and completely unexplained phenomenon in today’s science. A block of wood will not cling to a refrigerator, yet a permanent magnet will. What is the difference? Magnetic energy, of course. So where is the power source for this energy that allows a heavy magnet to cling endlessly against gravity, and even hold other heavy objects as well? You won’t find any answers in today’s science — only the same flawed “Work Equation” explanation attempt offered for gravity, mentioned in Chapter 1. The mystery of magnetism is solved here, again via the same new subatomic principle.”
10] New physics is not new at all
Has an inconvenient truth existed in physics for the last two hundred years?
I have chosen to be provocative with my introduction because in my opinion there is a great man in history who has arguably contributed as much to the evolution of physics as have Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Furthermore, this outstanding figure was not afraid to tear away materialist physics either. In other words he believes in metaphysical physics. In many ways I think he lived and worked mostly in the sub-quantum world, and for this reason alone I feel he is a great leader within physics in his own right. The person I am talking about is the Swedish born theologian, philosopher and scientist Emmanuel Swedenborg.
If you have never heard of Emmanuel Swedenborg I urge you to take time out to read what the science writer Michael Talbot wrote about him. The article is attached. As many of my readers would probably know, I am very interested in holographic scientific theory and other theories that seem to me to be related. In particular I feel attracted to the Bohm and Pibram holographic brain theories as well as, more lately, Cahill’s Process Physics model, which is based upon his own neural network theory
Talbot draws attention to what he feels is Swedenborg’s uncanny insights about reality that are explainable in terms of the holographic paradigm. Talbot also draws attention to Swedenborg’s belief about there being a deeper level of reality that he described as being of ‘…angels of the third heaven’. In other words, Swedenborg seems to be saying that there is no distinction between what is symbolic and that which is real. I argue that symbolic reality is sub-quantum reality (like consciousness), whereas standard model physics refers to such phenomena as being irrelevant metaphysics These are the reasons why I feel you will find the contents of Talbot’s article quite compelling. It may also help you understand a little more about my own theory about awareness and thought.
11] It’s Not Cold Fusion… But It’s Something
An experiment that earned Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann widespread ridicule in 1989 wasn’t necessarily bogus, and here are the reasons why. The topic is Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR)
Commentary from above article and quotation
“Hidden in the confusion are many scientific reports, some of them published in respectable peer-reviewed journals, showing a wide variety of experimental evidence, including transmutations of elements. Reports also show that LENRs can produce local surface temperatures of 4,000-5,000 K and boil metals (palladium, nickel and tungsten) in small numbers of scattered microscopic sites on the surfaces of laboratory devices.”
It seems that this scientific phenomena may be more real than originally thought. The reasons for this is a quotation from a United States government document entitled “Report of the committee on armed services. House of Representatives on H.R. 4909 together with additional views”. An extract from this document is as follows.
“Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR) Briefing
The committee is aware of recent positive developments in devel-
oping low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), which produce ultra-
clean, low-cost renewable energy that have strong national security
implications. For example, according to the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA), if LENR works it will be a ‘‘disruptive technology
that could revolutionize energy production and storage.’’ The com-
mittee is also aware of the Defense Advanced Research Project
Agency’s (DARPA) findings that other countries including China
and India are moving forward with LENR programs of their own
and that Japan has actually created its own investment fund to
promote such technology. DIA has also assessed that Japan and
Italy are leaders in the field and that Russia, China,
Israel, and India are now devoting significant resources to LENR development.
To better understand the national security implications of these de-
velopments, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to pro-
vide a briefing on the military utility of recent U.S. industrial base
LENR advancements to the House Committee on Armed Services
by September 22, 2016. This briefing should examine the current
state of research in the United States, how that compares to work
being done internationally, and an assessment of the type of mili-
tary applications where this technology could potentially be useful.”
12] Why I think David Bohm is a hero of science
Bohm cared to get to the bottom of all things, including reality
It is no secret that I feel David Bohm is amongst the deepest thinking and cleverest scientists of all time. Bohm dared to think about and explain what many other scientists of his generation thought was ludicrous, and was prepared to embrace the most profound ideas of Eastern philosophy into his scientific theories as well.
If you take time to look more closely at the life and times of David Bohm in the attachments, I think you will see the man to be scientifically very insightful and gifted, and a person with a deep sense of personal and social morality as well. He said that each individual in his life is in total contact with all other things (phenomena), including us with each other (his implicate order model). Furthermore, if mankind takes the time to recognize this connectedness then the problems of the world would sort themselves out.
