Roaring Lovely's Posts

Proper Time Vs Coordinate Time

Posted by Roaring Lovely on June 7, 2015 at 10:30am

Many people find Einstein's theory of relativity hard to understand. For instance, the concept of 'time dillation' or 'relativity of simultaneity'. Well, physicists say that it is because it goes against how we understand 'time' and 'simultaneity'. Right? Wrong! I will espouse the true reason why people can't grasp Einstein's theory. Read on.Earlier on, when you were 12 or so, they introduced you to the idea of speed as distance/time taken. But if you remember well, you might have notice that there is something missing in this notion. Infact, such definition is behind Zeno's paradox and one exellent way of solving Zeno's paradox is to say that speed is not distance/time!! Speed is not realistically analytic! Here it goes: we donnot need both a ruler and a clock to note the following things in the real world:1.)The tortoise is moving as fast as a cheetah2.)The cheetah is moving faster than the tortoise3.)The tortoise is moving faster than the cheetah4.)If a cheetah is moving faster than a tortoise, and then a leopard is moving faster than the cheetah, then it follows that the leopard is moving faster than the tortoise.The above 4 things is what we need to grasp the concept: speed. You could also just see directly a speeding thing and a slowly moving thing. Distance/time is just some racing between say a cheetah and something invisible as 'time' that is somehow running for unjustifyable reasons. It is enough to make a tortoise a standard and then talk of the speed of a cheetah, leopard, elephant etc/the speed of a tortoise. And so we see that logics and even physics do allow the speed of a tortoise to vary. Should the speed of the tortoise vary, then such is precisely the meaning of 'time dillation'. So the theory isn't hard at all to understand.So to understand the theory, I would advice you to completely remove the notion of 'time' from the equations (NOT from your mind) and replace it with 'unseen clock'. Then remove the notion of 'space' and replace it with 'unseen ruler'. So 'spacetime continum' becomes 'rulersclocks continum'. So to understand how time dillation can happen, just imerce a pendulum or an hourglass in water and watch it swing slowly. 'Time' does not dilate like a stomach filled with lots of beer, clocks do run slowly or faster under different conditions and the standard clock is just abitrarily by a human being. Conceptually, there is essentially nothing more mysterious about time dillation.4 DIMENSIONAL SPACTIME CONTINUMSo there are realy lots of clocks. I can use an hourglass, a pendulum, a song, bla bla bla. These donnot necesarily ran at the same rate. Then two otherwise identical pendulums etc donnot swing synchronously if one of them is inside the Einsteinian train. But I like using a tortoise as a clock. So it will mean it is moving along a straight line and not round and round or back and forth. So every time I talk of time, or I use symbol 't', visualise a tortoise moving along an arbitrary axis WITHIN 3D. It is a REAL, litteral tortoise. time dillation, t/T for instance would be two twin tortoises that are racing along two identical say 100m racing fild. So momentarily, t is pretending to be any other thing moving along space axis with a speed t/T given by measuring it with the clock T. If T is the tortoise carried by the Einsteinian train, then T is called proper time and t is called coordinate time.So we say t is behaving similar to the space axis in that in space axis, I often have some freedom to move in any inclination. I can move parralel to the train, or at an angle to it. If I am moving at an angle A from the train and then cover distance x, then the distace along the train do increment by distance X so that x/X is the cosine of angle A. Similarly, the freedom to choose the ratio t/T is very symetrical. But I chose various 'angles'=cos-1(t/T) by simply moving in an approriate speed. So it appears as though moving faster gives me the opportunity to move farther away from axis T in the same way I can move away from the axis that is along the train. But you should be able to see that t is not necesarily moving at any mysterious 'angle' with t at all it is simply moving faster or slowlier than T. Comparing t/T to a cosine of some angle is baseless. But did Minkowski got confused, was he trying to confuse people or was he trying to give some supernatural explanation as to why t is moving at different rate from T? Let me hope it is the latter.CURVED SPACETIMEThings become tough when we try to generalise relativity to accelerating bodies or those moving curvilinearly such as planets orbiting stars. As you may guess, t/T etc nolonger equals to a constant. So when we identify t/T with some cosine, t/T better be curved lines than straight lines.Another interesting case is seen by say a planet orbiting the sun. Remember that as we speed, lengths also contract in the direction of the travel. So if a planet revolves at a relativistic speed around a 'sun', the distance moved around would be shorter than espected because the distance from the sun to the planet is invariant. So when you use the formular for the circumfrence, c=2pr, it won't be correct! So it is quite easy to see that the only way for a generalised relativity to be correct is if spacetime is generaly curved (geometry is non Euclidian, it is Riemaniann).CLOSED UNIVERSEEinstein beleived that the universe is 'closed'. This is very hard to understand if you take the spacetime geometry quite literaly. However, it is a quite simple idea. Let us say that the pluto was moving at the speed of light around the sun. Then relativity tells us that the entire circumfrence of the orbit shrinks to zero!! The pluto is sort of omnipresent in its entire orbit! So if you were to move towards the pluto in eastwards direction, reaching pluto, you become omnipresent along the entire orbit and you may as well come back to earth from westward direction while still thinking you are heading straight away!! So by making the event horizon simply move circularly at c, it becomes impossible to cross the event horizon. The universe becomes finite and closed.

New Occam's Razor

Posted by Roaring Lovely on June 6, 2015 at 5:30am

Occam's razor is the criteria that is used by scientists to choose between two theories that explains a phenomenon equally well. It states that given two theories that equally explain a phenomenon, the one with fewest assumptions should be chosen. So as baseless an assumption it is ultimately Occam's Razor is the fuel that propells science!This may not seem a serious issue if you think that there are always 2-3 competing theories that equally explain a phenomena. But there are always myriads of them! To many people, they have a picture of scientists as a team of carefull people always sorting through different hypotheses by conducting experiments and ruling out falsified hypothesis and choosing what agrees with experiments. Well, this is how they proclaim themselves and who espect a group to say anything about themselves other than all what is good? However, this is far from being accurate. At some point, they nolonger waite for future data to speak. They begine to decide what people should beleive or doubt by voting!! Then they pass it out as a proven fact!! Occam's Razor is said to be used here.A good example is Ptolemy vs Copernican view of how solar system works. What you are told is that Scientists proved that we revolve around the sun. However, that is not the truth! Ptolemy's hypothesis was rejected using Occum's Razor. A good scientific book should always tell you so. Unfortunately, many don't. Many books, articles and online writtings INDOCTRINATE science insteat of TEACHING science.Let us see if our scientists are even faithfull to this razor in the first place. Lets restate it:Given two theories that equally well explain a nartural phenomenon, the one with fewest assumptions should be taken.Let us apply this to the question; why do leaving things show signs of a work of an intelligent designed? Clearly, the simplest hypothesis is that they were infact intelligently designed! A person who says that this hypothesis does not adequetly explain the origin and diversity of life is blatantly lieing. We hardly have a trouble even convincing a child that life was intelligently created! The bottomline is the answers are too straight away for a scientist to perceive it as an explanation. Explanations are somehow thought of as necesarily unwinding it in paragraphs for only the proffesors to grasp. Clearly the 'God' hypothesis won't earn you a job as a teacher or a nobel price! It is too straight foward!Q:Why is the lens of an eye positioned outside more in the peripheri than the iris?A:Beause it is unreasonable to place it the other way round as both the lens and the iris would serve no purpose.With the evolution theory, we must make another redundant assumption that there was once such a misplaced lense and then it was selected away. So to explain each and every bit of the gazzilions of things in the body we must make an assumption. So there are at least as many unprovable assumptions as there are the number of amino acids in your entire body!!If a scientist can interprate Occam's Razor to mean anything he want it to mean at any time, then it is a worthless criteria. It is not any different from a Christian holding that the bible is both symbolic and litteral. By choosing what to take it literaly and what to interprate, he can make the bible say anything he want it to say. The key point is he chooses what to interprate by fiat but not via any justifiable methodology.There are two things, however, that I am not trying to endorse. One is that the mainstream science is entirely worthless. The other is that we should use argument from ignorance. To the first, I am saying you read a scientific theory and take it to be what it is; a theory, not a truth. Read like you will read a bible or even more carefully. Use your reason, jurdgement, intuition and common sense. Question it and think very critical through it. Try to UNDERSTAND the theory and not just seek CONVICTION that it is true. Above all, try to form your own theory and challenge the established stance!!As for argument from ignorance, this the eror done on the other side of the pendulum. A creationist or any other 'magical thinker' etc would be told to produce evidence of God, telepathy etc. Then many issue a kick back card. Can you prove that there is an electron? Can you prove big bang? Can you prove that life is not a dream? All of these are worthless dares. A proponent of God, telepathy etc should provide evidence for such. What does a lack of evidence at the other side of the pendulum got to do with the question of whether or not God exists? If there is no evidence that electrons exist, this does not mean that we should accept that God exists because some guys accepted that there is an electron without proof. What if quantum guys are a bunch of bozos? Would we not all be lead to spiral to the abyss of ignorance? Rather the absence of direct evidence for both the electron and God means that we should equally QUESTION both of them.CONCLUSIONQ:So what then is the new Occam's Razor?A:Shut up and calculate!The modern man seeks truth and knowledge. He wants to knnw everything and understand nothing! Ok lets consider an example: go to the street and ask how many people there have ever heard of quantum mechanics and everybody will raise his hand up. Ask how many know that it has been proven and even more hands go up! Now ask how many have ever heard of Stern Gerlach experiment and the entire 'wavefunction' composed of millions of 'eigenstates' suddenly 'collaps' to some ten guys! Still ask how many can draw the apparatus of Stern Gerlach experiment and perharps only one of them can do it! So in the end, in what way are scientists in modern times any different from priests of the dark ages?There are two claims that comes from the mouth of a scientist. There is one long range missile that tickles the mind but is ultimately pointless. It is made when the scientist has gotten tired and he is now streatching and yawning. I may call these 'eureka claims'. He breaths deep and says; 'give me a long beam and I will balance the whole earth!' unfortunately, such claims are the only things the masses get! When they set out to debate, they spend six hours trying to convince others that it has been proven that a man can balance the earth like a see saw or that when we travel we come back younger than our twins or that we get fatter and fatter till we become as heavy as the whole universe. Such gabage becomes the truth and ultimately the religion.

