 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Origin >
The Singularity >
Parallel universes, the Matrix, and superintelligence
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0585.html
Printable Version |
|
| |
|
Parallel universes, the Matrix, and superintelligence
Physicists are converging on a "theory of everything," probing the 11th dimension, developing computers for the next generation of robots, and speculating about civilizations millions of years ahead of ours, says Dr. Michio Kaku, author of the best-sellers Hyperspace and Visions and co-founder of String Field Theory, in this interview by KurzweilAI.net Editor Amara D. Angelica.
Published on KurzweilAI.net June 26, 2003.
What are the burning issues for you currently?
Well, several things. Professionally, I work on something called
Superstring theory, or now called M-theory, and the goal is to find
an equation, perhaps no more than one inch long, which will allow
us to "read the mind of God," as Einstein used to say.
In other words, we want a single theory that gives us an elegant,
beautiful representation of the forces that govern the Universe.
Now, after two thousand years of investigation into the nature of
matter, we physicists believe that there are four fundamental forces
that govern the Universe.
Some physicists have speculated about the existence of a fifth
force, which may be some kind of paranormal or psychic force, but
so far we find no reproducible evidence of a fifth force.
Now, each time a force has been mastered, human history has undergone
a significant change. In the 1600s, when Isaac Newton first unraveled
the secret of gravity, he also created a mechanics. And from Newton's
Laws and his mechanics, the foundation was laid for the steam engine,
and eventually the Industrial Revolution.
So, in other words, in some sense, a byproduct of the mastery of
the first force, gravity, helped to spur the creation of the Industrial
Revolution, which in turn is perhaps one of the greatest revolutions
in human history.
The second great force is the electromagnetic force; that is, the
force of light, electricity, magnetism, the Internet, computers,
transistors, lasers, microwaves, x-rays, etc.
And then in the 1860s, it was James Clerk Maxwell, the Scottish
physicist at Cambridge University, who finally wrote down Maxwell's
equations, which allow us to summarize the dynamics of light.
That helped to unleash the Electric Age, and the Information Age,
which have changed all of human history. Now it's hard to believe,
but Newton's equations and Einstein's equations are no more than
about half an inch long.
Maxwell's equations are also about half an inch long. For example,
Maxwell's equations say that the "four-dimensional divergence of
an antisymmetric, second-rank tensor equals zero." That's Maxwell's
equations, the equations for light. And in fact, at Berkeley, you
can buy a T-shirt which says, "In the beginning, God said the
four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor
equals zero, and there was Light, and it was good."
So, the mastery of the first two forces helped to unleash, respectively,
the Industrial Revolution and the Information Revolution.
The last two forces are the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear
force, and they in turn have helped us to unlock the secret of the
stars, via Einstein's equations E=mc2, and many people
think that far in the future, the human race may ultimately derive
its energy not only from solar power, which is the power of fusion,
but also fusion power on the Earth, in terms of fusion reactors,
which operate on seawater, and create no copious quantities of radioactive
waste.
So, in summary, the mastery of each force helped to unleash a new
revolution in human history.
Today, we physicists are embarking upon the greatest quest of all,
which is to unify all four of these forces into a single comprehensive
theory. The first force, gravity, is now represented by Einstein's
General Theory of Relativity, which gives us the Big Bang, black
holes, and expanding universe. It's a theory of the very large;
it's a theory of smooth, space-time manifolds like bedsheets and
trampoline nets.
The second theory, the quantum theory, is the exact opposite. The
quantum theory allows us to unify the electromagnetic, weak and
strong force. However, it is based on discrete, tiny packets of
energy called quanta, rather than smooth bedsheets, and it is based
on probabilities, rather than the certainty of Einstein's equations.
So these two theories summarize the sum total of all physical knowledge
of the physical universe.
Any equation describing the physical universe ultimately is derived
from one of these two theories. The problem is these two theories
are diametrically opposed. They are based on different assumptions,
different principles, and different mathematics. Our job as physicists
is to unify the two into a single, comprehensive theory. Now, over
the last decades, the giants of the twentieth century have tried
to do this and have failed.
For example, Niels Bohr, the founder of atomic physics and the
quantum theory, was very skeptical about many attempts over the
decades to create a Unified Field Theory. One day, Wolfgang Pauli,
Nobel laureate, was giving a talk about his version of the Unified
Field Theory, and in a very famous story, Bohr stood up in the
back of the room and said, "Mr. Pauli, we in the back are convinced
that your theory is crazy. What divides us is whether your theory
is crazy enough."
So today, we realize that a true Unified Field Theory must be bizarre,
must be fantastic, incredible, mind-boggling, crazy, because all
the sane alternatives have been studied and discarded.
Today we have string theory, which is based on the idea that the
subatomic particles we see in nature are nothing but notes we see
on a tiny, vibrating string. If you kick the string, then an electron
will turn into a neutrino. If you kick it again, the vibrating string
will turn from a neutrino into a photon or a graviton. And if you
kick it enough times, the vibrating string will then mutate into
all the subatomic particles.
Therefore we no longer in some sense have to deal with thousands
of subatomic particles coming from our atom smashers, we just have
to realize that what makes them, what drives them, is a vibrating
string. Now when these strings collide, they form atoms and nuclei,
and so in some sense, the melodies that you can write on the string
correspond to the laws of chemistry. Physics is then reduced to
the laws of harmony that we can write on a string. The Universe
is a symphony of strings. And what is the mind of God that Einstein
used to write about? According to this picture, the mind of God
is music resonating through ten- or eleven-dimensional hyperspace,
which of course begs the question, "If the universe is a symphony,
then is there a composer to the symphony?" But that's another
question.
Parallel worlds
What do you think of Sir Martin Rees' concerns about the
risk of creating black holes on Earth in his book, Our
Final Hour?
I haven't read his book, but perhaps Sir Martin
Rees is referring to many press reports that claim that
the Earth may be swallowed up by a black hole created by our machines.
This started with a letter to the editor in Scientific American
asking whether the RHIC accelerator in Brookhaven, Long Island,
will create a black hole which will swallow up the earth. This was
then picked up by the Sunday London Times who then splashed
it on the international wire services, and all of a sudden, we physicists
were deluged with hundreds of emails and telegrams asking whether
or not we are going to destroy the world when we create a black
hole in Long Island.
However, you can calculate that in outer space, cosmic rays have
more energy than the particles produced in our most powerful atom
smashers, and black holes do not form in outer space. Not to mention
the fact that to create a black hole, you would have to have the
mass of a giant star. In fact, an object ten to fifty times the
mass of our star may in fact form a black hole. So the probability
of a black hole forming in Long Island is zero.
However, Sir Martin Rees also has written a book, talking about
the Multiverse. And that is also the subject of my next book, coming
out late next year, called Parallel Worlds. We physicists
no longer believe in a Universe. We physicists believe in a Multiverse
that resembles the boiling of water. Water boils when tiny particles,
or bubbles, form, which then begin to rapidly expand. If our Universe
is a bubble in boiling water, then perhaps Big Bangs happen all
the time.
Now, the Multiverse idea is consistent with Superstring theory,
in the sense that Superstring theory has millions of solutions,
each of which seems to correspond to a self-consistent Universe.
So in some sense, Superstring theory is drowning in its own riches.
Instead of predicting a unique Universe, it seems to allow the possibility
of a Multiverse of Universes.
This may also help to answer the question raised by the Anthropic
Principle. Our Universe seems to have known that we were coming.
The conditions for life are extremely stringent. Life and consciousness
can only exist in a very narrow band of physical parameters. For
example, if the proton is not stable, then the Universe will collapse
into a useless heap of electrons and neutrinos. If the proton were
a little bit different in mass, it would decay, and all our DNA
molecules would decay along with it.
In fact, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of coincidences,
happy coincidences, that make life possible. Life, and especially
consciousness, is quite fragile. It depends on stable matter, like
protons, that exists for billions of years in a stable environment,
sufficient to create autocatalytic molecules that can reproduce
themselves, and thereby create Life. In physics, it is extremely
hard to create this kind of Universe. You have to play with the
parameters, you have to juggle the numbers, cook the books, in order
to create a Universe which is consistent with Life.
However, the Multiverse idea explains this problem, because it
simply means we coexist with dead Universes. In other Universes,
the proton is not stable. In other Universes, the Big Bang took
place, and then it collapsed rapidly into a Big Crunch, or these
Universes had a Big Bang, and immediately went into a Big Freeze,
where temperatures were so low, that Life could never get started.
So, in the Multiverse of Universes, many of these Universes are
in fact dead, and our Universe in this sense is special, in that
Life is possible in this Universe. Now, in religion, we have the
Judeo-Christian idea of an instant of time, a genesis, when God
said, "Let there be light." But in Buddhism, we have a
contradictory philosophy, which says that the Universe is timeless.
It had no beginning, and it had no end, it just is. It's eternal,
and it has no beginning or end.
The Multiverse idea allows us to combine these two pictures into
a coherent, pleasing picture. It says that in the beginning, there
was nothing, nothing but hyperspace, perhaps ten- or eleven-dimensional
hyperspace. But hyperspace was unstable, because of the quantum
principle. And because of the quantum principle, there were fluctuations,
fluctuations in nothing. This means that bubbles began to form in
nothing, and these bubbles began to expand rapidly, giving us the
Universe. So, in other words, the Judeo-Christian genesis takes
place within the Buddhist nirvana, all the time, and our Multiverse
percolates universes.
Now this also raises the possibility of Universes that look just
like ours, except there's one quantum difference. Let's say for
example, that a cosmic ray went through Churchill's mother, and
Churchill was never born, as a consequence. In that Universe, which
is only one quantum event away from our Universe, England never
had a dynamic leader to lead its forces against Hitler, and Hitler
was able to overcome England, and in fact conquer the world.
So, we are one quantum event away from Universes that look quite
different from ours, and it's still not clear how we physicists
resolve this question. This paradox revolves around the Schrödinger's
Cat problem, which is still largely unsolved. In any quantum theory,
we have the possibility that atoms can exist in two places at the
same time, in two states at the same time. And then Erwin Schrödinger,
the founder of quantum mechanics, asked the question: let's say
we put a cat in a box, and the cat is connected to a jar of poison
gas, which is connected to a hammer, which is connected to a Geiger
counter, which is connected to uranium. Everyone believes that
uranium has to be described by the quantum theory. That's why we
have atomic bombs, in fact. No one disputes this.
But if the uranium decays, triggering the Geiger counter, setting
off the hammer, destroying the jar of poison gas, then I might kill
the cat. And so, is the cat dead or alive? Believe it or not, we
physicists have to superimpose, or add together, the wave function
of a dead cat with the wave function of a live cat. So the cat is
neither dead nor alive.
This is perhaps one of the deepest questions in all the quantum
theory, with Nobel laureates arguing with other Nobel laureates
about the meaning of reality itself.
Now, in philosophy, solipsists like Bishop Berkeley used to believe
that if a tree fell in the forest and there was no one there to
listen to the tree fall, then perhaps the tree did not fall at all.
However, Newtonians believe that if a tree falls in the forest,
that you don't have to have a human there to witness the event.