I think if you can understand where Bohm is coming from with his views about science and life in general, you will understand my instinctual views as well, together with the reasons why. I have incorporated two secondary works about the life, times and beliefs of David Bohm. I feel you will find them reasonably straightforward to read and his words gripping and challenging, even if you do not agree with them.
13] The importance of Godel in mathematical and physical science
Godel’s mathematical theorem has had a profound effect on both these disciplines of science
The following quotation was primarily written for scientists and as such you may find it somewhat difficult to understand. I will do my best to explain Godel’s theorem to you via this analogy [you will find similar words in the primary text]. If I were to walk up to you in the street and say “I am lying” this is a contradiction in terms and thus is a paradox. This paradox implies that there is no proof in my words that I am lying and that if I was not lying that there is no proof that I was not lying either [in philosophy this is known as the “liars paradox”]. In summary this means that is impossible to have purity of knowledge i.e one event is always dependent on the occurrence of a previous event and this phenomenon is infinite. I hope that these words help.
“The proof begins with Godel defining a simple symbolic system. He has the concept of a variables, the concept of a statement, and the format of a proof as a series of statements, reducing the formula that is being proven back to a postulate by legal manipulations. Godel only need define a system complex enough to do arithmetic for his proof to hold.
Godel then points out that the following statement is a part of the system: a statement P which states “there is no proof of P”. If P is true, there is no proof of it. If P is false, there is a proof that P is true, which is a contradiction. Therefore it cannot be determined within the system whether P is true.
As I see it, this is essentially the “Liar’s Paradox” generalized for all symbolic systems. For those of you unfamiliar with that phrase, I mean the standard “riddle” of a man walking up to you and saying “I am lying”. The same paradox emerges. This is exactly what we should expect, since language itself is a symbolic system.
Godel’s proof is designed to emphasize that the statement P is *necessarily* a part of the system, not something arbitrary that someone dreamed up. Godel actually numbers all possible proofs and statements in the system by listing them lexigraphically. After showing the existence of that first “Godel” statement, Godel goes on to prove that there are an infinite number of Godel statements in the system, and that even if these were enumerated very carefully and added to the postulates of the system, more Godel statements would arise. This goes on infinitely, showing that there is no way to get around Godel-format statements: all symbolic systems will contain them.
Your typical frustrated mathematician will now try to say something about Godel statements being irrelevant and not really a part of mathematics, since they don’t directly have to do with numbers… justification that might as well turn the mathematician into an engineer. If we are pushing for some kind of “purity of knowledge”, Godel’s proof is absolutely pertinent”
14] Is there such a thing as sub-quantum phenomena?
It is important that you view the contents of this blog in relationship to my new blog entitled: “The fundamental universe revisited“. This new blog is designed to be the master science referential blog for all my science blog postings in my website.
I believe there is and it can be scientifically demonstrated as such
I describe sub quantum phenomena as activities that are occurring in the universe at such a low level it is not observable or measurable by conventional physics research methodologies. As such physics has no serious interest in it but it is a topic of fascination for most cosmologists. I describe sub quantum phenomena as being phenomena that is occurring below the Planck level and that this is the point that my concept of a fourth dimension kicks in. If I am correct with my hypothesis then it is necessary for me to describe the sorts of sub quantum activities that may need to come together to both describe it as well as attempt to demonstrate how it may all interconnect to render it as being an argument of some of believable substance (meaning). In order to help me achieve this objective I created my Awareness model of (reality) Physics and in the process coined the phrase ‘fine quantum entangled’.