The Dimensionality Of The Universe

Posted by Roaring Lovely on June 5, 2015 at 10:00am

How many dimensions are they there? Well, in the 19th centuary, if you did not say 3, then you were not a smart mathematician. In the early 20th century, if you did not saiy 4, you were ignorant of Einstein's theories. In the latter 20th centuary, if you did not say 11, you were ignorant of string theory. But the modern 21st centuary answer is that it doesn't matter what you think the number of dimensions are!To understand what I am saying, consider the Minkowsky and Einstein's claim that our universe is 4 dimensional. There arises the question that why then do we perceive only 3 dimensions? The now obselet answer was that we are limited beings and only a 5 dimensional being can perceive the world as it is. The lower dimensional beings perceives but an illusion. The modern answere is that the world can as well be just 3 dimensional and if there is a being perceiving 5 dimensions, then the extra two are just illusions. The world AS IT IS is as it appears to a 3 dimensional person!!!This idea may first sound uncomfortable to you if you don't understand it but it isn't! Just be carefull to grasp it very well. If someone asks WHERE the devil is, a Christian etc of the early 20 centuary would nolonger hid the devil somewhere below the earth because men can circumnavigate the earth. When asked where God is, he could nolonger hid him somewhere above the blue sky because 'we move around the sun'. So he sought to hid these guys in 'other dimensions'. But not so any more because mathematicians have shown that we are in those 'other dimensions' as well! One better way to hid God in 20st centuary is once again, up there in the blue skies!! Everything is IN PRINCIPLE, visible, somethings are only hiding but IN CONCEIVABLE LOCATIONS!It is this way: lets say you are seeing a cup and a billiard ball infront of you. The cup might be in the 26th dimension and the ball might be in the fifth dimension but you are seeing both of them in the 3rd dimension! So there is nolonger any place to hid anything we wish to beleive. One way, for instance, to hid ghosts is to say they leave far far away, say in andromeda. In other words, we are back to saying that God is in heaven, high up there. However, fortunately there is another way; interlaced realities. Not only is interlaced realities compatible with modern ideas, it is infact the basis of those ideas!!The modern brewer of whiskies would say that a UFO was seen up there in the sky. Then when asked where it went to, he will say it disappeared to 'another dimension'. New math now demonstarate that this joker card claim is just like saying the devil is beneath the earth or even worse! If the UFO happen to go into 'another dimension', it will still be seen on earth!! It will appear like shifting slightly to the left say by a distance of Planck's length and voila! 'It has gone to another dimension'. If there is a fift dimensional guy (who will just be standing next to you but not invisible) his picture of UFO shifting to the 5D will add or perharps subtract only cosmetics to the picture, but not more or less information. So there absolutely no advantage of perceiving the world in more dimensions. If anything, there might be disadvantages.So modern informed UFOlogists nolonger say the UFO flew to another dimension when they want to sound scientificaly apt. To sound scientific, you explain the disapearance of a UFO by something like: the UFO's matter turned into weakly interacting particles. The only way a thing can seem to disappear from the sky is if its atoms somehow stop interacting with the photonic field but not by 'going to another dimension'. Granted, you may redefine the word 'dimension' to mean such but be carefull when trying to use string theory to support such. To look informed, use HOLOGRAPHIC MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE.An holographic universe is an example of interlaced realities where every portion of the hologram interlaces information about other portions. To extend the hologram to serve the same purpose as a multidimensional reality, one only need to notice that just as we can interlace all the points along a third axis on the same point on an hologram, we can similarly interlace all the points along a 26th axis on the same point of an hologram! So even a 2 dimensional hologram can serve the purpose that a 26 dimensional multivers could serve!!! The key point here is that what is important is the amount of storage space and not the orientation of the axi. Then in giving us 3, the universe granted us with a great bonus of an extra axis! Asking if there are other axi other than the 3 is nolonger of any importance either to a scientist, an engineer or even, as you have seen, a spiritual person. As a by the way information, if you look through a 2d hologram, you will see it has a third diemension! Similarly, a 26d guy could see the very same hologram and see all the 26 dimensions that might be there as well!Those who like evidences, the first evidence that narture indead interlace realities is huge space between particles. Then there is some regularities here and there. Find an hollogram and zoom it to see the patterns. Does it look like some atoms in say a crystal? If yes, does that show that atoms could be images in an hologram?

Breaking Einsteinian Barrier For Interstellar Travell.

Posted by Roaring Lovely on June 3, 2015 at 5:30am

Einstein's asertion that no signal can propagate faster than light, together with some experimental confirmations is a major reason why it is considered by informed physicists that interstellar travel is impossible. However, some people have some problem in understanding that Einstein's idea of relative time is incompartible with the kind of interstellar travel the also desire. They go on accepting that time is relative and that they can instantaneously move from any point to any other point in the universe!

You won't even go through spiritual means such as telepathy!! It has something to do with the way Einstein link slowing clocks to the slowing of time itself!! To instantaneously communicate with an andromedan, there is no short cut to both you and the andromedan sharing the same moment, making the simultaneity between you and the andromedan absolute, violating Einstein's relativity! The only sensible way out is to reject Einstein's and hence Minkowsky's interpratation of Lorentz transform. This means to simply reject everything that was fascinating about relativity and to make both Einstein and Minkowsky's interpratation irrelevant. Indead, Hendrik Lorentz had already explained everything physically relevant together with formulating all the relevant mathematics.

At the dawn of 20th centuary scientists were about to understand that the relativistic effects together with electromagnetic forces are natural accidence that occur due to the fact that we leave inside some medium exibiting strange properties. Einstein's entry to the scenario terminated this perfectly sensible line of thinking. Einstein says that relativistic effects are some inexplicable essence of nature that occur in principle even in absolute vacuum. This required a lot of indoctrinations of the next generation of physicists to swallow such! Nowadays almost everyone think it is normal for narture to be that way. But infact Einstein's claim is such far fetched one that even a die hard beleiver has to constantly remind himself of it! Nothingness necesarily lacks properties and thus can never limit anything. Absolutely, a void cannot bend, munch, shrink, dilate swallow or twist things. Absolutely, it cannot slow clocks down. Anything achieving such acrobatics must be SOMETHING in an otherwise void and we only need to figure out how to suck this thing out and then the drama disapears!

To illustrate the problem, let us use the following inductive reasoning. Imagine a beam of light emerging from diamond, then it enters a piece of glass, then it enters the transparent perspex, then clear water, then parafin, then petrol, then carbondioxide, the nitrogen, then, oxygen, then hydrogen, bla bla bla. The speed of light increases steadily as it pass through all those mediums. How can a thing that is clearly variable from medium to meadium holus bolus morphs into unsurmountable constant by entering some magical medium a human being DEFINE by fiat and call it 'vacuume? We can see from those experiments that speed of light depends on the amount of concentration of something and makes no sense to talk of 'least possible density'.

When you are trying to evacuate a container, you can only completely remove things of a certain size. No matter how perfect technology is, it ismpossible to make an idealy air tight container, let alone a pumbing machine. So you cannot even remove the giant molecules of air off a region in space, let alone the smaller buzzing subatomic particles. So we can't reasonably claim to describe a condition of vacuum . If we have trouble even removing air off a region, what sense does it mean to say that Einstein's theories have be tested over and over? Consider for instance attempt to accelerate particles in CERN to the speed of light. how sure are we that the difficulty in attaining the speed of light is due to the property of vacuum and not the simple inevitable collision between the accelerating particles and the particles buzzing around in 'void'? If it is impossible to remove these other particles, then Einstein's theory CANNOT be tested!

This is even worsen by the lightness of the hadrons accelerated. You donnot even need quantum mechanics nor equations to understand this. Take a piece of feather and a stone and try to race them downwards due to gravity. You realise that making a thing light does not necesarily make it easier to accelerate it, if a region of space in which you are performing the experiment is not a perfect vacuum. Of course physicists understand such. But to avoid being embarassed by a 12 year old, they have a fancier way of saying it. It is called HIGGS MECHANISM. So we are baptised in some ocean. But in case you notice a feather parachuting slowly but still wish to say space is void you can say talk of some magical mass donor called higgs. So like you might give a pair of pants to someone, this beast gives 'mass' to particles! But of course you should be smart enough to see that the particles are simply bumping on some particles buzzing around and thus looking heavier.

FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT

I can also make my case in experimental, not just ontologically. Astrophysicists are reporting cases where the so called fine structure 'constant' infact varies from point to point in the universe! While this might buffle the modern physicist, it is pretty straight foward if you understand space as to be filled with a medium as a matter accidence and not essentially like I have explained above. So the understanding is a nobrainer, who after all espect the density of the medium to be constant everywhere? Then light of course vary from medium to medium. Remember that fine structure relates speed of light this way;

A=q2/hc

A=fine structure constant

q=charge of an electron

h=Planck's constant

c=Speed of light

This equation is deduced by considering forces acting on the electron from 'vacume' which means the 'vacume' is a medium. Why should there be a thing such as 'vacume' that acts upon things but unlike anything else it is not subject to the rules of any other thing such as the cabability of being, at least in principle, sucked off a region. Once you accept this dose of common sense, then ask yourself why some other regions of cosmos should not have this stuff in less density and thus the speed of light is much higher in those regions? This neatly explains the variable fine structure constant observed alongside some other things. So if we can in principle make the speed of light as high as we wish by sufficiently reducing the density of the medium in space, what place do Einstein's physics have in reality? Non! We remain with the insights that early 20th century physicists had!

QUANTUM PHYSICS

You can ask, if the speed of light is constant contingent to what is in principle removable from space and not the property of space, might we at times see light shoot much faster? The answer is a big yes! In QM, a single photon can shoot at ANY speed!! Only statistic ensemble of photons that moves slowly. So the constancy of the speed of light in 'vacume' is indead very contingent. It is NOT a fundamental law! The quantum fluctuation of c is easily explain by the fluctuation of the density of the medium just as the speed of sound is never espected to be constant in air. It depends on tones of factors from temperature to humidity.