The quantum theory puts a whole new spin on this. The quantum theory
says that before you look at the tree, the tree could be in any
possible state. It could be burnt, a sapling, it could be firewood,
it could be burnt to the ground. It could be in any of an infinite
number of possible states. Now, when you look at it, it suddenly
springs into existence and becomes a tree.
Einstein never liked this. When people used to come to his house,
he used to ask them, "Look at the moon. Does the moon exist
because a mouse looks at the moon?" Well, in some sense, yes.
According to the Copenhagen school of Neils Bohr, observation determines
existence.
Now, there are at least two ways to resolve this. The first is
the Wigner school. Eugene Wigner was one of the creators of the
atomic bomb and a Nobel laureate. And he believed that observation
creates the Universe. An infinite sequence of observations is necessary
to create the Universe, and in fact, maybe there's a cosmic observer,
a God of some sort, that makes the Universe spring into existence.
There's another theory, however, called decoherence, or many worlds,
which believes that the Universe simply splits each time, so that
we live in a world where the cat is alive, but there's an equal
world where the cat is dead. In that world, they have people, they
react normally, they think that their world is the only world, but
in that world, the cat is dead. And, in fact, we exist simultaneously
with that world.
This means that there's probably a Universe where you were never
born, but everything else is the same. Or perhaps your mother had
extra brothers and sisters for you, in which case your family is
much larger. Now, this can be compared to sitting in a room, listening
to radio. When you listen to radio, you hear many frequencies. They
exist simultaneously all around you in the room. However, your radio
is only tuned to one frequency. In the same way, in your living
room, there is the wave function of dinosaurs. There is the wave
function of aliens from outer space. There is the wave function
of the Roman Empire, because it never fell, 1500 years ago.
All of this coexists inside your living room. However, just like
you can only tune into one radio channel, you can only tune into
one reality channel, and that is the channel that you exist in.
So, in some sense it is true that we coexist with all possible universes.
The catch is, we cannot communicate with them, we cannot enter these
universes.
However, I personally believe that at some point in the future,
that may be our only salvation. The latest cosmological data indicates
that the Universe is accelerating, not slowing down, which means
the Universe will eventually hit a Big Freeze, trillions of years
from now, when temperatures are so low that it will be impossible
to have any intelligent being survive.
When the Universe dies, there's one and only one way to survive
in a freezing Universe, and that is to leave the Universe. In evolution,
there is a law of biology that says if the environment becomes hostile,
either you adapt, you leave, or you die.
When the Universe freezes and temperatures reach near absolute
zero, you cannot adapt. The laws of thermodynamics are quite rigid
on this question. Either you will die, or you will leave. This means,
of course, that we have to create machines that will allow us to
enter eleven-dimensional hyperspace. This is still quite speculative,
but String theory, in some sense, may be our only salvation. For
advanced civilizations in outer space, either we leave or we die.
That brings up a question. Matrix Reloaded seems to be based
on parallel universes. What do you think of the film in terms of
its metaphors?
Well, the technology found in the Matrix would correspond to that
of an advanced Type I or Type II civilization. We physicists, when
we scan outer space, do not look for little green men in flying
saucers. We look for the total energy outputs of a civilization
in outer space, with a characteristic frequency. Even if intelligent
beings tried to hide their existence, by the second law of thermodynamics,
they create entropy, which should be visible with our detectors.
So we classify civilizations on the basis of energy outputs. A
Type I civilization is planetary. They control all planetary forms
of energy. They would control, for example, the weather, volcanoes,
earthquakes; they would mine the oceans, any planetary form of energy
they would control. Type II would be stellar. They play with solar
flares. They can move stars, ignite stars, play with white dwarfs.
Type III is galactic, in the sense that they have now conquered
whole star systems, and are able to use black holes and star clusters
for their energy supplies.
Each civilization is separated by the previous civilization by
a factor of ten billion. Therefore, you can calculate numerically
at what point civilizations may begin to harness certain kinds of
technologies. In order to access wormholes and parallel universes,
you have to be probably a Type III civilization, because by definition,
a Type III civilization has enough energy to play with the Planck
energy.
The Planck energy, or 1019 billion electron volts, is the energy
at which space-time becomes unstable. If you were to heat up, in
your microwave oven, a piece of space-time to that energy, then
bubbles would form inside your microwave oven, and each bubble in
turn would correspond to a baby Universe.
Now, in the Matrix, several metaphors are raised. One metaphor
is whether computing machines can create artificial realities. That
would require a civilization centuries or millennia ahead of ours,
which would place it squarely as a Type I or Type II civilization.
However, we also have to ask a practical question: is it possible
to create implants that could access our memory banks to create
this artificial reality, and are machines dangerous? My answer is
the following. First of all, cyborgs with neural implants: the technology
does not exist, and probably won't exist for at least a century,
for us to access the central nervous system. At present, we can
only do primitive experiments on the brain.
For example, at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, it's possible
to put a glass implant into the brain of a stroke victim, and the
paralyzed stroke victim is able to, by looking at the cursor of
a laptop, eventually control the motion of the cursor. It's very
slow and tedious; it's like learning to ride a bicycle for the first
time. But the brain grows into the glass bead, which is placed into
the brain. The glass bead is connected to a laptop computer, and
over many hours, the person is able to, by pure thought, manipulate
the cursor on the screen.
So, the central nervous system is basically a black box. Except
for some primitive hookups to the visual system of the brain, we
scientists have not been able to access most bodily functions, because
we simply don't know the code for the spinal cord and for the brain.
So, neural implant technology, I believe is one hundred, maybe centuries
away from ours.
Will robots take over?
On the other hand, we have to ask yet another metaphor raised by
the Matrix, and that is, are machines dangerous? And the answer
is, potentially, yes. However, at present, our robots have the intelligence
of a cockroach, in the sense that pattern recognition and common
sense are the two most difficult, unsolved problems in artificial
intelligence theory. Pattern recognition means the ability to see,
hear, and to understand what you are seeing and understand what
you are hearing. Common sense means your ability to make sense out
of the world, which even children can perform.
Those two problems are at the present time largely unsolved. Now,
I think, however, that within a few decades, we should be able to
create robots as smart as mice, maybe dogs and cats. However, when
machines start to become as dangerous as monkeys, I think we should
put a chip in their brain, to shut them off when they start to have
murderous thoughts.
By the time you have monkey intelligence, you begin to have self-awareness,
and with self-awareness, you begin to have an agenda created by
a monkey for its own purposes. And at that point, a mechanical monkey
may decide that its agenda is different from our agenda, and at
that point they may become dangerous to humans. I think we have
several decades before that happens, and Moore's Law will probably
collapse in 20 years anyway, so I think there's plenty of time before
we come to the point where we have to deal with murderous robots,
like in the movie 2001.
So you differ with Ray Kurzweil's concept of using nanobots
to reverse-engineer and upload the brain, possibly within the coming
decades?
Not necessarily. I'm just laying out a linear course, the trajectory
where artificial intelligence theory is going today. And that is,
trying to build machines which can navigate and roam in our world,
and two, robots which can make sense out of the world. However,
there's another divergent path one might take, and that's to harness
the power of nanotechnology. However, nanotechnology is still very
primitive. At the present time, we can barely build arrays of atoms.
We cannot yet build the first atomic gear, for example. No one has
created an atomic wheel with ball bearings. So simple machines,
which even children can play with in their toy sets, don't yet exist
at the atomic level. However, on a scale of decades, we may be
able to create atomic devices that begin to mimic our own devices.
Molecular transistors can already be made. Nanotubes allow us to
create strands of material that are super-strong. However, nanotechnology
is still in its infancy and therefore, it's still premature to say
where nanotechnology will go. However, one place where technology
may go is inside our body. Already, it's possible to create a pill
the size of an aspirin pill that has a television camera that can
photograph our insides as it goes down our gullet, which means that
one day surgery may become relatively obsolete.
In the future, it's conceivable we may have atomic machines that
enter the blood. And these atomic machines will be the size of blood
cells and perhaps they would be able to perform useful functions
like regulating and sensing our health, and perhaps zapping cancer
cells and viruses in the process. However, this is still science
fiction, because at the present time, we can't even build simple
atomic machines yet.
Are we living in a simulation?
Is there any possibility, similar to the premise of The Matrix,
that we are living in a simulation?
Well, philosophically speaking, it's always possible that the universe
is a dream, and it's always possible that our conversation with
our friends is a by-product of the pickle that we had last night
that upset our stomach. However, science is based upon reproducible
evidence. When we go to sleep and we wake up the next day, we usually
wind up in the same universe. It is reproducible. No matter how
we try to avoid certain unpleasant situations, they come back to
us. That is reproducible. So reality, as we commonly believe it
to exist, is a reproducible experiment, it's a reproducible sensation.
Therefore in principle, you could never rule out the fact that the
world could be a dream, but the fact of the matter is, the universe
as it exists is a reproducible universe.
Now, in the Matrix, a computer simulation was run so that virtual
reality became reproducible. Every time you woke up, you woke up
in that same virtual reality. That technology, of course, does not
violate the laws of physics. There's nothing in relativity or the
quantum theory that says that the Matrix is not possible. However,
the amount of computer power necessary to drive the universe and
the technology necessary for a neural implant is centuries to millennia
beyond anything that we can conceive of, and therefore this is something
for an advanced Type I or II civilization.
Why is a Type I required to run this kind of simulation?
Is number crunching the problem?
Yes, it's simply a matter of number crunching. At the present time,
we scientists simply do not know how to interface with the brain.
You see, one of the problems is, the brain, strictly speaking, is
not a digital computer at all. The brain is not a Turing machine.
A Turing machine is a black box with an input tape and an output
tape and a central processing unit. That is the essential element
of a Turing machine: information processing is localized in one
point. However, our brain is actually a learning machine; it's a
neural network.
Many people find this hard to believe, but there's no software,
there is no operating system, there is no Windows programming for
the brain. The brain is a vast collection, perhaps a hundred billion
neurons, each neuron with 10,000 connections, which slowly and painfully
interacts with the environment. Some neural pathways are genetically
programmed to give us instinct. However, for the most part, our
cerebral cortex has to be reprogrammed every time we bump into reality.
As a consequence, we cannot simply put a chip in our brain that
augments our memory and enhances our intelligence. Memory and thinking,
we now realize, is distributed throughout the entire brain. For
example, it's possible to have people with only half a brain. There
was a documented case recently where a young girl had half her brain
removed and she's still fully functional.
So, the brain can operate with half of its mass removed. However,
you remove one transistor in your Pentium computer and the whole
computer dies. So, there's a fundamental difference between digital
computers--which are easily programmed, which are modular, and you
can insert different kinds of subroutines in them--and neural networks,
where learning is distributed throughout the entire device, making
it extremely difficult to reprogram. That is the reason why, even
if we could create an advanced PlayStation that would run simulations
on a PC screen, that software cannot simply be injected into the
human brain, because the brain has no operating system.
Ray Kurzweil's next book, The Singularity is Near,
predicts that possibly within the coming decades, there will be
super-intelligence emerging on the planet that will surpass that
of humans. What do you think of that idea?