This phrase means that I believe all phenomena whatsoever is somehow linked to each other, whether it be below or above the Planck line, and the means of building a story about this interconnection is via fine quantum entanglement. Unfortunately conventional physics theorists refer to phenomena occurring at a sub-quantum level as being metaphysical and as such any discussion about it is merely pseudo science and therefore is scientifically meaningless. Many reputable scientists do not see this to be the case and, as an philosophical scientist, neither do I. I have built the whole of my reality model around sub quantum phenomena. I support my position by submitting to my readers the following abstract from Groessing’s 2013 thesis. Groessing is a respected scientist. Unfortunately most laypersons will probably find the abstract a bit hard going to understand (so do I). However, I feel it simply important for you to know that such material exists in the first place and furthermore it is credible. I have not only included this quote but also a url lead in to Groessing’s complete thesis:
Emergence of Quantum Mechanics from a Sub-Quantum Statistical Mechanics
(Submitted on 12 Apr 2013)
A research program within the scope of theories on “Emergent Quantum Mechanics” is presented, which has gained some momentum in recent years. Via the modeling of a quantum system as a non-equilibrium steady-state maintained by a permanent throughput of energy from the zero-point vacuum, the quantum is considered as an emergent system. We implement a specific “bouncer-walker” model in the context of an assumed sub-quantum statistical physics, in analogy to the results of experiments by Couder’s group on a classical wave-particle duality. We can thus give an explanation of various quantum mechanical features and results on the basis of a “21st century classical physics”, such as the appearance of Planck’s constant, the Schr\”odinger equation, etc. An essential result is given by the proof that averaged particle trajectories’ behaviors correspond to a specific type of anomalous diffusion termed “ballistic” diffusion on a sub-quantum level. It is further demonstrated both analytically and with the aid of computer simulations that our model provides explanations for various quantum effects such as double-slit or n-slit interference. We show the averaged trajectories emerging from our model to be identical to Bohmian trajectories, albeit without the need to invoke complex wave functions or any other quantum mechanical tool. Finally, the model provides new insights into the origins of entanglement, and, in particular, into the phenomenon of a “systemic” nonlocality.
Note: Readers should understand that non local means, in its most simplest interpretation, that something in the world of science is happening but no one seems to understand how it is happening or why. An example of this you may identify with is consciousness.
15] Quantum mechanics made easy
A light hearted approach to understanding this mysterious and complex area of physics
I recently stumbled across this presentation and I feel that you will find it just as much of an interest as I have. I especially like the humorous manner in which the item has been written. The story line is as if it were being spoken by Einstein to a student in a space craft touring the universe. I have written another scientific blog relating to professional mysticism. I have done this to demonstrate to my readers that many influential scientists seem to notionally support my belief that awareness [not consciousness] plays a critical role in both cosmological science as well as our everyday lives. If you have the opportunity to read this blog I feel it may change your mind as to how you may see phenomena like consciousness and intuition. These are entangled via quantum mechanics in all of our lives and this is via the medium of awareness, an awareness that I describe as primordial. An example of this is my blog relating to us having dual consciousnesses.
16] The parallel nature of the Bohm-Hiley and Awareness models of physics
I believe both models have great similarity to each other. Keep in mind that this blog was originally posted in 2014. As of April 2017 a few of my ideas have marginally changed since then.
The Bohm-Hiley model of physics relates to the holographic nature of the universe and beyond. This model is more commonly known as the Implicit Order model. The model was originally developed by David Bohm. It was after Bohm’s death in 1992 that Hiley fine tuned the mathematics of Bohm’s ideas to demonstrate that it had relativity physics compatibility. Hiley bought forward highly abstract Grassmere algebra to bring this about.
Within the attached PowerPoint file you will find I have selected sixteen different extracts from an article about the life, times and scientific beliefs of David Bohm written by Beatrix Murrell. The article is titled “The Cosmic Plenum: Bohm’s Gnosis”. I have made comments about each of these extracts in relationship as to how similar the characteristics and processes of the Hiley-Bohm and Awareness models of physics are.
The major difference between both models is that the Hiley-Bohm model of physics has been mathematically constructed to be compatible with the Relativity model of physics whereas the Awareness model is validated by a described experiment. The Bohm-Hiley model also embraces all phenomena whatsoever in a single reality-frame. The Process physics model does this as well. This includes paranormal phenomena. The Process, Hiley-Bohm and Awareness models of physics are all seeded in a realm of physics that is about as deep as any physics model could ever reach. All three models describe the origins of reality from an abstract corner of nothing.
Here is a PowerPoint presentation relating to this blog:
17] What is the quantum wave function in physics?
I feel that this quality video seems to answer this question quite well
18] Visualization of Quantum Physics (Quantum Mechanics)
This video visually demonstrates some basic quantum physics concepts using the simple case of a free particle.
All the simulations here are based on real equations and laws.