Holographic Principle

Posted by Roaring Lovely on June 2, 2015 at 2:00pm

Some people fly like eagles up the sky. Some barrow deep down the earth like mice. Others dive under the water like dolphins. All in search for truth. What impress me is not so much the method nor the findings than the aim.What looks like the up the sky vs the down the ocean path is the multidimensional guys vs the holographic guys. The paths converges and meet somewhere though, but it requires a sharp eye to notice this.Sometimes before I heard of the holographic principle, I use to say that an 8 dimensional guy boasting to a 3d guy is just like an 8 legged spider boasting to a two legged ostrich! In what way do the 8 legs of the spider of more advantage than the 2 legs of an ostrich? Speed? Strength?Now, here is a riddle, who might be perceiving a world of illusion? The 5d guy or the 3d guy? You might think that it is the 3d guy but the holographic principle says the 5d guy! Or let me put it better; the holographic principle says that in an apparently nd universe, there are infact n-1 dimensions. The extra dimension is an illusion! But then I can iterate it until I conclude that the ultimate reality is zero dimensional! But no need for such. We can stop at 2d. So 2d flat landers are the guys perceiving the world as it is. The rest are seeing the shadow cast by the 'hologram'. So if you have been heading and 'ascending' to 5d onwards, it is high time to make a U turn and 'descend' back home. first to 3d then to 2d!"The sky receeded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place" revelation 6:14Our true home is in heaven. A 2d flat place. Presently our names are written there in an hollographic manner. There are advantages of 2d. There is no big gap seperating places. But what is the point of even a 3d anyway? An infinite, 2d place already has all the space enough to squeze everything. That is how holograms work. It can interlace all realms and we can always project to 3d, 4d, 5d etc but all these others others serve cosmetic values only. 2d is the only necesary space.Welcome to the adventures in flat land!

The Soul Interveining From Future

Posted by Roaring Lovely on June 1, 2015 at 4:30pm

Benjamin Libet and other scientists have done some research to attempt to find out if our conscious decision to act comes before or after the decision of what is thought to be the unconscious brain. It is said that there is a measurable signal from the brain that is known to come prio to our voluntary actions such as moving our hands. This signal is termed rediness potential (RP). If you move a fingure voluntarily, RP is said to occur 0.5 seconds prio the fingure move. The experiment proceeds by finding some observers. They are asked to stare at a clock and then when they decide to move the fingure, they should say when exactly they decided so. It is said that the observers consistently report that they made the decision some 0.3seconds after the RP signal! This is of course taken to mean that conscious free will is just an illusion!Now does this realy prove that our conscious free will is an illusion or does it prove that our cognitive neuro scientists are a bunch of bozos? Remember that it is these same guys that Wikipedia says that, we must rely on them to decide for us whether NDE is real or just an hallucination. They should be our modern priests!Why device such an expensive experiment with expensive osciloscopes and atomic clocks when we can do it the very straight foward way. When we go to field to watch racing guys, we never go there with clocks and rulers. This is not because we are careless but because clocks and rulers are absolutely useless in telling us such simple things as who came first second, third etc!So the simple and more sensible experiment goes this way: you are holding a mango in your left hand and an orange in your right hand. You are going to decide which one to throw it to me and tell me when you made the decision. Then you will throw it to me. So how long will it take between your decesion and your throwing? 0.2 seconds? We all know that it can take from micro seconds to all the eternity!! This is the bottom line. We can now donnate accurate clocks to museums. The scientists simply donnot understand CONSCIOUS DECISIONS!Perharps learning to ride a unicycle, to play a guitar or even a zero cent costing meditation can teach you more about freewill and consciousness than oscilloscopes and clocks. To a meditating guy, how will he say when he made a decision? I mean one even feel that he is the one controlling buzzing bees around FREEWILLINGLY! you might as well ask someone to tell you when exactly they felt asleep, they dreamt or they woke.When we make conscious decision the body donnot jerk any howly. The conscious decider acts more like a manager or a superviser than a service man or the technician. The experienced superviser never need to be ther always keeping an eye. When you decide that you want your car repaired, you do so and then delegate the task to the technician. Henceforth, you donnot tell the technician the stupid details like when exactly he should start. Here is the field where he knows better! Similarly, there is the AUTONOMIC NERVOUS SYSTEM which simply knows the technical parts of our brains and bodies not only better than us, but far better than any neuroscientist!All the observers have already made the decision that they will either throw the mangoe at times and throw the orange at times. Such are the nontrivial decisions that require conscious intervention. However the details of when exactly to throw an orange or a mango (for no compelling motive) are left for the 'technician'! Trying to figure out the exact moment you decided to move you leg up to 0.3 seconds accuracy means that you don't understand that non of the motor activities are 100% voluntary. Youv already decided that your gonna move the leg, that is the part that require conscious thought. Rather, the decision is like the 'print' button you press on the computer. Henceforth, the computer 'decides' when to start printing depending on lots of factors.There is also a problem somewhere. There is a big difference between simply deciding to throw a mango and deciding so while at the same time you are trying to figure out when exactly you made the decision. The brain (the 'computer' part) is now doing a multi tax when you focus too much on when you made the decicion, the act of throwing the mango goes to the 'auto pilot' and vice versa is true! Again I say, you have already made a decesion long ago that you are going to throw the mango. Only that you didn't decide the EXACT when before hand! You can also have decided that you are going to throw EITHER the mango or the orange. That constitute your decision to participate in the experiment and is the non trivial one. You absolutely know that the exact fruit to throw or when is trivial!Let me illustrate the non trivial case that you may understand well what I mean by decision requiring consciousness. Let us press a button that switches on the electricity on and your child, moving very fast on a merry go round is either brushing past a naked life wire or not. So it is nolonger a game, it is a matter of life and death. So you are going to say when you made the decision to switch it on. You will agree with me that only a bunch of morons can claim that they CONSCIOUSLY decided to switch the button on some 0.2 seconds before they actually press the switch cause they could see that there child was momentarily away from the life wire. The bottomline is that conscious decisions are like the acts of perliament and not that one of judiciary. The one that is enforced just some 0.2 seconds after the decision is the 'judiciary', not the 'perliament'!Another example is that of a cat in some dilema about when EXACTLY to spring as in the ranges of 0.2 secs accuracy. Of course the can't consciously decide to jump at such time ranges as within 0.3-0.5 sec. But he definetly decides that it is gonna dive some times before the mouse escapes! To the trivial exact moments, it is better left to the autopilot which is more accurate at routine tasks such as coordinations and timing.THE MIND FROM FUTURELet us still agree for the sake of argument that the unconscious decisions come prio to the conscious ones. Still in physics, before we decide whether this imply that freewill is causaly irrelevant, we must consider the relevant dynamics involved. If electrodynamics, then the 'when' is irrelevant!! (consider for instance Feynman-wheeler absorber theory of light propagation). Only thermodynamics is time asymmetrical. In other dynamics, eg electrodynamics, gravity, Newton laws, quantum mech etc, if A can cause B then it is certain that B can cause A. So it only requires that we show that RP can eventually cause the feeling of conscious decision and we establish that under the right conditions, the feeling that you are consciously making a decision will cause RP. This was the intuition that led Faraday to discover the electromagnetic induction. He correctly reasoned that if electricity can cause magnetism, then under the right conditions, magnetism can cause electricity.