Yes, that sounds interesting. But Moore's Law will have collapsed
by then, so we'll have a little breather. In 20 years time, the
quantum theory takes over, so Moore's Law collapses and we'll probably
stagnate for a few decades after that. Moore's Law, which states
that computer power doubles every 18 months, will not last forever.
The quantum theory giveth, the quantum theory taketh away. The quantum
theory makes possible transistors, which can be etched by ultraviolet
rays onto smaller and smaller chips of silicon. This process will
end in about 15 to 20 years. The senior engineers at Intel now admit
for the first time that, yes, they are facing the end.
The thinnest layer on a Pentium chip consists of about 20 atoms.
When we start to hit five atoms in the thinnest layer of a Pentium
chip, the quantum theory takes over, electrons can now tunnel outside
the layer, and the Pentium chip short-circuits. Therefore, within
a 15 to 20 year time frame, Moore's Law could collapse, and Silicon
Valley could become a Rust Belt.
This means that we physicists are desperately trying to create
the architecture for the post-silicon era. This means using quantum
computers, quantum dot computers, optical computers, DNA computers,
atomic computers, molecular computers, in order to bridge the gap
when Moore's Law collapses in 15 to 20 years. The wealth of nations
depends upon the technology that will replace the power of silicon.
This also means that you cannot project artificial intelligence
exponentially into the future. Some people think that Moore's Law
will extend forever; in which case humans will be reduced to zoo
animals and our robot creations will throw peanuts at us and make
us dance behind bars. Now, that may eventually happen. It is certainly
consistent within the laws of physics.
However, the laws of the quantum theory say that we're going to
face a massive problem 15 to 20 years from now. Now, some remedial
methods have been proposed; for example, building cubical chips,
chips that are stacked on chips to create a 3-dimensional array.
However, the problem there is heat production. Tremendous quantities
of heat are produced by cubical chips, such that you can fry an
egg on top of a cubical chip. Therefore, I firmly believe that we
may be able to squeeze a few more years out of Moore's Law, perhaps
designing clever cubical chips that are super-cooled, perhaps using
x-rays to etch our chips instead of ultraviolet rays. However, that
only delays the inevitable. Sooner or later, the quantum theory
kills you. Sooner or later, when we hit five atoms, we don't know
where the electron is anymore, and we have to go to the next generation,
which relies on the quantum theory and atoms and molecules.
Therefore, I say that all bets are off in terms of projecting machine
intelligence beyond a 20-year time frame. There's nothing in the
laws of physics that says that computers cannot exceed human intelligence.
All I raise is that we physicists are desperately trying to patch
up Moore's Law, and at the present time we have to admit that we
have no successor to silicon, which means that Moore's Law will
collapse in 15 to 20 years.
So are you saying that quantum computing and nanocomputing
are not likely to be available by then?
No, no, I'm just saying it's very difficult. At the present time
we physicists have been able to compute on seven atoms. That is
the world's record for a quantum computer. And that quantum computer
was able to calculate 3 x 5 = 15. Now, being able to calculate 3
x 5 = 15 does not equal the convenience of a laptop computer that
can crunch potentially millions of calculations per second. The
problem with quantum computers is that any contamination, any atomic
disturbance, disturbs the alignment of the atoms and the atoms then
collapse into randomness. This is extremely difficult, because any
cosmic ray, any air molecule, any disturbance can conceivably destroy
the coherence of our atomic computer to make them useless.
Unless you have redundant parallel computing?
Even if you have parallel
computing you still have to have each parallel computer component
free of any disturbance. So, no matter how you cut it,
the practical problems of building quantum computers, although within
the laws of physics, are extremely difficult, because it requires
that we remove all in contact with the environment at the atomic
level. In practice, we've only been able to do this with a handful
of atoms, meaning that quantum computers are still a gleam in the
eye of most physicists.
Now, if a quantum computer can be successfully built, it would,
of course, scare the CIA and all the governments of the world, because
it would be able to crack any code created by a Turing machine.
A quantum computer would be able to perform calculations that are
inconceivable by a Turing machine. Calculations that require an
infinite amount of time on a Turing machine can be calculated in
a few seconds by a quantum computer. For example, if you shine laser
beams on a collection of coherent atoms, the laser beam scatters,
and in some sense performs a quantum calculation, which exceeds
the memory capability of any Turing machine.
However, as I mentioned, the problem is that these atoms have to
be in perfect coherence, and the problems of doing this are staggering
in the sense that even a random collision with a subatomic particle
could in fact destroy the coherence and make the quantum computer
impractical.
So, I'm not saying that it's impossible to build a quantum computer;
I'm just saying that it's awfully difficult.
SETI: looking in the wrong direction
When do you think we might expect SETI [Search for Extraterrestrial
Intelligence] to be successful?
I personally think that SETI is looking in the wrong direction.
If, for example, we're walking down a country road and we see an
anthill, do we go down to the ant and say, "I bring you trinkets,
I bring you beads, I bring you knowledge, I bring you medicine,
I bring you nuclear technology, take me to your leader"? Or,
do we simply step on them? Any civilization capable of reaching
the planet Earth would be perhaps a Type III civilization. And the
difference between you and the ant is comparable to the distance
between you and a Type III civilization. Therefore, for the most
part, a Type III civilization would operate with a completely different
agenda and message than our civilization.
Let's say that a ten-lane superhighway is being built next to the
anthill. The question is: would the ants even know what a ten-lane
superhighway is, or what it's used for, or how to communicate with
the workers who are just feet away? And the answer is no. One question
that we sometimes ask is if there is a Type III civilization in
our backyard, in the Milky Way galaxy, would we even know its presence?
And if you think about it, you realize that there's a good chance
that we, like ants in an anthill, would not understand or be able
to make sense of a ten-lane superhighway next door.
So this means there that could very well be a Type III civilization
in our galaxy, it just means that we're not smart enough to find
one. Now, a Type III civilization is not going to make contact by
sending Captain Kirk on the Enterprise to meet our leader. A Type
III civilization would send self-replicating Von Neumann probes
to colonize the galaxy with robots. For example, consider a virus.
A virus only consists of thousands of atoms. It's a molecule in
some sense. But in about one week, it can colonize an entire human
being made of trillions of cells. How is that possible?
Well, a Von Neumann probe would be a self-replicating robot that
lands on a moon; a moon, because they are stable, with no erosion,
and they're stable for billions of years. The probe would then make
carbon copies of itself by the millions. It would create a factory
to build copies of itself. And then these probes would then rocket
to other nearby star systems, land on moons, to create a million
more copies by building a factory on that moon. Eventually, there
would be sphere surrounding the mother planet, expanding at near-light
velocity, containing trillions of these Von Neumann probes, and
that is perhaps the most efficient way to colonize the galaxy. This
means that perhaps, on our moon there is a Von Neumann probe, left
over from a visitation that took place million of years ago, and
the probe is simply waiting for us to make the transition from Type
0 to Type I.
The Sentinel.
Yes. This, of course, is the basis of the movie 2001, because
at the beginning of the movie, Kubrick interviewed many prominent
scientists, and asked them the question, "What is the most
likely way that an advanced civilization would probe the universe?"
And that is, of course, through self-replicating Von Neumann probes,
which create moon bases. That is the basis of the movie 2001,
where the probe simply waits for us to become interesting. If we're
Type 0, we're not very interesting. We have all the savagery and
all the suicidal tendencies of fundamentalism, nationalism, sectarianism,
that are sufficient to rip apart our world.
By the time we've become Type I, we've become interesting, we've
become planetary, we begin to resolve our differences. We have centuries
in which to exist on a single planet to create a paradise on Earth,
a paradise of knowledge and prosperity.
© 2003 KurzweilAI.net
| | |
|
| |
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:
 |
|
|
 |
String Theory: a Desperate Kludge of the Dying Standard Model?
|
|
 |
|
There are many inherent problems with the methods and foundations of the modern quest of Physics to Unify the forces of Nature.
Today, we physicists are embarking upon the greatest quest of all, which is to unify all four of these forces into a single comprehensive theory. The first force, gravity, is now represented by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which gives us the Big Bang, black holes, and expanding universe.
…all of which are nonsensical conclusions from a nonsensical premise.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The following is from an introduction to M-Theory, which reveals many of the problems with the ‘string’ approach.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.ht ml
“The standard model was designed within a framework known as Quantum Field Theory (QFT), …. But unfortunately the fourth interaction, gravity, beautifully described by Einstein's General Relativity (GR), does not seem to fit into this scheme. Whenever one tries to apply the rules of QFT to GR one gets results which make no sense. For instance, the force between two gravitons (the particles that mediate gravitational interactions), becomes infinite and we do not know how to get rid of these infinities to get physically sensible results.”
First of all General Relativity did not explain the mechanism of gravity. It merely gave us the abstract image of warped space and the tautology of the rubber-sheet analogy (which uses gravity itself to explain gravity). There was and is no accepted explanation of what physically is the cause for the gravitational field which is visualized abstractly as the “shape of space”. There is no evidence for the hypothetical “graviton” or any other force-mediating-particle or particle-mediated-force.
The problem with the standard model, that string theory is attempting to reconcile, is the nonsensical conception of the point-particle. The calculations of the forces between two “particles” become theoretically infinite because they are using the mathematical fantasy of the “point-particle” as their model for the “fundamental particle”. These so-called point-particles are "infinitely" small thus they can approach each other indefinitely, ever increasing their inter-attractive forces without ever touching each other. This is the age-old problem of trying to quantify the continuum, as explained in Zeno’s paradox. If you are going to use point-particles to escape the necessity of physical extension and then use those extensionless particles for explaining phenomena in extended space then you are going to run into problems, because you are trying to marry two separate realms: the non-existent realm of physically extensionless points, with the existent realm of physically extended matter. In reality a particle with zero extension does not exist! Its negation is implicit in its own definition.
To deal with those infinities which are a result of a faulty premise of the point-particle, Physics has invented a trick called “renormalization”, which is simply a method of replacing those errors (infinities) with the correct observational data. It is now common-place to hear physicists speak of “renormalizability” as a necessary component of any correct theory! It has become considered a positive and necessary attribute of any theory!
String theory deals with this problem by giving a pseudo extension to the point-particle and it replaces it with a loop of “string”, a mathematical radius, which also possess zero-dimensionality in its width, thus it also does not exist.
Another M-Theory excerpt:
“One of the most remarkable predictions of String Theory is that space-time has ten dimensions!”
Space-time does not have dimension. It is the finite human mind which must compartmentalize nature into the quantifiable parameters called dimension. The M-theorists are concretizing a mental abstraction and tucking it neatly away beneath the quantum level where it can never be seen or experimentally verified. It is a big mistake to base a theory on an unverifiable, misinterpreted and concretized mental-abstraction. Has anyone ever SEEN a dimension or observed its physical actions? That is because there is no such thing as a dimension in the real physical world.
The main problem with modern physics is in the tacit assumption of the atom-in-the-void inherited from the ancient Greeks, the programmed obsession of breaking things down to an ultimate, quantifiable, non-structured thus indivisible particle residing an intervening void. In contradiction to this atomic schema our experiments reveal that ALL of the so-far revealed/manufactured subatomic particles have deeper level complexities manifested in their wave nature interactions and their fluid inter-convertibility. They are harmonic resonances and fluid-dynamic effects in a continuous medium.