19] Quantum Mechanics and Every Day Life
Quantum Mechanics and every day life, Stanford University article
First published Wed Nov 29, 2000; substantive revision Tue Sep 1, 2009
“Quantum mechanics is, at least at first glance and at least in part, a mathematical machine for predicting the behaviors of microscopic particles — or, at least, of the measuring instruments we use to explore those behaviors — and in that capacity, it is spectacularly successful: in terms of power and precision, head and shoulders above any theory we have ever had. Mathematically, the theory is well understood; we know what its parts are, how they are put together, and why, in the mechanical sense (i.e., in a sense that can be answered by describing the internal grinding of gear against gear), the whole thing performs the way it does, how the information that gets fed in at one end is converted into what comes out the other. The question of what kind of a world it describes, however, is controversial; there is very little agreement, among physicists and among philosophers, about what the world is like according to quantum mechanics. Minimally interpreted, the theory describes a set of facts about the way the microscopic world impinges on the macroscopic one, how it affects our measuring instruments, described in everyday language or the language of classical mechanics. Disagreement centers on the question of what a microscopic world, which affects our apparatuses in the prescribed manner, is, or even could be, like intrinsically; or how those apparatuses could themselves be built out of microscopic parts of the sort the theory describes.
That is what an interpretation of the theory would provide: a proper account of what the world is like according to quantum mechanics, intrinsically and from the bottom up. The problems with giving an interpretation (not just a comforting, homey sort of interpretation, i.e., not just an interpretation according to which the world isn’t too different from the familiar world of common sense, but any interpretation at all) are dealt with in other sections of this encyclopedia. Here, we are concerned only with the mathematical heart of the theory, the theory in its capacity as a mathematical machine, and — whatever is true of the rest of it — this part of the theory makes exquisitely good sense.”
20] A comparison between The Process and Hiley-Bohm models of physics
A discussion and comparison about what I see as the most important features relevant to both.
It was around this time I was attempting to formalise my thinking about my Primordial model of sub-quantum physics.
I was assisted by my colleague (MFP) to bring this short work together. What follows is a quoted record of email dialogue between MFP and me in March 2014. Apart from where I have emboldened and italicized certain text the message remains exactly as when I down loaded it from my computer at the time. The opening sentence of the quote is my specific question to my colleague which was responded to as follows immediately thereafter:
“… I think I have understood what you have sent fairly well but where I am confused is in the area of Cahill wave aether in relationship to Bohm background implicate energy hypothesis. As a layperson I feel they are of the same nature and this is where I need your guidance. The extract is a section of a much wider secondary argument and I have highligted in red the respective areas I have difficulty bringing together”
Quoted text from MFP in response thereto below.
”… Thanks for your questions. I have tried to clarify as follows.
Referring to quantum theory, Bohm’s basic assumption is that “elementary particles are actually systems of extremely complicated internal structure….,
I believe that assumption is true, and if Cahill is correct his theory also implies that it is true.
….acting essentially as amplifiers of *information* contained in a quantum wave.”
I am not sure what “amplifiers” means. However, in Cahill’s theory, particles consist of quantum wave packets that contain information.
As a conseqence, he has evolved a new and controversial theory of the universe–a new model of reality that Bohm calls the “Implicate Order.”
I think Cahill’s neural network model that we have talked about shares some features with Bohm’s “Implicate Order” as mentioned below.
The theory of the Implicate Order contains an ultraholistic cosmic view; it connects everything with everything else….
In Cahill’s neural network model everything is also connected to everything else.
In principle, any individual element could reveal “detailed information about every other element in the universe.
This is not true of Cahill’s model. This is because although in Cahill’s model each element is connected to every other element, the information in his model lies in the relationships between the elements and not in the elements themselves. Eg if you had an array of dots you could create a picture by drawing lines of various types between the dots. If you represented non-existence by joining dots with invisible ink and physical structures by using visible ink, then every dot could be connected to every other so as to represent an undivided universe, but individual dots would not reveal information about other dots.
” The central underlying theme of Bohm’s theory is the “unbroken wholeness of the totality of existence as an undivided flowing movement without borders.”
That is true of Cahill’s model too.
….. Bohm notes that the hologram clearly reveals how a “total content–in principle extending over the whole of space and time–is enfolded in the movement of waves (electromagnetic and other kinds) in any given region.” The hologram illustrates how “information about the entire holographed scene is enfolded into every part of the film.” It resembles the Implicate Order in the sense that every point on the film is “completely determined by the overall configuration of the interference patterns.” Even a tiny chunk of the holographic film will reveal the unfolded form of an entire three-dimensional object.