Illusion Vs Reality

Posted by Roaring Lovely on May 31, 2015 at 10:30am

A person directly or indirectly influence by Kantian philosophy, consciously of unconsciously devide reality into the phenomenal and neumenal whether he use those fancy terms or not. The phenomenal world is the world we experience, thought to be created by the 'mind'. It is then said that it is what it appears contrary to the neumenal which is thought to be what it is (not what it appears). A person then goes ahead to say the phenomenal world is an illusion. After all what mind forms is normally termed as illusion.This world view is appealing to those who want to beleive that there is more about reality than what we can perceive. The neumenal reality is said to be the true reality. God can be thought of as such reality. Because everything we experience is assigned a lower folder; phenomenal, it is then said that the neumenal world is unknowable. It can't even be arived at through reasoning.It is thought by some people that the Kantian philosophy influenced the modern physics. This makes lots of sense. The no-answer-answer is the characteristics of modern physics, beginning with Einstein's relativity. After all what is the point of understanding reality if we can but get only half a picture of one? This thinking enhance positivism, tree-in-the-forest reasoning and shut-up-and-calculate no answere answers to perfectly sensible questions. To illustrate that this Kantian philosophy influenced Heisenberge and other quantum brewers, one can say that the wave function is the neumenal and the particle is the phenomenal.The glaring problem with this Kantian reasoning is that of obfusicating or even forgetting ABCD once we learn EFGH! So this issue, contrary to how you may think, is not settled by going to a university. Rather a breif tour back to kindagarten is absolutely necesary! Essentially words are defined ostensively by pointing to and naming. There is no other meaning of words apart from that!! So how do a whole philosopher ends up confusing himself with the need to define words using other words that arouse for the soul purpose of written communication? The detailed debunking of Kant is long. But the summary goes; the onus of defining a word goes to the one using the word. Because Kant cannot point to anything and utter noumenal, the word must be treated as simply meaningless! No difference with the word bugaboo! I can go round and round talking of wonders of bugaboo to you but this is against the very essence of talking; communicating.There is no meaning of the words 'as it is', 'as it appear', 'reality', 'illusion' etc apart from the meaning we arbitrarily assign them for the purpose of communication. To ensure that you don't loss track in a jargon, a breif tour back to kindagarten is always necesary. A good guide is done this way: everytime you use a word, ask yourself a question: what if an ET who doesn't know English was my audience, how will I guid him to understand what the word mean? Let us begine with the 'as it is' vs 'as it appear'. We more or less take a banana, then take a painting of one place both of them on the table point to a picture and utter 'as it appear', point to the banana and utter 'as it is'. That is the only way! If latter, one uses the word 'as it is' to resort to what he claims he cannot even point to, he is lieing out of necesity because in kindagarten, we establish the meaning of 'as it is' by pointing to and naming. You won't understand this latter 'as it is' not because you have limited understanding, as you can be fooled, but because the philosopher is using the phrase INCONSISTENTLY. It now means two contradictory concepts. One is illustrable for the purpose of communication, one is not so for the purpose of the theory. He switches back and forth between the ireconcilable meanings whenever it suits him! When you get hopelessly confused, he can always claim that it is all because he is presenting such a buffling idea that you, a mere mortal, can never fathom! Since almost everyone seems brainwashed to think that our understanding is limited, such guys suceed in selling the snake oils!We can even illustrate better the incoherence in Kantian philosophy by watching the way he uses the reasoning he wish to dismiss as phenomenal to convince us that there is a world, neumenal, that cannot be known through reasoning. Remember that the entire story is itself just another human reasoning! The mind cannot possibly imprison and limit itself under the concepts of its own formation such us 'phenomenal'. Our guy talk of a world that 'it is' as opposed the world that is the formation of mind. He is clearly using concepts we form by observing what he calls phenomenal. We do notice say a billiard ball, then we do notice that there are people around who looks like us in many aspects. I do see that Alice is seeing a billiard ball. Because Alice and the ball, as seen as two things, there is the ball 'as it is' on the table and 'as it appear' in Alice's head. Right? Wrong!! If there is ever a thing 'as it appear' in Alice's head, then it is as it do so TO US, not to Alice. Hopefully, Alice, like the brewer of the whisky, sees the ball AS IT IS just on the table like we are seeing!! I agree though that it is a little bit puzzling to grasp this!THE TREE-IN-THE-FOREST REASONINGPhilosophers often teas us a bit by play of words. They try to convince us that we are leaving inside a buble gas. Thanks to this word 'proof'. Like I have hinted above, unless the word 'donkey' resorts to a thing we can't question it should rifer to for the soul purpose of communication, the word 'donkey' is simply meaningless! Let us apply this measuring rod to the word 'proof' and hence 'truth'. It means if humanity is to use this words meaningfully, some things must be held UNQUESTIONABLY true and/or proofs! The 'question everything' slogan is not entirely wise! The common behavior that originates from every one wanting to be correct is not very wise!Lets consider the tree-in-the- forest reasoning. It poses: do the tree make sound when no one is observing? Do the tree disapear when you are not looking at it? Those who pose such question normally wish to say that our assumption that there is a solid world out there is just that; assumption, because no one can prove that a thing exists without seeing it. Right? Wrong!! What does the WORD 'proof' suppose to mean is such a context. The tree you see is not a proof that there is a tree. It is THE TREE. You won't tell an ET 'proof' by simply pointing at a tree. To use 'proof', we must concoct a story and make claims about the existence of a thing that isn't perceived by the ET at the moment. Then latter, we provide the evidence. So if things surreptitiously apeared when observed, we won't use the word 'proof' at all as a claim of a thing prio to observation will not rifer to anything.So like I said, the tree you see is not the proof that there is a tree. It is just that; the tree you are seeing. There is no meaning of 'proof of existence' existence even while staring right at the tree. Existence of the tree can just be CONCEPTUALISED or failed to be conceptualised. The concept of the tree's existence is same whether you are seeing it or not. We just form the concept of an existing tree in the forest and we don't get the proof that it exist by starring at it. We just see the tree that looks like the one we imagined. One can say this is the true essense of proof, proof that the tree I imagined can be seen (not exists); one which makes the tree in the forest reasoning irrelevant. It reduces to the question; can the tree be seen when you are not seeing it? Of which we can leave it for the funny farmers to keep themselves bussy!ASTRAL WORLDS AND UNSEEN REALMSHopefully, I have clarified some concepts here and there. Like I hinted, we realy should not be bothered with whether things are 'real' or 'exist' because even people using those words often get reluctant or even annoyed when you dare them to define the words. We are interested with the CONSISTENCE and objectivity of astral realms. It is not for mere curiosity or '3d indoctrinations' but these are artributes we desire from experiences.

Newton's Physics And Spirituality

Posted by Roaring Lovely on May 30, 2015 at 3:00pm

When you talk of Newton's physics, what comes to minds are billiard balls, gogs, bullets, wheels etc. One wonders what the hell it has to do with spirituality. But this is all due to the misunderstandings that the 'spiritual' guys have painted on Newton's physics. Newton himself insisted that his aim in writting the principia mathematica was to show that there is God. Indead a carefull person sees some realy good bearing on spirituality when he close exermines Newton's physics.To set things on the track, let us begine by close exermining the guy himself. While many think that Newton was an overaly rational scientist who at times got interested with magics, he was infact a magician who at times got interested with science. Newton wrote far much more books on magics, occult, christianity etc than on science.At times modern spiritual guys claim that in Newtonian physics, intuition is not so much important. However, according to both mathematicians and physicists alike, Newton's physics are highly intuitive. It is all because these 'spiritual' guys have corrupted the meaning of the term 'intuition' to mean their beleifs! Knowing something intuitively means with hardly any need for proves and explanations. Go teach Newton's physics to 12 year olds and they all node; thats it! On the other hand, the quantum bearden men go around in circles they can't to agree on the ultra basics as to what the hell a particle is. Round and round till they agree to simply shut up-and-calculate!On some other hand, it is ridiculus to claim that Newton came up with the so called Newtonian physics. These physics are so obvious that every body discovers them over and over. Close exermin a cat, for instance. As it struggles to bite off some piece of meat off a bone, it will soon realise that it absolutely need to press the bone down in order to bite the meat off the bone. This is Newton's third law of motion that the cat is quickly discovering! So you gotta agree with me that Newton's physics is very intuitive. It only requires basic instincts to discover. Then what sense does it mean to say that it took a genius to discover a thing even known clearly by animals?Some people think that it is Newton's laws that claim that the world is deterministic and thus can't account for free will. In other words, it is tempting to think that if we are the brain, and the brain obeys Newton's laws, then we have no freewill. Uterly wrong!! The determinism philosophy came with the 'energy' guys. The word 'energy' was not found in Newton's mouth. But even so, with potential energy, still freewill makes some lots of sense without violating any conservative laws any more than an intervention of magnetic force in an encemble of giggling balls need to violate any of Newton's laws or even other conservative laws.It is important to understand that neither the law of conservation of energy nor the law of conservation of matter are deducable from Newton's law. The only conservative law deducable from Newton's physics is that of conservation of momentum (not mass). Newton never say that a billiard ball cannot appear from a void. It allow it so as long as it does not move as it emerge. Motion is only possible given pairs of objects. Newton beleived that God created the matter. So he was never a beleiver in conservation of matter. This latter law, alongside conservation of energy (not momentum) is the first law of thermodynamics, an entirely different physics from Newton's physics. Newton stops at dealing solely with forces and accelerations, not energy.In Newtonian physics, 'force' need not be of physical origin. This is a very tricky thing to discern from Newton's 3 laws of motion. Newton himself beleived that 'force' is of ocult origin! Newton, for instance, did not beleive that the earth pulls the moon contrary to how you have been often told. Infact, he regarded such a claim as completely absurd. Newton rather beleived that something invisible, that exists in between the earth and the moon pulls both of them towards each other, akin to a shortening rop that ties the moon to the earth. Such a visualisation is a key to understanding Newton's third law of motion and how is absolutely doesnt say that the world is simply mechanical. Rather it says that some rule must be obeyed. If you are in space, with negligeable or even zero mass (being a spirit) and you want to pull the earth, you cannot just do it while hanging in the mid air. Your legs should for instance be tied to the moon. But this does not violate your free will. You can choose to do it or not to do it at any time you choose. Same thing will aply if you are a spirit existing in between the spaces of your brain wile influencing how matter moves freewillingly without violating any law of physics!So because Newton's laws are not necesarily all about the visible world, they may be stemming from a more universal principle. That would be the law of cause and effect, as I will restate them below. You should have noted that Newton was realy not after merely giving a physical account for every causal mechanism in narture. This is misrepresented so in modern science which tends to be materialistic and positivistic. Newton was not so much a scientist than a philosopher, theologian and mathematician.1.)The first and the second law: every effect has a cause2.)The third law: as much as the cause influence the effect, the effect influence the cause.

Quantum Coherence And Consciousness

Posted by Roaring Lovely on May 28, 2015 at 6:30pm

First, I must say that I know of the difficulties of trying to study consciousness using the science style. Philosophers have done some good job in clarifying where the problem lie. The logical possibility of philorophical zombie is what spoil the trip of persuing consciousness using objective knowledge, like any other knowledge. However, there are things that we can agree. One is that consciousness is corelated to brain activities. It is here where I step in to wonder if consciousness is corelated with quantum coherence. Coherence here can be understood as just the way in which different waves oscillate synchronously.There are 3 reasons why a quantum theory of consciousness is apealing:1.)Conscious systems acts as a single system2.)Quantum indeterminism can be compared to freewill3.)The collaps of wavefunction by a conscious observerThere are some bonuses we wish. These are telekinesis, telepathy, near death experiences, souls, universal awareness, nirvana etcHere, I will focus on fact that a conscious organism can act as a single whole. This is where we can relate it with quantum coherence. You will easily agree that your awareness is a single thing as you look at this page, there are several portions letters all the way from top to bottom. But there is this one thing common to all the things; you are aware of all of them. It is this thing connecting all things that we wish to compare it with the quantum coherence of all the things thus connected. Or let me put it in another way. You will agree with me that if I was to make another 'you' and place it somewhere else, for that guy to be realy you and to be the very same awareness as yours, he must consciously be making the same decisions as yours all the time. In other words, you must be in perfect synch with the guy. Such a synch can be called coherence.But this intuition of yours is well confirmed by experiment. You will want to say that if all the neurones in your brain are realy part of a single thing you call it self, then they must be coherent in some way. By studying neuron oscillations (brain waves) of wake and sleep people, or also those in meditation, scientiststs can find that the state of wake (consciousness) is corelated to synchronous firing of several neurones. One can even link to level of awareness to the number of neurones firing coherently and/or the measure of synchronisity in the firing. The question then becomes whether the cause of such a synchronous firing is quantum coherence or classical communication between various neurons.There is an intuitive reason to think that it is quantum coherence. The classic connection takes time. No matter how short the time is between the part of the brain that hears say a roar and the part that is seeing this page, as long as there is a time in between, it won't appear in the same awareness! Or let me put it this way: by not focusing sharply on any specific letter in this page, you can see all of them all at once albeit blurred. But then each of the signals goes to different portion of your retina. You can't say that you are a tiny dot somewhere and then that dot scans all the letters so fast that you can't notice the duration. This is because the illusion that two things appearing at two slightly different moments are appearing at the same moment is caused by the persistence of the image in the retina even after the causing object is off. So it is always true that for you to perceive the illusion of simultaneity, you must still perceive several things (in this case, persistent images in the retina) ACTUALLY all at once!! Classic coherence can't explain this, quantum coherence can! You are indead a 'single dot' but a quantum coherent one, pervading the whole brain!!There are several cases where quantum coherence do happen to macroscopic objects. These are supeconductivity, superfluidity, Bose Einstein condensates, lasers etc. The reason why biophysicists don't beleive that the brain is a quantum coherent system is that they think that it is too hot. Ordinary objects are said to undergo quantum decoherence when many particles interact. But then one way of harmonising this is to suggest a different way of understanding quantum coherence all together. So my approach is different from that of Penrose and Hemeroff. I say every decoherent system can have yet another coherent wave superimposed on the decoherent wave. This other wave is of to high a frequency and/or too low amplitude to be detected in ordinary objects. The brain, however, is both an amplifier and a demodulator. If you are a 'spiritual', you can think of the other coherent wave, superimposed on the waves that are the brain as the soul incarnate in the brain. It has all the quilifications of a soul!