M-theory is a VERY complex method for patching together incorrect Relativity Theory and incomplete Quantum Theory. However, there is a much simpler, more coherent and thus humanly understandable, alternative method for the unification of ALL the disparate forces, but it requires a fundamental paradigm-shift from an underlying overly simplistic kinetic-atomic substrate to a more complex fluid-dynamic-continuum substrate. This shift in foundation from abstract, nonunified and overly-simplistic toward realistic, more complex, holistic and fluid-dynamic ultimately enables simpler, more coherent higher-level constructions to be built, thus rendering the whole of physics visualizable and thus humanly understandable. With the proper foundation, all of the complex ad-hoc kludges to get the disparate (and desperate ;) compartments of modern physics to fit are rendered superfluous.
It's a theory of the very large; it's a theory of smooth, space-time manifolds like bedsheets and trampoline nets.
“space-time” is an abstraction for “matter in motion”. There is no such thing as a void with properties. The “quantum vacuum” is an abstract mathematical rendering of the basic level of fluid-dynamic frictionless matter. It is now known that the “vacuum” can be mathematically described as a zero-energy superfluid. If the mathematics says it is a superfluid then perhaps it actually is! Maybe it is not a vacuum at all but the fundamental level of continuous fluid reality?
The following is from the introduction to "The Orb" an upcoming publication of a new Unified Field Theory called Sorce Theory. See www.anpheon.org for details.
--------------------------------------
The Evidence for the Fluid Nature of Fundamental Physical Reality
Consider this scientific finding from 1999 as reported on Science Daily at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/99073 0072958.htm
Superfluid Is Shown To Have Property Of A Solid
EVANSTON, Ill. --- Northwestern University physicists have for the first time shown that superfluid helium-3 -- the lighter isotope of helium, which is a liquid that has lost all internal friction, allowing it to flow without resistance and ooze through tiny spaces that normal liquids cannot penetrate -- actually behaves like a solid in its ability to conduct sound waves. The finding, reported in the July 29 issue of the journal Nature, is the first demonstration in a liquid of the 'acoustic Faraday effect,' a response of sound waves to a magnetic field that is exactly analogous to the response of light waves to a magnetic field first observed in 1845 by British scientist Michael Faraday. The acoustic effect provides conclusive proof of the existence of transverse sound waves -- which are characteristic of solids but not of liquids -- in superfluid helium-3.
…
"I wouldn't say that our discovery is of that magnitude [says William Halperin. (if only he knew!)], but it is significant as the first observation of a previously unknown mode of wave propagation in a liquid -- one that is of the type you would expect to see in a solid."
Transverse waves in a fluid? Ah ha! Now do you see where this new observational fact conflicts with the historical reasoning underlying the foundational assumption of the classical conception of the ether as a solid, luminiferous substance?
Remember that it was thought, in the 1800's, that a fluid body could not transmit transverse waves. This was the entire reason behind the counter-intuitive assumption that the ether was a solid with the elastic properties of steel, through which all objects somehow moved with zero friction (another property of a superfluid). Imagine if it had been known in the 1800's that fluids could transmit transverse waves. Even if the scientists at the time would have still (for some inconceivable reason) initially concluded that the ether was a steel-like solid, when Michelson and Morley came around and showed this reasoning to be false the scientists would have taken the easier road (much easier, conceptually, than abandoning the medium of the light-waves and electromagnetic-fields themselves and the ensuing nonsense of the entire Theory of Relativity as well) and simply reformulated the ether as an inhomogenous fluid instead of an isotropic, solid-steel-ghost-like, absolute frame of reference for the motion of all objects. There would have been nothing to stop this inevitable conclusion from being reached and there would be no reason to assume that the fluid ether could not move WITH the M&M laboratory and the Earth itself instead of through it and relative to it. The null results would merely have made that conclusion inevitable, had the accumulation of the facts happened in an optimal succession. In such a scenario, the ether wouldn’t have been abandoned which would have left intact the conceptual underpinnings, the luminiferous medium, of the theory of electromagnetism and light. Physics would not have needed to abandon causality and adopt randomness and probability in its place as the “medium” of the wave-nature of all matter. Of course we can’t know the details of the Physics we would now have, had the course of events happened in the optimal sequence, but it is readily apparent that the difference would be great indeed.
Do you see now, how the sequence of the discovery of facts has drastically influenced the flow of scientific ‘progress’? Do you see that this non-optimal, linear sequence has actually generated an historical scientific error and that the “Revolution” known as “Modern Physics” was merely an erroneous reaction against, and a consequence of, this simple historical error? Of course we can’t change history itself, but we can surely overcome the inevitable errors of its linear flow! In retrospect, with a more complete collection of the critical pieces of the puzzle now in hand, the answer to the classical dilemma culminating in the Michelson and Morley experiment, is quite simple. If hind-sight is 20/20 then let us use this neglected heightening of historical scientific vision and declare right now a revision of the errors of history, “The ether is a dynamic fluid!”
[…]
It is becoming more and more apparent that even in the darkness of the abandonment of understanding, the “Standard Model” of Physics appears to be steadily groping its way toward the fluid-dynamic nature of fundamental physical reality—the dynamic “ether” vaguely intuited by Albert Einstein [see “Ether and the Theory of Relativity” by Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, University of Leyden]. Despite coming from a faulty conceptual paradigm which it must eventually abandon altogether, Physics is slowly and blindly modeling its path, by experiment and equation, toward the alternate fluid-dynamic route that it did not have the initial framework to sufficiently formulate or accept at the crucial historical bifurcation point of the Michelson and Morley experiment. Physics is undergoing a slow oscillation back towards the distant beginnings of the ungrasped thread of understanding that it had lost sight of—the concept of the fluid ether as the medium of the wave nature of all matter and “space”. The actual “thread of error” goes much deeper than the simple error mentioned above. This thread “permeates all the branches of the existing tree of knowledge”. It goes right down to the ancient Greek foundations of science—to the very coalescence of the fundamental framework of the standard paradigm of physical reductionism itself—straight to the core, kinetic-atomic foundation and the never-ending ‘quest for the fundamental particle of matter’—the a-tom existing and acting in the always-hypothetical ‘void’. This thread of error manifests itself as a wide-spread and self-limiting set of incorrect and artificial categories and concepts that render the most qualitatively simple of subjects, not only impossible to truly understand, but also extremely difficult to discuss and theorize about. Take for instance this quote from G.E. Volovik in “The Universe in a Helium Droplet” .
“According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum.
“Among the existing condensed matter systems, the particular quantum liquid—superfluid 3He-A—most closely resembles the quantum vacuum of the Standard Model. This is the collection of 3He atoms condensed into the liquid state like water. But as distinct from water, the behavior of this liquid is determined by the quantum mechanical zero-point motion of atoms. Due to the large amplitude of this motion the liquid does not solidify even at zero temperature.”
In the entire first paragraph, we can see the current trend of the Standard Model of Physics toward the conception of the ‘vacuum’ as a ‘zero-energy superfluid’ or ‘quantum liquid’. Apart from the erroneous conceptual structure of the Standard Model and the superficial denial of the material substance that the fluid equations attempt to quantify, despite all of these very important considerations, this basic quantitative conception of the fundamental level of physical reality as a ‘quantum liquid’ or ‘superfluid’, is not really so far off from the basic foundational conception of the fluid-dynamic continuum of matter proposed in Sorce Theory. The small conceptual differences that do exist at this foundational level of the standard model, however, are CRUCIAL to the correct understanding of Nature.
Further down in the second paragraph the meaning of the explanation gets obscured and highly distorted by the esoteric theoretical ‘baggage’, the erroneous and artificial categories and knowledge partitions inherent in the Standard Model. The entry point to the crucial error is exposed in the last two quoted sentences of the passage, “…the behavior of this liquid is determined by the quantum mechanical zero-point motion of atoms”. So as the liquid cools down, according to the kinetic-atomic theory of heat, the atoms or molecules will slow down their billiard-ball like collisions until, at the point of absolute zero, they will cease motion altogether. This is what is meant by the phrase “zero-point motion”. The next sentence goes on to say “Due to the large amplitude of this motion the liquid does not solidify even at zero temperature”. It should be obvious, at this point that a “large amplitude” of “zero-point motion” is an absurdity! How can the lack of oscillatory motion possess an amplitude? How can the physicists routinely get away with such nonsense? Of course you physicists know the simple answer to that seemingly naive question, it is through an appeal to quantum uncertainty of course!
Heisenbergs’ Uncertainty Principal states that as the knowledge of the velocity of a quantum-scale object gets more and more precise, the knowledge of its position, gets less and less precise. It is a directly inverse relation. So as the velocity of each individual atom decreases, the amplitude of our uncertainty (whatever this physically means) of its actual position steadily increases! In effect, our knowledge of the positions of the atoms gets fuzzier and fuzzier simply because we know that they are slowing down! Despite the obvious (discarded) “common-sense” recognition that the amplitude of the state of knowledge (?!) of the motion of the individual atoms should have nothing to do with the actual functioning of the quantum level (or any level) of reality, and despite the fact that we haven’t even measured the motions of any of the actual individual atoms and thus we don’t really know that their individual motions have actually slowed down or ceased at all, except through recourse to our interpretive theoretical kinetic-atomic model of heat which for almost all other types of molecules would state that it should become a frozen solid and not a superfluid at that temperature—despite all these rather important problems the fact is that the Uncertainty Principle tells us absolutely nothing of the PHYSICAL mechanisms which should explain how the lack of liquid-defining inter-atomic collisions, does not instantly render the super-cooled liquid Helium, into a frozen solid crystal—a Helium popsicle. After-all, a decrease in inter-atomic collisions is the defining property of a solid, according to the kinetic-atomic theory and this is why the discovery of superfluid helium-4, back in 1937 was a complete and total surprise to the experimentalists and is still considered “counterintuitive” based on the standard model of heat and its relation to the states of matter.
What has Heisenbergs’ Uncertainty Principal really to do with all of this anyway? As this book will demonstrate, the Uncertainty Relations are a consequence of the standard lack of understanding of what an atom really is, what it is made of and what those ‘constituents’ are made of as well. This ignorance begins at the core level of physical reality which lies beneath the probabilities and uncertainties of quantum mechanics and permeates into the very nature of our understanding of the ‘fundamental’ forces, energy, the quantum, thermo-dynamics, the states of matter, and much else. That is why an appeal to uncertainty, in the standard ‘explanation’ of superfluidity, must be made in order to reconcile the surprise appearance of superfluidity with the absence of “kinetic-atomic motion” currently known as “heat”. The scientists really are uncertain as to what physicaly causes all phenomena at the quantum level and this uncertainty propagates its way pervasively into the ‘understanding’ of macroscale phenomena as well!
Despite all of the various manifestations of the deep qualitative, interpretive errors of Modern Physics, the equations which have been custom fit to model the results of our experimental contact with physical reality, actually tell a quite different story.
In “The Big Bang Never Happened” , Eric J. Lerner writes,
"... since the nineteenth century it's been recognized that the equations of electromagnetism are almost identical with the equations of hydrodynamics the equations governing fluid flow. Even more curious, Schrödinger's equation, the basic equation of quantum mechanics, is also closely related to equations of fluid flow. Since 1954 many scientists have shown that a particle moving under the influence of random impacts from irregularities in a fluid will obey Schrödinger's equation.