That is true of holograms, but not of neural networks.
So although Cahill’s neural network model is completely interconnected, a small piece of it will not reveal the whole. In fact a small piece of it would not even function, because the whole has to be involved for anything to function.
Proceeding from his holographic analogy, Bohm proposes a new order–the Implicate Order where “everything is enfolded into everything.” This is in contrast to the explicate order where things are unfolded.
This is a poetic idea because it implies that if you hold a piece of the universe in your own hands, then the rest of the universe is “enfolded” into it, so you are holding the whole universe in your own hands.
However, with Cahill’s model, if you are holding a piece of the universe in your hands, the rest of the universe is not enfolded. Nevertheless since everything is interconnected, if you are holding a piece of the universe, then you are also holding the rest, but with that rest lying outside rather than in your hands.
Bohm believes that *the Implicate Order has to be extended into a multidimensional reality;* in other words, the holomovement endlessly enfolds and unfolds into infinite dimensionality. Within this milieu there are independent sub-totalities (such as physical elements and human entities) with relative autonomy. The layers of the Implicate Order can go deeper and deeper to the ultimately unknown. It is this “unknown and undescribable totality” that Bohm calls the holomovement. The holomovement is the “fundamental ground of all matter.”
This is similar to Cahill’s model if you accept that the iterations of his neural network correspond to the holomovement.
….Bohm suggests that instead of thinking of particles as the fundamental reality, the focus should be on discrete particle-like quanta in a continuous field.
I think Cahill’s model suggests this too.
More complex and subtle, this second category applies to a “superfield” or *information* that guides and organizes the original quantum field.
Something similar may be true of Cahill’s model too because the quantum fields emerge from the patterns of information produced by his neural network.
Bohm considers it to be similar to a computer which supplies the information that arranges the various forms–in the first category.
This seems similar to Cahill’s model but Cahill models the information as coming from a neural network rather than a computer.
Bohm’s theory of the Implicate Order stresses that the cosmos is in a state of process.
Cahill’s theory of Process Physics with its neural network model stresses this too.
Bohm’s cosmos is a “feedback” universe that continuously recycles forward into a greater mode of being and consciousness.
Cahill’s neural network model includes feedback and continuously iterates forward. This would seem similar to recycling forward.
At the very depths of the ground of all existence Bohm believes that there exists a special energy. For Bohm it is the plenum; it is an “immense background of energy.” The energy of this ground is likened to one whole and unbroken movement by Bohm. He calls this the “holomovement.” It is the holomovement that carries the Implicate Order.
In Cahill’s theory, the iterations of the neural network can be considered equivalent to the holomovement. As the neural network continuously produces patterns of information that correspond to the generation of expanding space and matter, it could be considered as source of unlimited background energy.
a “movement in which new wholes are emerging.”
I think this corresponds to Cahill’s claim that the iterations of the neural network unceasingly produce new patterns of information, which correspond to new structures of space and matter.
Bohm also declares that the “implicate order has to be extended into a multidimensional reality.” He proceeds: “In principle this reality is one unbroken whole, including the entire universe with all its fields and particles. Thus we have to say that the holomovement enfolds and unfolds in a multidimensional order, the dimensionality of which is effectively infinite. Thus the principle of relative autonomy of sub-totalities–is now seen to extend to the multi-dimensional order of reality.”
The dimensionality of Cahill’s neural network is effectively infinite. However the patterns of information that it produces tend to be mainly three dimensional, which provides an explanation of why we perceive ourselves as living in a three dimensional universe.
Hope this helps.
21] Is space-time infinite dimensional?
Cantorian Topology and Geometry postulates that this is the case, I support this general position as well.
I have selected various extracts of the ideas and works of El Naschie. I have chosen El Naschie’s work not only because he is respected in his specialized world of physics but also because his views seem to be parallel to my own in relationship to both the existence of a fourth dimension as well as its inherent fractal like properties as well (my opinion). El Naschie also believes the 3D dimension is infinite and within this medium I think he is saying that there is an inherent duality within the system between phenomena that is of an abstract continuum (like my primordial fourth dimension) and that which is materially discreet such as 3D space-time particle activity. In my Awareness model I describe this same duality as being a concurrent one between both levels of cosmic phenomena. It is for this reason I briefly introduce you to Cantorian Topology and Geometry. I feel that El Naschie’s cosmological ideas are generally supportive of my own. As such I feel this blog helps support the validity of cosmic ideas I express to my readers via the medium of my Awareness model of physics.