Cosmic Homeostasis

Posted by Roaring Lovely on May 27, 2015 at 6:30pm

Homeostasis is a term in biology that resorts to the processes that lead a leaving being to maintain constant internal enviroment despite of the ever changing, external environment. Of course the contemporary scientists would do biophysics. This is to say that ultimately, they seek to understand life in terms of physics. But I do what you might term phycbiology. That is I try to understand non leaving things in terms of leaving things or at least to understand both all at once!Amongst the things that I try to understand are constants of narture such as the constant speed of light, gravitantional constant, Planck's constant, fine structure constant, constant laws of physics etc. Comparing all these constants to the constants in the internal enviroment of a leaving thing leads me to think of some cosmic homeostasis. In the body, we have constant temperature, constant PH (acidity level), constant sugar level, constant identity ( awareness), constant blood preasure etc. This of course leads to an entirely different way of understanding constants of physics. It means that they are not constants at all. Rather, they swing back and forth about the constant point!What is truely symmetric to homeostasis is a principle in physics called covariance. Constants manages to appear in the midist of varying things due to the things covarying. Take a simple example of constant speed, c. We have c=d/t. d=distance moved, t=time taken for the trip. So we say since d varies, t must covary with d to make c invariant. But this is very analogous to homeostasis. Consider the constant temperature of your body . Let us say you get into some ice. Then you begine to shiver. We say your rate of shivering covaries with the temperature of the external world but your internal temperature is invariant.THE FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOXI know that the idea of the whole earth behaving as though a single, leaving organism is common amongst many people. It is called the Gaia hypothesis. What is relatively uncommon is the idea that the entire universe itself behave like some huge leaving organism! This was not just a mere wishfull thought by some fanatics. It was meant to solve some puzzles. Amongst them is the faint young sun paradox.As we know, for life to be possible on earth, the earth, the moon and the sun has to perform some amazing acrobatics. The earth must be just exactly the right size, at just the right distance from the sun, with just the right mixture of gases, at the right time in the history of the sun. The sun should be just the right size. This is just to mension but a few of the acrobatics. One might think that during the presumed abiogenesis or even evolution from single cells to multicellular organisms, the climate stipulations were less strict. But you are totaly mistaken!! It requires some incredible balancing of temperature and gases.We know that a leaving thing requires an atmosphere of just the correct level of carbon dioxide, oxygen, nitrogen etc. Slightly more carbondioxide leads to clobal warming and surfocation. Slightly more oxygen leads to over burnings etc. Or in short, the entire ecosystem ought to behave like an organism already! We know that for just the right level of carbondioxide, oxygen etc that can sustain life to be there in the atmosphere, leaving things are neaded!! Plants must take in excess carbon dioxide and animals must take in the excess oxygen. We land in a paradox; without leaving things, life is impossible!

Tapping Energy In Space Using The So Called Maxwell's Demons

Posted by Roaring Lovely on May 26, 2015 at 1:00pm

Phew! Again I have to use 'demon' against my will! When I try to close exermin why they called it demon, I don't find any reason! They should have as well called in Maxwell's angels. So please understand that I am not trying to invork demonic powers to tap the free energy. But in physics, the word 'demon' has an entirely different meaning. Find for instance Laplace's demon etc.Recently, it was said that NASA in its quest for unorthodoxed way of space travel, they were claiming that they have tested and confirmed the possibility of using energy in space to for propulsion. But some physicists have critisized this. John Baez have claimed that it is as plausible as powering the space ship by having the passengers pushing the spaceship from inside! Is it realy so or perharps John Baez is not smart enough to see wayround?Nasa used what they term it 'quasi plasma'. From quantum mechanics, we know that uncertainity principle can't allow the ocean to be still. That would amount to particles having momentum zero and position 'zero' violating the principle Every time, pairs of matter and untimatter are said to errupt from the ocean. These particles are called quasi particles. Because matter and untimatter are of oposite charges, NASA reasoned that such insecant eruptions forms a quasi plasma in 'empty space'. So the energy in space would be a 'quasi electricity'.It has been established by physicists that there is plenty of energy in 'empty space'. This is demonstrated by the so called Casimir effect. Physicists donnot agree on how much is this energy but they pretty agree that it is a lot of energy. Some think that it is infinite! So why don't we fetch this free energy and solve all the problems? The answere is that there are two laws governing how energy is extracted. One of course is that we can't create energy from nothing. The second is that the energy flows from its point of high concentration to its point of law concentration till it is evenly distributed everywhere (thermodynamic equilibrium). So getting some plenty of energy is just solving half of the puzzle.When we close exermine a system that is at thermodynamic equilibrium, we find that as long as it stores lots of energy, it can't get to die. One can even see that whether or not a system is at thermodynamic equilibrium is relative to the size of the subsystem you are exermining. The entire universe as a whole for instance can be in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium yet our tiny portion that we observe is in great inequilibrium that causes it to expand.The secreat to using 'Maxwell's demons' in tapping the energy at equilibrium can be understood by considering the method of sailing the boat using the wind. The common method is that of waiting for the wind to blow in the direction you are heading to. This requires the wind energy in air to be in a great inequilibrium. But there are clever ways of sailing the both is such a way that you donnot have to move hopelessly in the direction of the wind. You can move accross the wind or even directly head on against the wind using the energy of the very wind! So suppose the wind is incesantly changing direction? Then by incesantly monitoring how the wind is changing, you can maintain the boat's motion by changing how you navigate accordingly. That is the idea of a 'Maxwell's demon'The energy in space can be likened to that of wind that is incesantly changing direction making it difficult to tap and use it. It instead keep kicking the atoms here and there randomly in all manner of directions. So on average, an atom can't get to go anywhere. It rather ends up vibrating at frequency f where f is related to zero point energy, E by E=hf/2 where h is planck's constant. But if the atoms were to know how to navigate like the sailing boats we saw above, together with some communication between all the atoms in say a space ship, then the spaceship can tap the zero point energy! Infact it is possible that all the energy originates from the zero point energy. The atoms of what we term fuel are just those that knows how to tap the zero point energy. This is appreciated when we use the idea of Maxwell's demons to explain these other dynamics such as electromagnetic forces and gravity. Remember that these other dynamics differs from thermodynamics is the time riversibility which the second law forbids in thermodynamics. So if we are to reconcile thermodynamics with the other dynamics, the use of Maxwell's demons is a good way. This in turn makes mind of primary importance in the universe!