“More recently, in the late seventies, researchers found another curious correspondence while developing mathematical laws that govern the motion of line vortices--the hydrodynamic analogs of the plasma filaments .... The governing equation turns out to be a modified form of Schrödinger's equation, called the nonlinear Schrödinger equation. [This equation is a central part of the study of ‘quantum liquids’ as well. The interesting coincidence is that it is a modified form of the equation describing the shell structure of an atom.]
“Generally in science when two different phenomena obey the same or very similar mathematical laws, it means that in all probability they are somehow related. Thus it seems likely that both electromagnetism and quantum phenomena generally may be connected to some sort of hydrodynamics on a microscopic level. But this clue, vague as it is, leaves entirely open the key question of what the nuclear particles are. And what keeps them together? How can fluids generate particles? [This book will fill in these crucial gaps.]
“But the idea of particles formed from vortices in some fluid is certainly worth investigating. (This is a real return to Ionian ideas: the idea of reality being formed out of vortices was first raised by Anaxagoras 2,500 years ago!) …However, I think there are additional clues, some developed from my own work, which indicate that plasma processes and quantum mechanical processes are in some way related.
“First and foremost are Krisch's experimental results on spin-aligned protons. Qualitatively, the results clearly imply that protons are actually some form of vortex, like a plasmoid. Such vortices interact far more strongly when they are spinning in the same direction-which is certainly the behavior Krisch observed in proton collisions. Because vortex behavior would become evident only in near-collisions, the effects should be more pronounced at higher energies and in more head-on interactions—again, in accordance with Krisch's results.
“A second clue lies in particle asymmetry (see p. 336). Particles act as if they have a "handedness," and the simplest dynamic process or object that exhibits an inherent orientation is a vortex. Moreover, right-and left-handed vortices annihilate each other, just as particles and antiparticles do."
So today, we realize that a true Unified Field Theory must be bizarre, must be fantastic, incredible, mind-boggling, crazy, because all the sane alternatives have been studied and discarded.
That is simply not true. Sorce Theory has NEVER been studied or understood by the “establishment”. Its time has come.
See www.anpheon.org
--- subtillioN |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Re: String Theory: a Desperate Kludge of the Dying Standard Model?
|
|
|
|
Hi subtillioN,
Sorry, but I want to clarify this minor point about the "Uncertainty Principle." (Can't resist. :)
Heisenbergs’ Uncertainty Principal states that as the knowledge of the velocity of a quantum-scale object gets more and more precise, the knowledge of its position, gets less and less precise. It is a directly inverse relation. So as the velocity of each individual atom decreases, the amplitude of our uncertainty (whatever this physically means) of its actual position steadily increases! In effect, our knowledge of the positions of the atoms gets fuzzier and fuzzier simply because we know that they are slowing down!
Heisenberg's Principle involves the inability for any observation to resolve, simultaneously, two certain measures, but they are not position and velocity, but rather position and momentum.
Momentum is the product of mass and velocity. on a "slippery surface", a 10 kg mass sliding at 1 meter per second represents the same momentum as a 1 kg mass sliding at 10 meters per second. If you are required to bring each to a complete stop in T seconds, you will need to apply equal force to each during that period of time (in the direction opposing their motion, of course.)
F = ma. If the two masses are at rest, and you apply an equal force to each for some period of time T, "ma" will remain equal for each as well. The one with 10 times the mass will be observed to accelerate at only 1/10 the rate (gain velocity at 1/10 the rate.)
This is a "core way" to determine the mass of an object. Works as well in the "weightlessness" of space as in my living room.
When we deal with "macroscopic" objects, one can ascertain their "mass" another way. Because the "acceleration due to gravity" is relatively constant near the earths surface, (and the SAME for both masses), it must be the Force (weight) that reflects the difference. So just put the objects on a scale, and you can infer their mass quite well.
But it is very hard to place a proton or neutron on a scale. So we revert to the previous method. We place them in motion, and infer the mass by taking careful note of how their "rate of motion" changes under application of a given force.
This requires the measurement of a "change in velocity", or change in position per unit time, under a known application of force.
To get a more accurate read on the change, it is best to have that velocity change rather greatly. This means at one point or another, it is moving fast, relatively. But to determine velocity accurately, one must know position at each point of time with accuracy.
If the object is not moving, you can know its position perfectly (AND its velocity, 0). However, you cannot measure its mass at all, because this is to be inferred from its momentum (mass*velocity), and as it tend to "no velocity", it tends to "no momentum" due to "v". Information about "m" is lost.
Alternately, imagine a "particle" of some kind coasting by. You apply a measured force (EM, say) for a measured time, and you WANT to measure the change in velocity to accuracy, in order to infer the mass. Apply a tiny force, and the state of motion changes so little, you cannot get much accuracy. Apply a larger force, and there will be a greater difference between "original state of motion" and "final state of motion". Unfortunately, one (or both) of these represent velocity great enough that the precise position of the "before" or the "after", at the endpoint of the time T whereby the force was applied, become harder to ascertain.
The formula:
(delta x)*(delta mv) >= planck's constant > 0
(x is position, "mv" is momentum), and "delta" means an uncertainty, as in "RANGE OF VALUES" in each, like "plus or minus 3 nanomemters".
Since a "delta x" is a LENGTH, L, and a "delta mv" is a "MASS*LENGTH/TIME" (or M*L/T, planck's constant has the units MLL/T, which happen to be units of angular momentum.
Unlike linear momentum, there is an extra factor of L, because the momentum of a spinning mass depends not only on the mass, and the rotation rate ("radians/time") but also on the distribution of mass, according to the "mean squared" distance from the center of rotation.
PsyTek.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: String Theory: a Desperate Kludge of the Dying Standard Model?
|
|
|
|
You wrote:Today, we physicists are embarking upon the greatest quest of all, which is to unify all four of these forces into a single comprehensive theory. The first force, gravity, is now represented by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which gives us the Big Bang, black holes, and expanding universe.
I say you have a magnficent problematically Predictive but mechanically false edifice-- that will eventually collapse without a single individual-- no matter how academically endowed--having the slightest gut feel for the Real World of Einstein's finally completed, unified force gravity theory! The simple algebraic feld equation is G - R/3(v-squared) where 3 stands for the simplest and sufficient 3 dimensions of space and time is ticked by the rate of spin of R as a gravity field volume of space whose closed curvature at any given point on its replacement sphere surface, is a G-size Higgs particle Black Hole. R can be the dynamic replacment sphere surface of an atom or of the visile cosmos, and every interactively nested gravity field entity in between. The universe is then infiite, stable and closed---without the possibility of singularity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: String Theory: a Desperate Kludge of the Dying Standard Model?
|
|
|
|
But the success of a theory lies in how well it predicts what we will observe, and General Relativity's predictions have been verified to many decimal places.
No, it's been falsified several times. It doesn't explain the results of Dayton Miller's ether drift tests, which have been verified a few years back by a team of south american scientists.
The 'rubber sheet' analogy is not a tautology...
Yes it is. It uses gravitation to explain gravitation. How is that not a tautology?
..., it is an inescapable conclusion of the confirmed fact that the speed of light remains constant regardless of whether or not you are moving in any direction.
No such "confirmed fact" exists. That is what Dayton Miller falsified. Only at the surface of the earth in a laboratory with thick solid walls does such a fact get confirmed. The higher you go into the atmosphere, Miller observed, the greater the ether drift.
Also, bare in mind that this analogy is merely employed to allow non-experts to have some small idea of how Einstein's theory works.
Right, but the point is that the theory does not explain the workings of gravitation. It merely provides a kludge to fudge the maths so they fit with the MM results...ignoring the extensive analysis by Miller et. al.
Finding a flaw in the equations of GR is one thing, but attaking the analogy will no more debunk it than complaining 'genes cannot be selfish, Dawkins!' debunks the theory of evolution.
Yep. Clearly. The point is to demonstrate that the tautological visualization does not explain gravity.
That said, maybe there is a better way of visualising the equations of GR that we have yet to describe?
There certainly is, and it fits ALL the known facts, not just some of them and ignoring the rest.
And it is not surprising that no evidence exists for the graviton, seeing as it would require a particle accelerator the size of a galaxy to probe to a depth sufficient to find it.
sure, no surprise. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: String Theory: a Desperate Kludge of the Dying Standard Model?
|
|
|
|
Oh. But it is not incompatible with sorce, I assume?
'Yes it is. It uses gravitation to explain gravitation. How is that not a tautology?'.
It does no such thing. What GR does is show us that the question 'what is the 'force' of gravity?' needs to be rephrased. There is no force of gravity. The Earth is moving in a straight line because of its inertia, but its path does not look straight to us because we cannot see the warping of spacetime caused by the presence of mass. It is rather like the centrifugal 'force' that, when your car goes round a sharp bend, appears to pull you outwards toward the door. Again, an illusion of perspective. Anyone observing you and the car from outside can see the car follows a curved path and you are continuing in a straight line under your 'inertia'.
The rubber sheet analogy is only partially succeful at modelling 4D spacetime. It's biggest shortcoming is the fact that if you place a bowling ball on a trampoline it is pulled down by the gravitational 'force' of the Earth. This leads people to ask 'Ok so what 'pulls down' the Sun when we place it on the fabric of spacetime?' which is, of course, completely misunderstanding the relationsip between gravity and acceleration.
Well I should not pursue this too much because, really my understanding of GR is very superficial and what I know of whatever you are referring to is basically nil. At this point it is hard for me to know who is speaking knowledge and who is speaking nonesense. Do I trust the tens of thousands of experiments and experimenters who have tried to find a flaw in GR and come away empty-handed every time, or do I trust that some maverick (I assume this is not you personally, Sub) really has acquired a theory to overthrow Einstein?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: String Theory: a Desperate Kludge of the Dying Standard Model?
|
|
|
|
Oh. But it is not incompatible with sorce, I assume?
I was just talking about the limits of GR. That's it. You don't need to learn Sorce Theory to see the limits. Most scientists who have studied it are well aware that it does not give a causal description of the mechanism of gravitation.
'Yes it is. It uses gravitation to explain gravitation. How is that not a tautology?'.
It does no such thing. What GR does...
I am talking about the ANALOGY, not GR itself, which is mainly maths.
... is show us that the question 'what is the 'force' of gravity?' needs to be rephrased.
lol, yes, the attempts to phrase it in terms of causation had failed for centuries. Let's abandon causal models entirely and, here, try this mathematical trick.
There is no force of gravity. The Earth is moving in a straight line because of its inertia, but its path does not look straight to us because we cannot see the warping of spacetime caused by the presence of mass.
The earth is moving in an elipse. Don't let them pull the wool of abstraction over your eyes.
But why is it moving in an elipse? Because "spacetime is warped"? Sure, but WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? HOW does mass warp spacetime? WHAT is mass anyway? These are the questions that GR glosses over with the abstraction of the curvature of spacetime. It gives no mechanism, other than this abstraction, for the cause of gravitation.