22] A boy and his atom
A fascinating story about the world’s smallest movie
This movie was made by IBM. IBM made a movie frame by frame by photographing atoms under a magnification of over 100 million times. IBM was testing the limits of digital memory storage by moving atoms as well as the limits of film making.
23] Two respected scientists talk about life and nothing
It is likely most of my readers have heard about the views of Lawrence Krauss regarding cosmological nothing
I introduce you to what I consider to be a very important scientific and philosophical video that incorporates both Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. The video is a general discussion between these two great scientific and philosophical minds about not only reality but also what may be cosmological “nothing”. This program is now around six years old but I feel that its contents remain relevant today.
Because of what I consider to be the importance of the information contained within the conversation between these two scientists I have also prepared a pdf file of the same conversation. I feel that by me doing this that I am giving Mums, Dads, and Kids a better understanding of what these two men are both talking about as well as mean in terms of everyday life. If you find yourself enjoying this video presentation I also strongly suggest that you also view my blog entitled “Do some people think that science is a belief system?“. The themes between both videos are much the same, i.e. all three presenters are down to earth presenters of information relating to everyday life, the meaning of life and wider reality.
24] Developing the cosmology of a continuous (steady) state universe
A debate about a steady state universe presented in an introductory preliminary form by Richard L. Amoroso
I believe our 3D universe exists in a concurrent relationship with a separate field fourth dimension. I have introduced readers to the cosmological ideas of Richard Amoroso because they seem to indicate Amoroso – Noetic physics has similar characteristics to those I have outlined with my Awareness model. I draw reader attention to some of these similarities. I have underlined certain text to assist you to better follow my interpretation of Amoroso’s cosmological physics ideas.
Amoroso hypothesizes because of numerous unresolved problems in contemporary cosmological physics that it is time to think about a new standard model of cosmology, a cosmological theory Amoroso has titles a Continuous State Universe (CSU). The author believes it is only an extended dualistic – theory model that introduces an additional causal order (such as my fourth dimension) that will help resolve the dilemma. Those with a background in physics can peruse the essence of this duality (of dimensions) debate at the top of page two. Amoroso points out that although the notion of Newtonian absolute space (which I believe in) has been discarded by contemporary physics, one appears to already exist (see bottom of two and top of page three).
Amoroso believes his new CSU theory “represents the ground of all existence” and “resides beyond the observable Hubble universe” i.e. determinable outer reaches of the 3D universe. Amoroso proceeds to point out that “Einstein’s theories of relativity can be simplistically represented as a ‘virtual reality’ by interpreting CSU – AS (his physics model as a fundamental background space of the relative space fields referred to by Einstein). In my opinion this means that Amoroso is stating that his CSU – AS model is much akin to my Awareness model of physics notion of the existence of a cosmological backdrop of primordial awareness. The Author goes on to add “Space with boundary conditions or energy is fundamental to all forms of matter”. I suggest that the boundary conditions that Amoroso is talking about is akin to the arbitary boundary I frequently talk about between the sub-quantum and quantum levels, that is the Planck level.
In order for you to better appreciate the significance of the cosmic comparisons I am making I suggest you proceed to the lowest section of page three and read Einstein’s quote. The quote commences with the words “the victory over…” and concludes with the words “…space without a field”. You will note that Einstein refers to his new field theory as being dependant upon for space-time parameters which is exactly my position in my Awareness model.
From this quotation onwards in the text Amoroso supports his hypothesis with an extended argument embracing mathematics and concludes his paper by saying “Scientific theory, whether popular or unpopular at any point in history, must ultimately be based on description of natural law, not creative fantasies of scientists imaginations. Only by adequate determination of natural law can successfully model reality…” It is for these reasons I feel it is very important I introduce my readers to the cosmological ideas of Amoroso. His ideas compliment the already existing parallel nature of my Awareness model of physics with the Process and the Hiley-Bohm models as well. The Awareness model is supported by the SMUT particle experiment.
25] What is Process Philosophy?