Dark Matter, Dark Energy And The Spirit World

Posted by Roaring Lovely on May 24, 2015 at 8:30am

First, I must say that if one does not demystify something here, he might get nowhere. It is so unfortunate that physicists used the word 'dark matter' or 'dark energy' to qualify the phenomena they could not explain using the orthodox theories of gravity. First and foremost, these words are just mathematical abrakadabras. A sort of magical words that when stated, the equations of general relativity becames miraculously correct even though few minutes ago, they were dead incorect! These words are infact presently unanswerable questions that are packaged and sold out as answeres. When a cosmologist say that a galaxy is held together by dark matter, he is just being too proud to say that a galaxy is held together by something we don't know doing we don't know what and we don't know why. It is a roundabout way of saying we don't understand the universe.Now, to many people, the question is nolonger whether physicist have acknowledged spirits and unseen worlds. The question is whether they are on God's side or the Devil's side! So in these times, when the physically ignorant magicians are spreading rumours that physicists are colaborating with demons to open bottomless pits, it is prudent for physicists to avoid using to word 'dark' to imply what they are not seeing and/or what they don't understand. We see that we have dark matter, dark hallow, dark flow, dark energy,...,. As long as we use the word 'dark' we are still squarely in intellectual dark ages!Had physicists talked of 'unseen light' or 'invisible energy', the spiritualists could have quickly hailed it as a confirmation of their long held beleifs and wishes! But they mean the same thing! If we donnot see God and he is creeping around at night, then he will look dark to us! As long as God is invisible, he behaves, for all relevant purposes like a dark being! Or in short, in physics, we have absolutely no use of METAPHORS. In physics, we call a spade a spade. Metaphors belong solely in a poetry class.So throwing aside superstitions surrounding the word 'dark' and even sometimes 'matter', let us now reason clearly; are physicists at long last acknowledging the reality of unseen worlds? But one thing for sure is that a physicist won't call it Jesus, Yahweh, Buddha, Kundalini, Love and the like. People are so much entangled with semantic that the concepts slip by. But sharp people can always spot the same same snake oil packed in different bottles, branded with different names and advertised for us as different things. If you ask an 'materialistic' physicist if it is possible for a Jesus to get a cross a wall in any way, he will shake his head thoroughly. He will swear that he doesn't tolerate magical thinking and superstitions. But let us see, let us switch gears a bit; is it possible for weakly interacting massive particles to penetrate the wall? The answer he gives is a resounding yes!Ok it is simple traditionally, the spiritual world is defined as that which can never be ditected using the five common senses. Traditionally, it never meant that which cannot be infered using reasoning. The latter definition is plain stupid. We know that if you wake up one day and find plates spoons and brooms floating around your house like some flying witches, you can infer using reasoning that there are invisible things exerting a causal impact in your house. So a good definition of 'spirit' is a word that resorts to that which cannot be DIRECTLY perceived (perceived with common senses). There is no such an antagonism as spirit vs matter as some think. When we say 'matter', we don't insinuate that we know much about matter apart from that we can detect it. If it is a spirit, (whatever 'spirit' should mean here) somehow apearing to us, then that is not the important point in coining 'spirit' vs 'matter'. The dicotomy is strictly between the seen and the unseen. We are not here interested with what things ACTUALY are. The latter question is not meaningfull!In explaining how a thing should elude common senses, we must consider all of them:1.)Seeing2.)Touching3.)Testing4.)Smelling5.)HearingFortunately, and remarkably, all of them are related. All the 3 happen when the atoms of the thing we are perceiving interacts with the electromagnetic field in space. Therefore when a thing eludes electromagnetic field, it neatly eludes all the 5 possibilities in a single blow. This elegance makes it possible for a physicist to understand how a world can be entirely unperceivable to us. Dark matter, understood as weakly interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs)does that precisely. It interacts weakly with electromagnetic forces.To illustrate how this comes about, I like using the example of how a thing eludes the sense of touching. It does so by simply passing through your body like water sipping through the soil! As matter is infact mostly empty, what prevents two things from filling the same space is not what we conceive it as 'solidity'. It is the electromagnetic repulsive force between their atoms. But how a thing can elude electromagnetic forces is quite easy to appreciate. A piece of glass already eludes the magnetism excellently. In subatomic world, neutrinos, bein neutral are a good example of things that can pass through walls as if they don't exist! It requires a several light years thick lead to stop neutrinos!The solidity is very canning. Like inertia, we tend to think that 'hardness' is some inherent characteristic of matter. We then in turn think that a hard thing has more matter compressed within a region of space. But to illustrate that this thinking is problematic, we donnot even need to invork quantum mechanics. Just consider water. Ice is less dense than water! Strange enough, the water becomes harder by EXPANDING and not CONTRACTING. So hardness has nothing to do with more matter within a region (density). So it makes sense to say that hardness is not an inherent property of matter. Hardness is not the property of matter. It is not what matter IS. It is what it DOES. It is the BEHAVIOUR of matter. The behaviour is that of bullying and fighting things that are trying to cross its juridictions. Existing is the only inherent property of things. The rest arise when they interact with themselves.A question remain as to whether dark matter can interact with memselves and form a world of their own that might even include leaving things. If yes, then perharps what we thought as angels, demons, gods, souls etc are infact beings of such realms! To hint at an answere, let us reason if they have their own form of electromagnetism. As we have seen, it is the electromagnetic repulsion that forbids things from clamping in the same place. Without which, gravitating objects will become dens without limit. But since the mass of dark atter can affect ours, we can infer that they must have their own magnetism. Failure to have it, adding the fact that they form over 90% of the universe, they will quickly accumulate in places with no limit in density, turning all the universe to blackholes!

Matter, Mass, Inertia, Energy,

Posted by Roaring Lovely on May 23, 2015 at 5:30pm

Q: What is the difference between mass and matter?A:Mass doesn't matter.There are 3 ireconcilable terms that confuses even a learned mathematical physicist; matter, mass and inertia. And if even the very 'smart' physicists as Einstein, Poincare, Lorentz etc gets hoplessly confused, what hope is it there to demystify 'lay person?'. It is very thin, especially if people like to shout waaaah than to rumble ooooh. Whenever a physicist invorks these terms, he hoplessly swing back and forth. This behaviour is behind the mystification around the formula E=mc2. It impresses much to many and imparts nothing to most. Many love to quote it but a few love to understand it.Lets begine demystifying 'matter'. Matter is a nobrainer! Every time you find it difficult to guide someone to know what you might be meaning by the word matter, then know at once that you are totally mistaken! You are probably struggling to define the word 'mass'. It is a pretty kindagarten stuff. Just drop a stone, water, soil, wood etc and utter 'matter' and every sane person completely understand what you mean by 'matter'. And this is what it matter mostly.Mass on the other hand is an interlectual concoction belonging to the Archimedes, Galileos, Newtons, Einsteins etc. It is what we try to learn in high schools and universities. Unfortunately, when we learn the EFGHs of universities, we forget the ABCDs of kindagarten. The guru does not present a stone, a nail, a cup etc and utter 'mass'. He asks you to think. At one moment, you are being taken on a tour to north pole or to the moon with your beam balances and rulers. At some other moment you are asked to push trains and bulldozers around. At some other time, you are dared to keep dividing the stone incesantly into gazzillions of parts and try to count them! So what the hell is 'mASS'? Does it 'matter'?Sir Isaach Newton was more sane. When he wrote the equation f=ma, m strictly must be quantity of matter. 'Quantity of matter' on the other hand makes no sense unless we assume that every matter is formed by some identical, tiny copurscles. Water and say a stone is made of the same stuff only that one is more compressed. Only then do 'quantity of matter' has a meaning; the number of copurscels contained in a given volume of matter. Such is how Newton understood matter. Indead such is the only way his second law of motion and his gravitantional law is falsifyable and hence truely scientific statement. If we go holus- bolus and redefine mass as the measure of resistance to change, then we are guilty of Scortsman fallacy. Newton tested his theory of gravity by measuring the volumes of planets and the sun.Inertia on the other hand is just a mathematical nice tie. You just rewrite Newton's equation; f=ma this way, m=f/a. Its just that; the force per given acceleration is INERTIA not MASS and absolutely not MATTER. Calling it 'mass', then claiming that Newton's second law of motion is a falsifyable scientific statement is utterly foolish! So every time you hear of some team of physicists pushing something and saying phew, it is heavy, it must be having a lot of mass, then know at once that you must be dealing with a gang of idiots! It doesn't MATTER if they are doing so in CERN!! If you find that all over sudden, you begine to find that you need a bulldozer to push a feather, then there are two things that might be said. Either the feather has surreptitiously aquired mass by some unfathomable ways, eg eating energy or higgs field or by evil spirits. Or perharps Newton is simply wrong in claiming that f=ma. Being roped of the second alternative is not the true spirit of science; it is the spirit of priesthood.I will mostly go on the alternative that equation f=ma is wrong! Acceleration is what matter DOES and not what it IS. Therfore it just make sense to espect that the resistance to acceleration, i.e resisting what matter DOES is acheived by the matter DOING something and not BEING something. Therefore inertia is what matter DOES and not what matter IS. This is to say an object can in principle begine to feel heavier without necesarily adding more matter to it. We can for instance add energy to it. And so we understand where E=mc2 comes from. 'm' is never mass even when you watch Einstein carefully deriving it. It is INERTIA!!! Einstein misses the phyc! Energy, as a FORCE, is absolutely espected to affect inertia because inertia is just the backwards of the force!After the works of James Clerk Maxwell on electromagnetism, mathematicians as Poincare, Lorentz etc were soon 'pushing' electrons mathematically. But Maxwell's theory has a rather pretty straight foward explanation of how an electrically charged particle should behave under acceleration. It should form a curling magnetism around itself. This magnetism in turn resists farther motion of the electron making the electron look heavier ( a similar mechanism as this is the so called higgs mechanism). Ultimately, Maxwell's theory doesn't allow the electron to be accelerated to the speed of light.At the dawn of 20th centuary, physicists noticed that one could form a theory of inertia having its origins entirely in electromagnetism. So such a theory would mean that in equation f=ma, 'm' should be completely roped of the idea of 'quantity of matter'. It might as well be identified with energy and it was calculated to be given by E=mc2. All these were done by Maxwell, Lorentz, Poincare, JJ thomsone etc. It requires a powerfull microscope to see what Einstein added to this soup!There is however a minor catch that spoils this trip to a fantasy land! Mass in not the same thing as inertia and we absolutely need matter to do physics! Something must accelerate and that thing cannot be the concept inertia. All these guys were just mathematicians misbehaving in the field of physics. They were just good in massaging equations but not in thinking PHYSICALLY.