It is rather like the centrifugal 'force' that, when your car goes round a sharp bend, appears to pull you outwards toward the door. Again, an illusion of perspective. Anyone observing you and the car from outside can see the car follows a curved path and you are continuing in a straight line under your 'inertia'.
The rubber sheet analogy is only partially succeful at modelling 4D spacetime. It's biggest shortcoming is the fact that if you place a bowling ball on a trampoline it is pulled down by the gravitational 'force' of the Earth. This leads people to ask 'Ok so what 'pulls down' the Sun when we place it on the fabric of spacetime?' which is, of course, completely misunderstanding the relationsip between gravity and acceleration.
IOW, it's a tautology, as I said...
Well I should not pursue this too much because, really my understanding of GR is very superficial and what I know of whatever you are referring to is basically nil. At this point it is hard for me to know who is speaking knowledge and who is speaking nonesense. Do I trust the tens of thousands of experiments and experimenters who have tried to find a flaw in GR and come away empty-handed every time, or do I trust that some maverick (I assume this is not you personally, Sub) really has acquired a theory to overthrow Einstein?
Have you not read of the many gravitational anomalies? Every one is a failure of a test of GR. Google it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to find out GR has its limits. It is not complete. It can't even give us the mechanism of gravitation, so why should we expect it to be? Simply because the limits are not emphasized in your science classes? That's unfortunate, yes, but that's the way it is. You can't see the blind-spot from within the system. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: String Theory: a Desperate Kludge of the Dying Standard Model?
|
|
|
|
I am not wedded to Big bang theory. Black holes seem to be evidence that the universe is "hydraulic", that is, capable of expanding in certain regions and contracting in others.
However, I take the simple evidence of the spiral nature of galaxies and solar systems as evidence that, at least regionally, objects are expanding. solids become gasses. Matter becomes energy(smaller particles at a different level of organization.)
The trust of my point is that it will be easier to find a general field theory, or discard the hope of finding one, if we lose the perspective of cosmic and microscopic, which are biases based on the accident of human scale.
Our human bias also wants to impart permanent "forms" to matter. But if the universe is, as it appears to be, a continuously evolving phenomenon then it behooves us to stop thinking of the universe as made up of interacting "things". There are no atoms of gold, for instance, only matter behaving like atoms of gold. Matter has a diverse repertoire of behaviors based on the scale of its particles, their relations to other particles and their history.
So there are no strings. There are also no muons or charmed quarks. But matter may "string" sometimes. If you smash it apart in certain ways it has a tendency to quark. certain particles, under the right conditions systematically congeal into human beings for short periods and then dissipate again in consonance with patterns of entropy in this region of the cosmos.
It's scary, but we need to let go of trying to say what the universe -is- and focus on what it -does-. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Michio Kaku interview
|
|
|
|
I have deferred my final judgments until after my previous questions have been answered. I apologize if you perceived my comments as "name-calling." That was not intended,...
Thank you, Bob.
If you are doing real science, show me your papers.
Sorce Theory is a completely alternate thread of Physics. It takes its conceptual departure before the tacit assumption of the ancient Greek Kinetic-atomic theory of Democritus and postulates that basic matter is continuous and compressible. It makes a fundamental shift of core premises from the reductionist and multiple (and I am not saying that reductionism is wrong, per se) to the holistic and unified. This shift turns out to be absolutely critical for a coherent and completely causal unification of all of physics.
Sorce Theory takes the observational and quantitative data in all its details and gives fluid-dynamic and wave-mechanical explanations of all the fundamental forces of nature based on the familiar properties of a frictionless, continuous and compressible fluid—modeled in the standard theory as the “quantum vacuum” which is a zero-energy superfluid (also called a “quantum fluid”). Sorce Theory explains the mechanisms by which this fluid gets “harmonically” quantized (to brutally simplify it) into the atomic shell structure of atoms. [Note that it is well known that a superfluid readily produces "quantized vortices" that are indefinitely stable, or "meta-stable".] This complex causal set of descriptions is exactly consistent with the modern quantum equations, i.e. the Schrodinger Equation, which define the structure of the atom and the so-called “wave-particle duality, but it goes much further and intrinsically explains the mechanisms of ALL the forces as a consequence of a basic continuous pressure in various configurations into wave-structured fields etc..
Classical physics, came face to face with its fundamental error when confronted with the “null results” of the Michelson Morely experiments which were attempting to find a solid ether with the elastic properties of steel. The failure to detect it revealed that classical physics was critically flawed. The revolution of “Modern Physics” was begun and we all know that a lack of "understanding" of the quantum level has resulted. This lack of causal understanding has been codified into a set of principles and relations, such as the "wave-particle duality" and Heisenbergs "Uncertainty Relations".
Sorce Theory claims that the revolution was not revolutionary enough. That it simply patched together the observed “wave-nature” of all matter, with its erroneous tacit assumption of the a-tom in the void, manifested in modern times as the “zero-dimensional point-particle”. This superficial kludge resulted in the paradox of the “wave-particle duality”.
New experiments show, however, that a superfluid can transmit transverse waves, therefore there was no original need to postulate that the ether was a solid in the first place. This new fact seems to be completely unappreciated in light of the crucial events of history. Had this been known at the time of the M&M experiments then we would likely have a completely fluid-dynamic ether intact beneath the wave equations of quantum mechanics at this point in time. Something very akin to Sorce Theory would likely have developed. As it stands, the equations of modern physics do reveal the fluid-dynamic nature of reality if we but admit what they really represent. See the first post in this thread for more info on the fluid nature of the core equations of physics.
To understand such a complex and radical departure from the “mainstream” one must be prepared to suspend all attachments to the modern interpretations of the observations and equations. If you are interested in reformatting your interpretive Physics module even for a relatively short period of time, and trying out a completely different Physics operating system, then you are welcomed to send me an email and I will reply with further documentation.
----------
We are in the final stages of preparing to publish a core Sorce Theory book in pdf format on anpheon.org. I could, perhaps, send you portions of the book, if you really wish to undertake such a radical re-learning process. The choice is yours, but if you decide not to attempt to learn the theory, if at the very least only to critique it, then you don’t have a leg to stand on when making superficial remarks comparing it to a religion or whatever. It is vastly more concrete than the Standard model and explains the model in much greater detail at the level of causality beneath the mathematical probabilities and abstractions of “curved-space” and “the wave-nature”.
This mission, if you choose to accept it, can be initiated by a simple email to info@anpheon.org.
=)
Thanks again Bob,
subtillioN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Michio Kaku interview
|
|
|
|
Thanks, larsholm, for the link!!!
Here is a quote:
"But over the past couple of years, a number of mavericks have proposed that black holes are actually extended bodies, made up of an exotic state of matter that congeals, like a liquid turning to ice, during the collapse. The idea offers a provocative way of thinking about quantum gravity, which would unify Einstein's general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics."
Interesting... Sorce Theory is already there. The superfluid unification and explanation of all the forces has been complete for quite a long time, but it is too radical for the main-stream which must take its own route and it will retain much of its theoretical baggage that gets in the way of understanding.
"If one thinks of spacetime as a superfluid, then it is very natural that in fact something physical does happen at the event horizon--that is, the classical event horizon is replaced by a quantum phase transition,"
Yes, indeed. Slowly but surely Physics will come to the same basic conclusion.
"For now, these ideas are barely more than scribbles on the back of an envelope, and critics have myriad complaints about their plausibility."
It is all worked out already in Sorce Theory. The trick is how to get the Physicists to abandon all the point-particle baggage so as to accept the correct theory!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Michio Kaku interview
|
|
|
|
Hi subtillioN,
It is all worked out already in Sorce Theory. The trick is how to get the Physicists to abandon all the point-particle baggage so as to accept the correct theory!!
That trick must be accomplished the old-fashioned way.
Using Sorce Theory, posit a "do-able" experiment, using lasers, or accelerators, or cosmological observations of a type not yet done, where Sorce says you will see one thing, and the standard model(s) say you will see something else.
Theoretical models of the physical world tend to proceed as two sides of a coin.
On one side, the prevalent theory (say, Newtonian Mechanics) explains lots of stuff reasonably well. But some things are observed in the world that do not fit the model. What to do? Revamp the model such that it now explains both the older observations and the newer ones. Ok, that's one side of the coin.
On the other side of that coin, people will examine the implications of the "newer" model, and say, "But that can't be right, because the newer model, by logical extension, says that under these (attainable) conditions, or (performable) observations, you would see THIS ridiculous thing."
This presents a challenge to both the proponents of the new model, and the detractors. Each wants to perfom the suggested experiment, one to demonstrate that you actually WILL see that ridiculous thing, and the other to demonstrate that you will not.
In the final analysis, it does not matter a whit whether black holes, or gravitational lenses, or top quarks or quantum-entangled photons really "exist" as a discrete field phenomena or as pressure fluctuations in fluid or anything else. The point is that the models predicted that Stuff Having Those Apparent Features would be observed, BEFORE they were observed. And indeed, stuff having those "apparent features" is observed.
A new model cannot be content to merely play "catch-up", re-explaining phenomena that are already observed. It must afford prediction of phenomena not-yet observed, which can be shown to diverge from the prediction of earlier models.
And it need not be an ENTIRELY NEW phenomena, either. Every experiment is done many times over, with slightly different values of energy, force, time, temperature, etc., in order to check that the quantitative measure of the resulting observation agrees with the values predicted by the formulas of the model.
Thus, all a "new model" needs to do is demonstrate how its formulas, in such experiments, yould values that would differ, EVEN ONLY SLIGHTLY, from the formulas of the previous model.
Challenge the current "physics" community: "Take a diamond anvil, place 1 microgram of element w within, compress to 5 million pascals, and pulse a laser of frequency f through the material. You will see that it resonates with amplitude "A", and not with amplitude "B" as the current model would predict."
There are trillions of such experiments that can be posited, for which one model will differ from another in prediction.
ALL you need to do is provide one.
When the uncertainly principle and planck's constant arose, it was not welcome. It was not desired, even by those who brought it forth. It was an artifact of their model. And it was easily derided by many, who said, "That HAS to be wrong, because it suggests that under THESE conditions, you would see THIS effect." Even though (at that time) no one had the ability to perform the indicated thought experiments, those thought experiments seemed to cast doubt upon the plausibility of the new model.
Yet years later, when we arrive at the capability to perform those experiments ... we SEE exactly those effcts that were predicted. It DOES NOT MATTER whether the EXPLANATION is agreeable or not. What DOES matter is that we SEE STUFF that looks like what the model predicted.
Provide a prediction that differs from the current model, something either do-able today, or "soon enough" that it will interest people in the challenge.
Call that prediction the "Sorce Hypothesis", or the "Sorce Effect", or whatever. Make it a quantitative challenge that contradicts the standard model(s).
It must be a do-able experiment. It must be one that specifies initial conditions like x grams, y velocity, z distance, blah blah, and claims that the standard model yields "V" joules, while the Sorce model yields "W" joules, or some other measurable difference.
That is all you need to do. :)
Cheers! PsyTek |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Michio Kaku interview
|
|
|
|
Hi Pelastration,
Imho ... Sorce still speaks about a field.