Quote from Stanford University article cited below:
“The philosophy of process is a venture in metaphysics, the general theory of reality. Its concern is with what exists in the world and with the terms of reference in which this reality is to be understood and explained. The task of metaphysics is, after all, to provide a cogent and plausible account of the nature of reality at the broadest, most synoptic and comprehensive level. And it is to this mission of enabling us to characterize, describe, clarify and explain the most general features of the real that process philosophy addresses itself in its own characteristic way. The guiding idea of its approach is that natural existence consists in and is best understood in terms of processes rather than things — of modes of change rather than fixed stabilities. For processists, change of every sort — physical, organic, psychological — is the pervasive and predominant feature of the real.
Process philosophy diametrically opposes the view — as old as Parmenides and Zeno and the Atomists of Pre-Socratic Greece — that denies processes or downgrades them in the order of being or of understanding by subordinating them to substantial things. By contrast, process philosophy pivots on the thesis that the processual nature of existence is a fundamental fact with which any adequate metaphysic must come to terms.
Process philosophy puts processes at the forefront of philosophical and specifically of ontological concern. Process should here be construed in pretty much the usual way — as a sequentially structured sequence of successive stages or phases. Three factors accordingly come to the fore:
- That a process is a complex — a unity of distinct stages or phases. A process is always a matter of now this, now that.
- That this complex has a certain temporal coherence and unity, and that processes accordingly have an ineliminably temporal dimension.
- That a process has a structure, a formal generic format in virtue of which every concrete process is equipped with a shape or format.”
[First published Tue Apr 2, 2002; substantive revision Wed Jan 9, 2008]
26] Albert Einstein’s ideas about Simultaneity in his Theory of Relativity
I believe that this animated video is self explanatory
27] The emerging crisis in physics. Will physics soon need to take a new course of direction?
The magazine Scientific American seems to think this may be the case. You may also find my two blogs relating to this topic are interesting as well
These two blogs are entitled “The questionable nature of the Standard model of physics” and “Is the scientific method living up to it’s own expectations?“.
The problem for the standard model of physics is that although it correctly describes the attributes of sub-atomic particles, it does not show how these remarkable particles have such attributes. This is why the question of the existence of super-symmetry is so important to physicist allying themselves to the Standard model of physics, whereas the alternative models (such as those of Bohm and Cahill) do not. The same position applies to my Awareness model where I describe reality as being emergent of a continuum of blobs of information and knowledge that is never ending. Furthermore, these blobs are self generating without any external force (energy) needed for them to continue doing so. The Bohm Implicit order (holographic) model works along similar lines as does the Cahill Process Physics model which I feel can be seen to be all somewhat parallel to each other. I am particularly interested in seeing the Bohm/Cahill type models come forward as credible alternative models to the Standard model because it would tend to substantiate my own views regarding the existence of a common awareness to all phenomena (not consciousness). I mean by this it is likely to have some degree of validity. Because these alternative models seem to be reliant on some type of memory (albeit short lived) to explain the perpetual expansionary mature of their models I think this is where the Awareness model may have a helpful feature to contribute to the debate because it has inherent memory embodied within it at every stage.
I have extracted certain phrases from the Scientific American magazine dated May 2014 so that you may share why I feel some of my words will make better sense. The sections I have copied for this blog are directly related to many of the comments I have just made. They relate to the huge urgency for physicists to finally determine the phenomena of super-symmetry, and the subsequent need for some type of alternative model to show how it is that physics can be so weird at times. More importantly of all, entrepreneurial physicists are already “rethinking of basic phenomena that underlies the fabric of the universe”. It seems to me such physicist already feel they have been defending a lost cause. The front cover of the Scientific American magazine is attached as well.
28] A guide to describing non-locality without employing mathematics
This step by step approach to understanding non-locality in physics may be useful for some of my readers
29] Pilot wave theory explained
Contemporary physics seems to be more seriously considering pilot wave theory as a part of its quantum modelling. This video may assist you to better understand what the theory is about.
Other supporting information:
30] Unusual and challenging E8 maths theory
These mathematical equations predict that many more sub-atomic particles and atomic forces are yet to be discovered
31] A profile of Professor Basil Hiley
Professor Hiley is arguably one of the finest scientists in contemporary times
He received the Majorana Prize for “Best person in physics” in the U.K. in 2012.
You will see where I have emboldened certain text within the following quotation:
I have a great deal of respect for Professor Hiley and i have quoted him in a number of my writings and blogs.