Variable Laws Of Physics

Posted by Roaring Lovely on May 23, 2015 at 9:30am

It is commonly assumed that laws of physics are universals. It is assumed that the kind of physics you will experience does not depend on: a)Where you are in the universe, b)When you are in time, c) The speed at which you are moving at. However, physicists are beginning to doubt this firm doctrine. Amangst them is Leonard Susscind, one of the inventers of string theory.The idea that laws of physics are variable from place to place within this very universe should be very interesting if you truely understand it. It means that the universe can be as dramatically different in some other regions as to be equivalent to 'other dimensions.' So we should even begine reconsidering the ancient idea that heaven exist up there in the sky:Far beyond the skyFar beyond the moonFar beyond the sunFar beyond the starsAstronomers have observed various parts and distances of the universe to measure a constant known in physics as fine structure constant. They say they have found evidence that this constant infact varies from place to place and from time to time. This constant is of great significance because it relates the charge of an electron, Planck's constant and speed of light. Variable fine structure constant implies that either one, two or all of the above constants are infact variables. This is hard for a physicist to swallow.Fine structure constant is also of great interest because should it increase even slightly, it would be impossible for protons to be able to bind electrons to form protons! Should it reduce slightly, neuclear fusion would be impossible and thus stars would not form. It requires some considerable acrobatics to form atoms. In other words the fine structure constant is fantastically fine tuned just to make life, as we understand, possible. It has often been used to argue that the universe was created intentionaly to make life possible. However, the discovery that such constant is not realy constant at all will give an atheist an opportunity to dismiss intentional design. It is simply not a surprise for leaving beings like us to find themselves in a region of the cosmos that support life. The laws favourable to life might in turn have formed randomly, considering an infinite universe.I often like appreciating a possibility of a thing using reason, intuition and imagination. I don't trust observations that much. So i never stop trying to understand things. If they are constants, WHY are they constant? So let us close exermine if it is indead reasonable for fine structure 'constant' to vary. Begine by imagining an electron orbiting a proton. From just a glance, it should be clear that such a fleat is a great acheivement by narture! The proton is pulling the electron but the electron is not falling to its centre. It has some other energy it taps from vaccume, zero point energy that exactly balances the force exerted by the proton. Space is filled with electromagnetic waves undulating in all manner of directions and intensities. Should the energy in space becomes to big, it will send the electron flying out from the proton, and no atoms would be possible. Should the energy from space become to small, the proton would pull electrons too much. So indead our world exists in a fantastic balance! Fine structure constant is closely related to how the electrons interacts with waves in space. Seeing so, we understand that indead the constant can vary is it is likely that waves existing here do not necesarily exist everywhere just as the ocean is never espected to be homogeneous. It is reasonable to espect all manner of values possible for fine structure 'constant'.Another surprising claim is that the redshift observed from galaxies are quantised. Since the amount of redshift is said to be proportional to the distance of a galaxy by Hubble's law, quantised redshifts is completely crazy! It suggests that galaxies are arranged in concentric rings centred on earth! Indead, the idea that the earth is the centre of the universe can explain some things in a single blow. For instance we can explain redshift not to be caused by galaxies receeding away from us but by just the intrinsic narture of chemicals in other regions of the universe. The idea that redshift measure Doppler effect comes from the assumption that the spectral lines of chemicals on earth are the same as they are elsewhere in the universe. Otherwise it would imply that the earth is the centre of the universe, at least in some way.

Dieing Relatively

Posted by Roaring Lovely on May 21, 2015 at 6:30pm

To die relatively is to be dead as seen from one frame of riferrance while being alife as seen from another frame! The idea that death is relative was one of those that came to my head two years ago when I sought to find different ways immortality can be achieved. An example of a relative death is the one 'experienced' by schrodinger cat who might be leaving in some parallel universes. It is experiencing what is termed quantum immortality. So scientists have come up with their own fashion of immortality!What seems to have eluded physicists is that even Einstein's theory of relativity implies that death, alongside mass, length, time etc is relative! So I add yet another mind bending paradox in the basket. This is for simple reason that the moving observer is flattened one side. Infact, he is completely flat, like a pan cake when very near the speed of light! The the guy get so much obese that he might weigh a couple of tones! Of course such a guy is better termed dead because there is no such a leaving being weighing tones and completely flattened.Before we proceed, let us close exermine how we term dieing. We say someone has passed away. Consider similar language when saying a train might pass away. According to the observer in the train, it is you who has infact 'passed away'! So during death the victim might as well be experiencing nothing happening to him. Rather it is the rest of the world that is dieing!To begine understanding how death can be relative, consider how temperature is relative. Put your right index fingure near a hot place while putting your left index fingure in a cold place, say deep in water. Then suddenly, deep the right fingure in the cold water. What you realise is that the the water feels far colder to the right fingure than it is to the left fingure! But this is remarkable because temperature, like say the state of being dead is better termed a scalar. Motion is a vector. However, we see some very close analogy between the scalar and the vector. Consider the symmetry: if you are moving near the speed of the comoving object, then the comoving object seems to move at a slow pase from your point of view. If your temperature is nearly as hot as the object you are touching, you don't feel the object as though hot or cold from your point of 'view'.Considering the temperature the way physicists do, i.e relate it to particles moving around randomly in all manner of directions, then we understand how death can be relative. To get the rough idea, consider that if your temperature rise upto say 40¤, it is enough to kill you. But I storm in and say tut tut tut! Relative to what is the temperature 40¤? It is relative to the temperature of our ether with its own value of zero point energy. So we say if particles in system A are dancing around violently then from a point of view of system B, whose all particles are all at stand still, the system A is a lots high temperature. But consider som other system C that is related to A such that for every moving particle in A there is a coresponding particle moving synchronously as A. Then from the point of view of system C, system A is perfectly still. It is system A that is churning around. It is an exceedingly generalised theory of relativity. Latter, I will illustrate how the existence of negative energy implys that we should think that narture is capable of achieving the above synchronicity.Now the theory of general relativity view space as some ether. It is possible to view it as something immersed in some bigger space. Quantum mechanics demands that when we quantise such an ether, we view it as any other ocean, with its particles cabable of dansing around! So we have particles of locations. With this, we should form a completely different way of understanding stillness or motionlessness. Motion is relative to ether. The ether itself is as dynamic as any other ocean. So a still thing is just something dancing synchronously with ether! The point is it doesn't matter how chaotic the ocean might be as seen from the external view; outside of the universe. So for death to be relative, we only need layers of such ethers. One such an ether, for instance, might be boiling with a million degrees celcius. But similarly hot guys will leave comfortably in such place! A good analogy that might help you goes this way: if you move you eye ball slightly with your fingure, the outer world will begine to dance. However, if the outer world was to dance at synch with you eye movement, it will look perfectly still! Now consider a case where your eye vibrates so rapidly that you can nolonger see anything at all. Then another world vibrating at that high frequency will begine to appear! It is just like that you cannot see a bullet moving past you but if you move with its speed, you will surely see it cause it will stand still from your point of view.Negative energy also illustrate what I am saying above. What does a negative of energy realy mean? If you think it is simple to understand it, then probably you don't realy understand energy. In maths, it is quite simple. We just add a minus sign to an equation. In physics, it is much more a coffee time. The way I try to understand it is by beginning noticing that when the negative energy sum up with the positive energy, they cancel! But I understand enery as just some exeedingly tiny, perharps infinitesimal particles that are moving around randomly in all manner of directions. Let us say such particles in some system A has a positive energy with respect to system B. Then for every particle in A moving in a given direction at a given time, there is a corresponding particle in system B moving at exactly the oposite direction at that time! So system B forms a perfect mirror image of system A all the time. Should the two systems interact, all the coresponding particle would colide head on all comming to a stand still! To underpin what I was saying, we say if there can be a perfect mirrow image of an apparently chaotic system, why can't there be a perfect copy of one? Then a system with particles moving randomly in all manner of directions will look like a perfectly still system from the point of view of its perfect copy.

The Cosmic Brain

Posted by Roaring Lovely on May 21, 2015 at 8:59am

I know many would prifere to talk of some cosmic mind. But here, I am not saying that the cosmos is some intangible thing such as a mind. I am saying that it is a brain. A literal brain! Recent discoveries in astronomy reveals an exceedingly complex cosmos. The galaxies cluster together to form fillaments which are then intricately connected together to form what looks exactly like a neural network. It is high time to wonder if the universe is a huge brain!But I say if it can happen astronomically, why can't it happen microscopically? Let us first close exermine what a neural signal is to see if it is possible that there are such signals in 'empty space'. Specifically, we will compare how a neural signal propagates with how light propagates. A neuron has a thin, elongated structure termed axon. The inside and the outside of an axon has ions. Naturaly, the inside of a neurone has more negative ions than the outside. When the neuron gets existed, the charges unside the axon are pumbed upwards and the ones outside are pumbed inwards. This disturbance is propagated along the axon as a neural signal.