Your opinion is incorrect. Sorce speaks of a fluid-dynamic substance which can be quantitatively analyzed and described using fields.
What's a field? It's another word for 'magic'.
Exactly, so any theory that uses space and dimension without taking into account the physical substance for which these things are abstractions--cannot be complete.
It saying:' Something happens put I can not tell how it works'.
Sorce Theory is not a theory about fields. Sorce Theory describes the fluid-dynamic causal mechanism involved in ALL the forces and basic physical phenomenon in the universe (Physics). It gives the mechanisms behind all fields.
Of course I don't deny the effect, the measuring ... but there is not mechanical picture.
The btw very nice Sorce website (did you designed it?) - shows a an impressive flash/java presentation, but it show the effects, not the engineering picture. What provokes the boundaries? etc.
The website does not get into the theory yet. Soon there will be animations etc modeling the formation of atoms from this fluid-dynamic substance. You are welcomed to read the book which gives the mechanisms.
When you start just from an unbreakable also infinite elastic membrane with internal unbalance you can explain everything covering macro and micro ... from the creation of dimensions, the creating of mass till ... consciousness. When you deeper inside my approach you will find a different approach for AI. (check: numbers.html)
Yes your website looks quite interesting, but it asserts the physical reality of dimensions and other hypotheticals which Sorce Theory has no need for.
Thanks for your questions
subtillio.....N
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
universes, the Matrix, and superintelligence
|
|
|
|
A New and Simple Theory of Everything
Whether by the "Mighty Wind" of Moses or the "Big Bang" of Georges Lemaitre's super atom, the universe was created as a great fluid sea of energy. The energy is quantum, packet or particle in form. We title the particles the "Least Particles" because they are the true indivisible atom. Everything and every function of everything is related to the Least Particles.
The Least Particles are governed by ten simple rules:
1. Least Particles are distinct.
2. Least Particles are exclusive.
3. Least Particles are eternal.
4. Least Particles vibrate.
5. Least Particles are auto kinetic.
6. Least Particles are attracted by vibrations.
7. Least Particles are repelled by discordant vibrations.
8. Least Particles will bond with harmonious Least Particles.
9. Least Particles receive and transmit signals.
10.Least Particles are tractable.
These are the laws of nature. Stephen Hawking termed the laws of nature the "Mind of God".
The "first movement" occured at the moment of creation when Least Particles began to sort themselves out by attraction to harmoniously vibating particles and fleeing disharmoniously vibrating particles. The attraction of Least Particles by vibrations is the "force of gravity". The force of gravity is an accumulative force. When harmoniously vibrating Least Particles move together they form patterns. When two vibrating Least Particles vibrating at the same pitch come together they will bond strongly. This is the "strong force".
The assembly into patterns and bonding together of the Least Particles is the "quantum mechanical process". Two Least Particles bond to form a quark. Quarks of the same pitch will bond to form the hadrons. The hadrons form the baryons. The baryons form the nuclei. Other Least Particles attracted to the composition bundle to form the leptons. The leptons do not feel the strong force. The electrons are leptons that are created as echoes by the sounding of the protons and the neutrons in the nuclei. The electrons flow from atom to atom to form electric current.
The "quantum mechanical" process is produced by Least Particles vibrating as notes of two three-note chords of the same pitch. Hypothetically, it may be said that the bottom quark is formed by the bonding the two botton notes of the chords. The top quark would be formed by the two top notes of the two chords. The up-quark may be formed of the bottom note of one chord blending with the top note of the other chord. The down-quark may be formed of the middle note of one chord and the bottom note of the other. The strange-quark would be formed of the top note of one chord and the middle note of the other. The charm-quark would then be formed of the two middle notes of the two chords.
The atoms are created by the assembling of Least Particles into subparticles and the subparticles finally forming the compleate atom. Sometimes, particularly when atoms are composed of many parts, some individual Least Particles will find the overall resonance of the atom discordant to their own vibration and they will 'tunnel out'and escape. This is termed the "weak force" or atomic decay.
The Least Particles are "point" particles. However, they do have virtual mass because of their property of exclusion and requirement of space in which to do their dance.
The exclusive property of the Least Particles, the force of exclusion, provides the cosmological constant which Albert Einstein was unable to realize. The force of exclusion is, also, an accumulative force. The force of exclusion keeps the cosmic structures separated. The force of gravity and the force of exclusion shape and bind the finite universe.
The "electromagetic force" is generated by the ability of Least Particles to receive and transmit signals of various frequencies and to become regimented because of their tractability.
When particles and atoms are forced into alignment by magnetism the surrounding Least Particles will be regimented into lines of force. These lines of force are capable of polarizing light, which fact may bring into question the distances and motions of various cosmic structures. The electromagnetic spectrum is pictured as functions occuring at ascending frequencies of vibrations and descending wavelengths. Direct current being at the bottom of the scale and gamma rays at the top. The electromagnetic waves proceed through the universe as transverse waves. "Wave-particle duality" is realized as the receipt and transmission of the vibration signal is passed from Least Particle to Least Particle through the fluid sea of Least Particles. Actual particles may be cloned or duplicated where the wave passes through some Least Particles of the same pitch as the particle originating the signal. That is the reason we find occasional solitary leptons apprearing and disappearing, seemingly at random.
The great bulk of the Least Particles that form the universe remain fixed, vibrating at the pitch at which they were created. They do vibrate at a rate sufficient to produce a background temperature of 2.73 kelvin throughout the universe. These Least Particles form the Cold Dark Matter (CDM). Those relatively few Least Particles that are stimulated to move toward areas of excitement increase in vibration frequency and are termed Warm Dark Matter (WDM). The great clouds of dust in which stars, planets and galaxies are formed of WDM. When Least Particles in these areas approach other harmoniously vibrating Least Particles they become excited to higher pitch and bond and assemble to form the atomic structures and are known as Hot Dark Matter (HDM). HDM streaming toward points of attaction form the vortices which become the cosmic structures, and circling inward provide the curvature of space. The effects of drag or speeding up at the edges of galaxies are visible indications of the presence of HDM. The circling HDM refracts the light from behind the galaxies and produces the lensing effects in the manner that atmosphere of the earth produces mirages.
The formation of an almost unlimited diversity of physical structures, each with a purpose, generated by the Least Particles vibrating in pitch from a small section of the scale with their ten simple governing rules is difficult to comprehend. Yet, even more so is the varied structure of biological beings with the red blood system. The bodies of which composed of a large percent water are able to stand erect and move about. They are filled with self-replicating cells guided in development by perfect laser driven computers programmed for exactness and enduring unchanged for 700,000 years.
Everything is indicative of purpose. The fetus in the total darkness of the womb developes eyes so that it can see when brought to light.
Everything is known throughout the universe. Events from all over the world are received and recorded and affect the reasoning and emotions. Everything affects every other thing. The human mind contains billions of neurons and each neuron has as many as ten thousand dendrils and many axons to receive and transmit messages. The brain has many many patterns for the use of cogitation and memory. The mind is able to shift the overlaying interlacing patterns of memory and cogitation around to achieve ideas without number. It works in the manner of placing two balls of pith on threads hanging from a bar. When spread apart they hang straight down. When moved close together they attempt to move apart and hang at an angle. So too, in the mind, one pattern shifting over another will cause the changing of synapses and alter thoughts generated in those patterns.
It is hard to imagine the creation of an implanted alternative intelligence machine that could compete with the almost unlimited capacity of the human brain with its ablity to shift and interplay a such a huge number of thought and memory patterns available. When one thinks of the odds against winning the Powerball Lottery
with the millions of combinations available
by arranging a row of five numbers chosen from a block of fifty numbers with the addition of one of fifty numbers for the Powerball its hard to believe.
Then again it is hard for the individual to remember everything because his system is mostly occupied with staying alive. Articfical intelligence is not necessarily to be implanted into each individual human. There is an effort now to file all knowledge in central locations and make it available by hand held electronic device to everyone in any language anywhere in the world. --Robert Hartsock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Parallel universes, the Matrix, and superintelligence
|
|
|
|
Friday May 27th,2005 Infobae Diario- Argentina
Date: 27/05/2005
We present different cases of persons who returned from death.
German scientists collected testimonies of forty cases which passed away for some
minutes and then returned.
The Universität Klinik Bonn, Clinic University of Bonn, Germany, was the institution
in charge of collecting the forty cases of those persons who assure to have returned of
death and who observed life on Earth from the outside. The testimonies were
presented by the German newspaper “Bild”.
My trip:
The “Univesal Memory Transciever Machine”
(Time Machine)
“Hawkings says that science-fiction inspires the scientists, but sometimes they light
ideas more strange than those of any writer” ( Short link: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/705069)
My case is the one of a common citizen with a different capacity. “I saved myself from crazi-
ness thanks to craziness” which means now there isn’t anything to lose.
It happens that in the year l976, being 24 years old, I fell gravely ill and I was dead. I saw many
things in this trip, apart from my own body and my own conscience......I was asked if I wanted to
stay or return “because there is still much you have to do” ...and here I am. There are many
similar experiences which have been described in books, films, Web pages, that is why I am not
going to talk about them .
Of course on those days I did not understand what had happened to me nor did I have
antecedents of similar cases.
Later, a great personal transformation took place in me and I began to suffer some “collateral
effects” , things I had never believed . First, the premonitions.......
Due to the gravity of the events that occurred ,on the fringe of craziness, following my
intuition and on the other hand, my technical studies, I began to repeat the experience of
“passing to the other side to investigate” on my own will , looking for a scientific explanation,
because I know it has one.
It is not at all easy, especially regarding what entails defeating the fear of going into such an
unknown territory and learning to move in a space in which the earthly laws are no use.......
I have still much to learn, but the spiritual advance was very important. It was worthwhile and
I consider that what in 1976 was a tragedy , is today a wonderful blessing.
As in every “crisis” that traumatic experience was also an opportunity of “changing my past” and
I decided not to let it pass.
In that way, coming and going, asking, sometimes crying and in despair, I came to understand
many things which I see today as parts of scientific articles.
I am surprised at the “coincidences”, but I think I am not mistaken to think that the “universal
memory” is present not only in me, but also in all of us, only that sometimes this gravitational
attraction of a supposed reality, is strong enough to capture and maintain us “orbiting”
not allowing us to look at ourselves in the mirror illuminated by our own interior light.
I could say , for example, that what we perceive as “ reality” is not so, or it is a “hologram”
product of the generated energy among other things, by our own thoughts..... it is as if the
luminous gravitational force of thought in unending spiral movement , would condense energy
It were transformed in matter, this at its time evolved and resulted in life and all that we
believe to be “real”. That there is no “ order without chaos” and vice versa and the particles
order and disorder themselves “memorizing” their original space position. ( That’s why you can
leave your body , traversing walls to go anywhere and come back without any risk of losing
yourself or disintegrating).
That in the parts there exists the whole and everything is made of the same stuff to a subatomic
level.
That on that side there is no space or time, that is why it is possible to “see” the past or the
future in “real time”. ( As it were made of infinite parallel films already made with all their
possibilities. )
That the memory is kept out of our physical body , in a kind of hard disk and we only have a
“ram” temporary memory. (Who would rely on temporal beings to keep such precious
experiences and knowledge?)