“Basil J. Hiley, is a British quantum physicist and professor emeritus of the University of London. He received the Majorana Prize “Best person in physics” in 2012. Wikipedia
Born: 1935, Myanmar (Burma)
Long-time co-worker of David Bohm, Hiley is known for his work with Bohm on implicate orders and for his work on algebraic descriptions of quantum physics in terms of underlying symplectic and orthogonal Clifford algebras. Hiley co-authored the book The Undivided Universe with David Bohm, which is considered the main reference for Bohm’s interpretation of quantum theory.
The work of Bohm and Hiley has been characterized as primarily addressing the question “whether we can have an adequate conception of the reality of a quantum system, be this causal or be it stochastic or be it of any other nature” and meeting the scientific challenge of providing a mathematical description of quantum systems that matches the idea of an implicate order.
Hiley worked with David Bohm for many years on fundamental problems of theoretical physics. Initially Bohm’s model of 1952 did not feature in their discussions; this changed when Hiley asked himself whether the “Einstein-Schrödinger equation”, as Wheeler called it, might be found by studying the full implications of that model. They worked together closely for three decades. Together they wrote many publications, including the book The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum Theory, published 1993, which is now considered the major reference for Bohm’s interpretation of quantum theory.
In 1995, Basil Hiley was appointed to the chair in physics at Birkbeck College at the University of London. He was awarded the 2012 Majorana Prize in the category The Best Person in Physics for the algebraic approach to quantum mechanics and furthermore in recognition of ″his paramount importance as natural philosopher, his critical and open minded attitude towards the role of science in contemporary culture”.
Implicate orders, pre-space and algebraic structures (quote below)
“Much of Bohm and Hiley’s work in the 1970s and 1980s has expanded on the notion of implicate, explicate and generative orders proposed by Bohm. This concept is described in the books Wholeness and the Implicate Order by Bohm and Science, Order, and Creativity by Bohm and F. David Peat. The theoretical framework underlying this approach has been developed by the Birkbeck group over the last decades. In 2013 the research group at Birkbeck summarized their over-all approach as follows:
“It is now quite clear that if gravity is to be quantised successfully, a radical change in our understanding of spacetime will be needed. We begin from a more fundamental level by taking the notion of process as our starting point. [which I agree with] Rather than beginning with a spacetime continuum, we introduce a structure process which, in some suitable limit, approximates to the continuum. We are exploring the possibility of describing this process by some form of non-commutative algebra, an idea that fits into the general ideas of the implicate order. In such a structure, the non-locality of quantum theory can be understood as a specific feature of this more general a-local background and that locality, and indeed time, will emerge as a special feature of this deeper a-local structure.” [I suggest that my Noetic Scientist concept of primordial awareness may be a candidate in this area.]….https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Hiley”
32] Did you know that cosmologically parts of us have been everywhere?
This idea underpins my belief of an invisible link between all things, regardless of time, location or circumstance
(since I wrote this blog in 2013 I now know that there is cosmic phenomena entitled entanglement that supports my beliefs in this area).
Journey of an Atom
“We are all star children. Every atom in our bodies was once inside the fiery core of a star that exploded billions of years before our solar system was formed. At the same time, each of us is connected to all other life on this planet in ways we rarely imagine. Simple estimates suggest that each time we take a breath, we could be inhaling atoms exhaled by most other human beings who ever lived. We are not only connected to the stars, but to the full breadth of human history”.
“… this story is not about all atoms. Because atoms, like people and dogs, and even cockroaches, have individual histories”.
“…this story is a story about one particular atom in particular, an atom of oxygen, locked in a drop of water, on a planet whose surface is largely covered by water but whose evolution is for the moment dominated by intelligent beings who lived on land. It could, at the present moment, be located in a glass of water you drink as you read this book. It could have been in a drop of sweat dropping from Michael Jordan’s nose as he leapt for a basketball in the final game of his career, or in a large wave that is about to strike land after travelling 4000 miles through the Pacific Ocean. No matter. Our story begins before water it self existed, and end well after the planet on which the water is found s no more, the myriad human tragedies of the eons perhaps long forgotten. It is a story rich in drama, and poetry, with moments of fortune and remarkable serendipity, and more than a few of tragedy”
“Atom. An Odyssey from the life of the Big Bang to life on earth… and Beyond”
Author: Lawrence M. Krauss. Publisher: Little Brown and Company 2001. ISBN 0 316 64877 0
To locate my ideas relating to the unusual science that I feel is applicable to this blog click here.