Conservation Of Information

Posted by Roaring Lovely on May 20, 2015 at 1:00pm

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was over the surface of the deep. The spirit of God was hovering upon the waters.Then the Lord said 'let there be light' and there was light. God saw that the light was good" Genesis 1:1-3"Heavens and earth will pass away but my words will last forever" Mathew 24:35So the bible writers have given us their opinions; information is firmer than objects, or at least as firm as them! Let us exermine physics to see if information is as conserved as matter or energy. The law of conservation of information is barrowing its way in physics into becoming on the same par with the law of conservation of energy, matter, momentum etc. What physicists don't seem to realise though is the implication of such a law. For instance, information is 'something' associated with the mind.To warm the floor, let us begine by close exermining Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle. It clearly says that the ignorance of both location and momentum of a particle amounts to a constant! That is to say the more I get the information about the position of a particle, the less I get the information about its momentum and vice-versa is true! So If I see the data bank of the univers as to contain some unified information I can term it momentum-position information, when I fetch position information, it remains less as the momentum information! The quantum eraser experiment shows that if I return the position information ,(i.e I nolonger know of the position) the bank increas (i.e I begine to know more of the momentum)! So information here is clearly as conserved as energy because gaining the information about the momentum comes in the expense of loosing the information about the position!Now I like seeing quantum system as just the usual thermodynamic system albeit with the violation of the second law. But to violate the second law, all we need is information. This has been well expressed by the so called Maxwell's demon said to be able to bring about the violation of the second law by detailed monitering how the tiny, jiggling balls are moving. The Maxwell's demon says, give me the information about the jigling balls and with time, I will reduce the entropy of the system!A quantum system effectively violates the second law! A magnon might illustrat this one well. Lets say there is an ocean made of exeedingly tiny mangets that are all aligned in one direction. So there will be a strong magnetic field in such an ocean. Now, if you rotate one of those tiny magnets around, you will thus add energy to the system. In the usual thermodynamic system, such added in energy would quickly disipate as heat while the resultant rotated tiny magnet gets re aligned. But in a quantum system, the energy remains in the system. It is called a magnon. A magnon here would be a reversal of a single magnet that propagates wavelike around the system! Nothing solide is moving. So the best way of describing it is that the memory of the reversal is retained in the system. The ocean does not forget the magnon. The magnon itself is not anything solid, it is just the reversal of a magnet. It is pure information! Same reasoning can be used to explain photons, electrons, phonons and all other 'ons'You might be tempted to think that thus conservation of information is circumscribed only to quantum world. But in classic world, we can say that information, like energy is transformed but never lost. Physicists often say that when you burn a book, all the information is never lost. It get encoded in the manner in which the smocke is moving! It just become difficult to read the book in the smock but it is still there! This makes alot of sense because as much as the heat affects the book, the heat itself is similarly affected by the book (the law of equal action and reaction). If you burn a book written in it such and such and you burn another one written in it this and that, if you have all the detailed knowledge of how every particle was moving prior to burning the book, call it state A. If you close exermine all the knowlege about how all the particles are moving after the book written in it such and such is burnt, call it state B, then once again return to state A and burn the second book written in it this and that and then get all the knowledge of how the particles are moving, call it state C, you will surely find that state C is not the same as state A. The difference encodes how the writtings are different in both books!Another way of putting what I am saying is this way: suppose you look at the book through an exceedingly rough piece of glass. I bet you wount see anything. But then lets say we wave a magic wand and we distort the writtings in a book to look like it were when you try to read it through the rough glass. You might think that we have destroyed the information. But then if you were looking through the glass and unable to read the book, it is all because you are simply ignorant of the detailed topology of the glass. If you were to study it in details and then learn about the exact way it deflect light, you can in principle constract a similarly rough glass that redeflects back the light and makes the readings once again visible. If you use this latter glass on a similarly distorted book, it rectifies it. So we say the information was never destroyed in the distortion. It was rather encoded and the seemingly chaotically rough glass is an effective decoder.THE QUANTUM ERASER EXPERIMENTAn amazing experiment has been done by physicists. In double slit experiment, we know that any detection that might tell us which slit the particle passed will destroy the inteferance pattern. Physicists seem to have wanted to test if nature truely know of information. They put light polarizes across both slits so that light passing through one slit is circularly polarized in clockwise direction and light passing through the other slit is circularly polarized in the other direction. They would then know which slit the photo passed through by observing how it is polarized. Sure enough, the interference pattern got destroyed. Then they placed some other polarizes after the photons have passed through the first. The second polarisers destroy the first polarization making it impossible to tell which way the photon passed. In otherwords, the second polarizer erases the which way information. Sure enough, the interferance pattern re emerge! But how did the interferance got formed if there wasn't such on the way? It clearly shows that though we may not be able to read inteferance pattern, the information was there hiding in an encoded way.The law of conservation of information have great implication concerning our origin and our destiny. The information say in your DNA was always there in the universe. It was either in some mind or even if we evolved, evolution would be seen not as natural forming of information but as a nartural search for information. It is all already there in some natural 'books' perharps floating in the air. Similarly the law implies that we are immortal! Narture can never forget anything; including you!

Acheiving Quantum Coherence

Posted by Roaring Lovely on May 19, 2015 at 7:00pm

Quantum coherence is the characteristic of a quantum system that allows the wave narture of particles (or wavicles) to manifest. Without coherence in how waves vibrate, waves would sum up together a cancel themselves on avarage beyound our ability to detect them as waves. At best, pulses might insecantly erupt here and there behaving as though isolate particles for all relevant purposes. So if we are to acheive some physical oneness where in all the particles in the world are behaving as two a single, unified entity (no isolation) all it takes is quantum coherence.To understand how we might acheive coherence, it is first necesary to understand how decoherence is brought about. This is if we begine by presuming a quantum realm in the beginning wherein the clasic world emerges latter. This is how many think when contemplating quantum mechanics (qm). As we know, qm says that unless a quantum system interacts with the classic word (including classic observers), the qm systems remains in a strange superposition of states that propagates as waves. So if the classic world is neaded to form the particles (isolate objects), and the particles themselves forms the clasic world, it raises an egg chicken paradox. Where did the clasic world came from then? The answer is that the quantum world decoheres. That is to say the waves from all the particles that sum up to form objects donnot all vibrate in a synchroniced manner in every place. So they cancel themselves in some places forming the 'empty spaces seperating objects'.The secret to acheiving quantum coherence would perharps come if we are to understand how this coherence is brought about in microscopic world. In classic world, we understand that waves emanating from the same source are always coherent. To understand this, drop a pebble in a pool of water. Then you will observe some almost perfectly circular concentric rings centred at the source and radiating away from it. Since they form perfect circles, regions of water equidistant from the source are always vibrating synchronously, no matter how far apart from each other. So it behaves as though those distant locations, connected by the circumfrence of a given concentric ring are instantaneously connected to each other!One might be tempted to think tha quantum coherence is brought about by such coincidence that results from the waves emanating from the sorce. Though it is corelated to having a common source, quantum coherence is actually brought about by a strange instantaneous communication between distant parts of the quantum ocean! This phenomenon is the so called quantum nonlocality. For instance, if a wave was radiating out in all directions, then before observation, various portions of the quantum ocean are undulating. However when the ocean is observed, all other regions of the ocean, apart from where the particle is found, freezes instantaneously! It is typical magics that are happening in quantum ocean!So then what brings about quantum coherence is a strange, intelligent like signal telling different regions in the ocean how to dance! It is a sort of a cosmic drum beater or a lead guitarist synchronising the dances! So it is just upto understanding and talking the language of particles! Quantum decoherence comes about because there isn't realy a single commander in the ocean. Lets say there are 3 particles in the cosmos located at 3 different locations. Calle them A, B and C. Now if originaly, B is quantum coherent with A and are thus both vibrating in synch at some frequency, C might be vibrating at another frequency hence decoherently but still would wanna get entangled with the system of A and B. So if C is nearer to B, it will influence B to dance to its own music, forcing it to compromise abit.

Physics And The Immortality Of The Soul

Posted by Roaring Lovely on May 17, 2015 at 8:00am

A famous physics writer, Sean Caroll critisizes the idea of soul. He claims that 'soul' is incompartible with known science facts. Even though I don't agree with Sean Caroll, he do raises some good things that the proponents of 'soul' should address. The following are the premises used by Sean Caroll (putting them consisely in my own words).1.)The idea of soul is within the juridiction of scientific speculation.2.)The physics at work in the brain is thoroughly understood.3.)Close exermining the equations governing electrodynamics (the entire physics presumably at work in the brain), we find no terms indicating how the soul should intervein and influence matter.4.)The equations of electrodynamics have been thoroughly confirmed by experiments.5.)Therefore the idea of soul is incompartible with known facts.I agree only with the first premise. It may at first surprise you because many proponents of soul cower behind this wall of 'beyond science'. But then sadly, the concept of soul thus becomes contradictory as the soul should clearly animate the awareness should it be of any significance to us. Such effects to awareness should absolutely affect our bodies! So no more brushing this issue aside. So I summarise it this way:If there is a soul and our science is complete, then the science should clearly show how the soul interacts with matter.The second premise is not correct because in physics, we have only definite answers for a two body problem. When we introduce 3 bodies in the picture, physics encounters unsurmountable problems. The problem was pointed out by the great mathematician: Henri Poincare. Here it goes: there is no such a thing as 'tiny erors' in even a 3 body problem, let alone the gazzilion body problem such as the brain. A flapping butterfly in Japan creates tornadoes in America! The question is; if we cannot ever use the laws we derive in two body to extrapolate and predict the behaviour a 3 body problem, how sure are we that the laws are even correct? A small pertubation that we might be niglecting without noticing it while testing electrodynamics in two body problems is nolonger insignificant in such a huge body problem as a brain. I won't mension the fact that the brain is such a great amplifier of possibly tiny fluctuations in perharps even the quantum field. I won't mention all the problems in Caroll's reasoning. I point only at the glaring ones.The premise 3 is perharps based on the stereotype that a science fact cannot possibly be the soul. In this, even the proponents of soul are guilty! A soul, by definition, is just an entity that can survive the death of the body, priserving the personality. What if there are layers of realms interpenetrating the same space? Then the soul can just be a body in a certain layer that is a copy of all the information of the body in this realm. So the physics of the soul would be just the same as the ordinary physics. It differs only in the realm they are at work in. Caroll, like even some soul proponents, misses the important point of the idea of soul: what is relevant is an entity that retains the personality, whatever causes personality, and not necesarily anything mysterious that should be added to the equations.ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A SOULThe idea of 'soul' is not just a mere product of man's fantasy and wishfull thinking. It is a product of a deep and carefull consideration of the origin of our identity and personality. It was found by great philosophers of antiquity who were seeking for a deep understanding of reality. So I present here my own argument.There are two reasons that shakes my faith in the idea of matter as the origin of our identity.1.)We cannot conceptualise a division in our identity. There is not fraction Alice. Either Alice is there fully or fully absent. However, matter is divisible.2.)Matter intrinsically changes with time but our identity remains invariant.The premise number 1 was even acknowledged by the physicist Erwin schrodinger. I elaborate it this way; the fact that matter is divisible creates unsurmountable problem. I can in principle use a part of your brain, combine it with a part of your dog's brain to form the brain of a goat! But we just cannot imagine how the resultant goat will feels its identity as partly you-partly the dog. If it will have an identity, it will be an entirely unique one. Even worse, we just can't accept that swapping a particle in Bob's head with a similar one in Alice's head will result in disapearance of each of the two guy's identities. But a similar process can be done in principle: go on swapping the particles in Bob and Alice's brain one at a time till you interchange their entire brains without interchanging their personalities. So in what sense is it true to say their brains are responsible for their identities?One way round would be to say that the entity responsible in your identity is somehow inherent in every particle in the universe. But this will make you effectively omnipresent in the universe! You will exist in an hollographic way everywhere just sleeping comfortably waiting to awake! This idea is even far more fantastic!Let us take a look at second premise. It might not be that apparent. Let us accept for a moment that your identity is due to the identity of the matter in your brain. Then we encounter yet another unsurmountable problem. I can in principle, change your brain to be like it were when you were a child with the same same brain you had! Will you then 'reincarnate' as a child whose memory of the future is forgoten? Many will shake their heads!! But why? The only explanation is that such a task is impossible even in principle. Indead it must be so because the matter has a clear notion of arrow of time even in very fundamental processes. This fact have recently been discovered in physics. It is called time symmetry violation in electroweak interactions. That is the particles changes iretrivocably with time. However, your identity is the same as you ever were. You sense the changes not as change in you but as 'change in time'