That the vacuum does not exist ( Everything is full of potential energy ) and the speed of transit
between one dimension and another one is instantaneous ( Quicker than the speed of light and
without the consumption of conventional energy).
That we have a permanent part to which we are connected from various dimensions .....and many
things more...
In this moment I study , at an elementary level, or domestic, how to “change some things of the
future” which I don’t like .( It seems it works), as all the information is “available” in the
universe, one can “look for” the part which interests one, backwards or forwards, as if it were
part of a film, and see , use, intervene, decide, edit it.
Now there is a documentary film which is called “What the “Bleep” do we know?”.....I haven’t
seen it yet, but they tell me it is very impressive......it is causing commotion because it already
presents the new paradigms. It DOES NOT talk about going out of your body nor about astral
trips....but it DOES talk of the way reality is made up and how we can be in various dimensions at
the same time, with explanations given by scientists.
The reader may wonder why I am writing such an article......I do it for several reasons, but to
begin with, it is enough to mention three of them:
I) Because I consider that you can make a “machine that can catch the universal
memory ”and why not also “ transmit”....may be someone is already making it.
It so happens that since my first experience, beginning the process of transit to the
other side ( the real one, where it is perceived that one has a total vision and
possibility of an infinite wisdom, with total lucidity and freedom) I feel that in my
head ( not in my ears) a very sharp and intense sound, that overcomes all my body and
which never completely disappears....I have it for ever.
“That sound only increases or diminishes its intensity depending on the degree of
communication I have in each moment.” ....that is to say that when I am receiving
information of some kind, or I am about to “get out of my body”, the “volume” of
the sound increases until it reaches an unbearable level......in the long run I have
got used to it.
Now, “having asked for detailed information about it” to my superior conscience or to
what the people may like to call it, I have heard that that sound seems to be “parted”
in at least five sequential ,consecutive tones, that appear to be only one. As you may
notice, I not only receive but also “transmit”.
If the transmission received could be caught by a “receptive aerial” to be “processed by
a computer”, we would be facing the appearance of a time machine of a virtual
and multidimensional type.
In fact, in my lucid astral trips, I travel to other dimensions in which I see other beings,
some looking like us, others different.....in what seems to be our planet or may be
another one, in underground installations or not and developing diverse activities
......fortunately until today, everything is very peaceful....excepting , for some unknown
reason, our own dimension, in which the most unpleasant things in the universe seem to
happen....the most intense experiences.
2) In particular, I want to show that if manage to decipher the information
I sometimes receive about future events correctly. ( Sometimes it is very clear
and others not so much) many human lives could be saved, and many lives would only
need “to change some small detail which would modify the future”, what is not
a small thing to say.
I do not feel any degree of responsibility for the events I foresee, as it could happen in
1976, because the very investigation demonstrated that it is not I who provokes those
grave events; but that does not prevent my human behaviour in front of them....
whether it were some family problem or certain events that move the whole
humanity...
The questioning I receive to this , from the religious point of view ( I am not a member
of any religion, but I respect all of them) , is that we should not or can not intervene
in changing the future ( and why not the past?) . I consider that we provoke it
most of the time unconsciously (making use of the supposed “free will” which we were
given) and I would like to use it employing a scientific method. This is not penalized
by “God” ( Mentioned only in this way, without clearing the concept , so that nobody
feels hurt) and we must lose the fear that was imposed upon us to handle us like a
“pack of sheep”.
I am a lover of LIGHT. I would like to be able to leave the cave and destroy the myth
of all the hidden things that there are around these topics, with manifest ends of not,
but unluckily I do not have the necessary economic means as to finance such a project
which would require an interdisciplinary team.
Julio Monsech*
vector@axial.com.ar
Age: 53 years old.
Profession: Electrotechnician.
Company manager with 30 years’ experience.
Owner of a technological enterprise ( www.axial.com.ar) and more that 20 years
as enterprise trade union leader.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Parallel universes, the Matrix, and superintelligence
|
|
|
|
Don't try just to understand, try to relate to whatever you try to understand, relate on some subjective level. If you back analyze, all discoveries were made this way and afterwards they were proven through some logic or experiment, but not the other way around.
Universe evolves in a ways of subjective awareness, so is the progressive thought.
If you fight that or try to disproof, you merely limit yourself to mediocrity. Mediocrity don't fly they crawl because they can never tune into the right channel, therefore is chronically wrong even when they sound right.
OOps, another paradox...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Parallel universes, the Matrix, and superintelligence
|
|
|
|
I agree.,,,,
I think all you under-grads should experiment with your minds.....in whatever means you're comfortable with. (sleep deprivation, drugs, meditation, fasting, etc...)
If you don't stir the solution, well, you know.
I think this is an interesting interview, and I think Michio Kaku
made some compelling points.
In all truth, none of us mortals will see the true "reality" of being. Physical reality will never be fully defined.
Life itself is unexplainable, mind even more so. Understanding the Cosmos even more daunting. Use all the numbers you want...explain your reality. I think the Multiverse idea makes the most sense. None of you nerds can proove otherwise
I also like the use of !!!! to make a point in a scientific debate. And the lack of spell check rules too.
good luck with those #'s
p.s. agnosic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Parallel universes, the Matrix, and superintelligence: SEACH COSMOLOGY VEDAS-INTERLINKS
|
|
|
|
After going through all the arguments in this post:Parallel Universe,Matrix and Super-Intelligence, I am posting these two again which answers most of the arguments
THE ORIGINS need to be searched with comprehension through Vedas and Indian Philosophy.
Best of the Scientific community are welcome to organise EAST-WEST interaction for Science to advance to next dimenson of Knowledge and cannot remain stagnant while SCIENCE IS AT CROSS ROADS
and COSMOLOGY UNDER REVISION
POST I>
Subject:
COSMIC FUNCTION OF THE UNIVERSE
(REPRODUCED FROM VEDIC VISION OF THE UNIVERSE BY DR. VIDYARDHI NANDURI -1996)
DEFNITION
An undefined Universe lands in confusion and utter chaos.
This confusion leads to imagination eg. Fire ball. Radiation, Cooling,Gravity, Inflation,10^12 degrees in a shade, frozen states and even run away prophecies.
Philosophers also need to specify where and how science can advance.
Here is an exercise to define the Cosmic function of the Universe (by Dr.
VIDYARDHI NANDURI) with 50 principles that may form a link to the 28 flows of
the 7 dimensional Cosmic Universe.
This Cosmic function identified through the Hindu Philosophy should help
complete comprehension.
(Note :The subject is covered in Three-stages STAGE I (1 to 16), STAGE II
(17 to 30), STAGE III(31 to 50).
S T A G E – I
The Universe operates through orderliness, but not chaos. (Dharma)
The Universe operates under a Process (Yajna).
The Universe operates through Divine Cosmic flow shining Principle. (Param
Jyoti)
The Universe is regulated by Cosmic Fields.
The Cosmic flow and the Cosmic Fields operate together in alignment under Cosmic
Source.
The Cosmic Source directs the Fields and flows.
The Cosmic Universe is Self - contained.
It is out of this Cosmic Self - Contained Energy Universe emerges a self- contained known Universe as Part and Parcel.
The observations are limited to one fourth part of the Cosmic Universe.
The Divine Principles and a Human Being in depth need to operate under aligned
Cosmic Flows.
A Human Being in depth is a micro - cosmic manifestation of the Macro
- Cosmic Universe directed by divine conscious SOUL.
A Human Being on Earth in Solar System is part of Galactic Home : Extend the vision beyond.
Extend the vision inwards
READ FURTHER IN MY BOOKS
All Books : http://www.ebookomatic.com/publish/AuthorLibrary.a sp?Aid=241
COSMOLOGY VEDAS-PUBLICITY : http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?Ebook Id=1019
II.
COSMOLOGY STRUCTURES-NEW MODELLING
Vidyardhi Nanduri
Cosmology Research Center, Vikaspuri, Hyderabad 500038, India.
Abstract.
The Cosmology research is aimed to locate or arrive at the drive junction
points for the following (1) Solar-planetary search around 100 AU beyond Sun to
locate regions with 1000 times the intensity of the Sun, (2) Milky-way Galaxy
search around 103 parsec with index through any spherical disk Galactic region,
(3) Inter-Galactic region search for groups of 12 or multiples with neutral
flows as index and (4) Cosmic flow stable regions. This paper describes new
approaches in Cosmology Modeling that helps to interpret HST and Explorer data
with a new vision. The basis of this approach is outlined through several
research reports earlier by the author
References:
1.Vidyardhi Nanduri.,1993, Report -Plasma Vision of the Universe, TXU 729-718,
© 1999, USA.
2.Vidyardhi Nanduri.,1995, Report- Vision of Cosmic to Plasma Regulated
Electro-Magnetic (PREM) Universe, TXU 893-693 © 1999, USA.
3.Vidyardhi Nanduri, 2000, Report- Cosmic Consciousness to Cosmology Revision,
TXU 982-559 © 2000, USA.
4.Colloquim on the age of the Universe, Dark matter and structure formation vol
95, No.1, 6th Jan, 1998Proceedings of National Academy of Science, 1998
NOTES: Paper presented at Carnegie Centennial Symposium-3,Jan 2003
The Structure -Fig 1 helps entire COSMOS Projection
Research 2003(V Nanduri) :
http://www.ociw.edu/ociw/symposia/series/symposium 3/proceedings.html
ADDITIONAL NOTES: JULY 2006
COSMOLOGY ROUTES must be self-evident through projections.
search: Cosmology Interlinks
All Books : http://www.ebookomatic.com/publish/AuthorLibrary.a sp?Aid=241
COSMOLOGY VEDAS-PUBLICITY : http://www.buymyebook.com/buy/authorinfo.asp?Ebook Id=1019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Parallel universes, the Matrix, and superintelligence
|
|
|
|
I found "the the goal is to find an equation, perhaps no more than one inch long" and put it on a t-shirt, a button, and a lunch box (the first two for sale). It is:
Jq - Jm = Box^2 A
where Jq is the electric current density, Jm is the mass current density in the same units, Box^2 is two covariant derivatives applied to a 4-potential. This is a butt load of math behind this claim, something like a 5 hour monologue of partial differential equations, or a 30 page Mathematica notebook.
Here's the big picture - no math - view.
The Universe, being you-cannot-comprehend-it old at 13.6 billion years has to do nothing to last that long. To a darn good approximation, nothing does happen in the Universe. The problem is that there is other stuff in the Universe. So the word problem translates to this: "What math should one use to do in spacetime that is the closest thing to doing nothing?". There is an answer, it is called a slinky (for those into jargon, a 4D simple harmonic oscillator). It is accepted by the physics community that the transverse wiggle is about light. Right now, I am bowling alone with the idea that the other wiggles (time-like and longitudinal) do the work of gravity. I think all the pins are going to go down: no need for ten or eleven dimensions, a new stable constant velocity solution eliminates the need for dark matter, inertial mass breaks gauge symmetry of the standard model so no Higgs is needed, the vacuum equations are linear so Einstein's field equations - useful all this time - are not right and any work on black holes is wrong. That is about as obnoxious as it gets, oh well, the Universe will get along fine, doing almost nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
