Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
"Have the courage to open your mind and to see the world through new eyes, and what will unfurl before you will surely change your life!"
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
[*1] [A,C,G, and T are the four nucleic-acid bases that make up our DNA. The A stands for Adenine and pairs with the T, which stands for Thymine. The C stands for Cytosine and pairs with the G, Guanine. These four nucleic acids are the building blocks of our genetic code, or DNA. ACGU are the four amino acids that make up our RNA. RNA pairs up like DNA, except Thymine is replaced by the nucleic acid Uracil.]
[*2] [We do know that there is the possibility for inorganic life. Consider the strange but true case of The Gold Bug, 'no not the story by Edgar Alan Poe' but the gold eating microbial space-worm found by a NASA engineer known to eat thermal sensors on space-station equipment. There have been countless wires and components replaced because of this strange microscopic metal eater, that lives in the vacuum of space.]
Monday, May 11, 2009
This video does an excellent job explaining the concepts of quantum entanglement, superposition, pre and post detection of quantum scale objects.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
* Third degree simulism should be possible by the manipulation of photons of light into subatomic particles (in the quantum scale) then manipulating the subatomic particles into the larger-scale structures of physical matter. This process could also be possible by manipulation of existing matter and ambient energy via scalar wave technology, however this could destroy the original source of that matter, it would be lost in the translation.
* It should be noted that it might be necessary for a continuous "feed" of the simulation to be generated for the object to exist over time. In other words, if the generative system or device were to be shut off, then the object could vanish, just like on a holodeck.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
(taken from CERN press release)
"Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee (left) and early web pioneer Robert Cailliau stand on either side of the NeXT computer that acted as the word's first web server.
Geneva, 13 March 2009. Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee returned to the birthplace of his invention today, 20 years after submitting his paper ‘Information Management: A Proposal’ to his boss Mike Sendall. By writing the words ‘Vague, but exciting’ on the document’s cover, and giving Berners-Lee the go-ahead to continue, Sendall was signing into existence the information revolution of our times: the World Wide Web. In September of the following year, Berners-Lee took delivery of a computer called a NeXT cube, and by December the Web was up and running, albeit between just a couple of computers at CERN1.
Today’s event takes a look back at some of the early history, and pre-history, of the World Wide Web at CERN, includes a keynote speech from Tim Berners-Lee, and concludes with a series of talks from some of today’s Web pioneers. The full event will be webcast at http://webcast.cern.ch, and relayed via http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/endirect/0,,4301948,00-les-20-ans-du-web-edition-speciale-.html. Highlights will be available to broadcasters via a Eurovision worldfeed scheduled for 19:00CET (http://www.eurovision.net/net/content/worldfeeds.php).
“It’s a pleasure to be back at CERN today,” said Berners-Lee. “CERN has come a long way since 1989, and so has the Web, but its roots will always be here.”
The World Wide Web is undoubtedly the most well known spin-off from CERN, but it’s not the only one. Technologies developed at CERN have found applications in domains as varied as solar energy collection and medical imaging.
“When CERN scientists find a technological hurdle in the way of their ambitions, they have a tendency to solve it,” said CERN Director General Rolf Heuer. “I’m pleased to say that the spirit of innovation that allowed Tim Berners-Lee to invent the Web at CERN, and allowed CERN to nurture it, is alive and well today.”
1. CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, is the world's leading laboratory for particle physics. It has its headquarters in Geneva. At present, its Member States are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. India, Israel, Japan, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, Turkey, the European Commission and UNESCO have Observer status."
Have you ever read any Lewis Carroll? Well, you really should! He is and always will be known primarily for the twin works "Alice's Adventures In Wonderland," and "Through The Looking-Glass And What Alice Found There." I would like to call the reader's attention to the following passage, to be found within "Through The Looking-Glass..." Chapter V, entitled "Wool and Water ~40th page in. The White Queen (who is precisely one-hundred and one years, five months and one day old) explains to Alice that people that live there (on the other side of the mirror) live their lives backwards. They remember events on both sides of the time continuum as well as experiencing the present. Alice asks the Queen which events she remembers best, to which she replies, events that take place about a week and a half from now. Alice remarks that her memory only works in one direction, backwards into the past. The Queen finds this to be a curious malady, and tells Alice that her memory is certainly flawed!
I find this section of "Through The Looking-Glass" to be particularly telling. Carroll was clearly pointing to the limitations of mankind's most trusted mental resource, his memory. In order for one to remember the future one must first have the means to do so. Given the practical means to do so and the opportunity, one would "recall" events from one of their possible futures. The act of seeing initiates the shift into that set of future events. That previous passage (as well as the whole of the Alice-Looking-glass saga) has widely been judged to be deterministic. It's concept of free will being severely stunted and warped, gives it a dreamlike quality. Time is strangely reversed, at least in some ways. The events and outcomes (many times occurring prior to their own causes) are not really under personal control, so much as that they are being acted out as a preexisting "play." (Remember that "hard determinism" has close ties with the concept of "fate," as it connects every event with an unbroken chain of past events, reducing or eliminating the possibility of the emergence of free will.) I didn't take away this same reaction to the logic of the Wonderland saga, rather that certain chaotic logic "wonderland logic" as well as different initial conditions could be in play. It would be possible that the concept of free will dominates this kind of system, in as much as it appears in several instances that the actors are envisioning the events into reality. They appear to be manifesting their destiny, albeit from a rather detached or unconscious means. You may recall that metaphysics regards this phenomenon as natural and inherent in all complex living systems, like the one we live one. It would see this kind of action as being part of "The Law of Attraction." (This is an odd little Law which explains that all actions and conditions arise out of the innate functions of consciousness and conscious thought or movement.) Thus things, events and actions are attracted into being by the "thinker" who then experiences them as a reality. This theory would say that the act of prediction or forecasting is also the act of intentional manifesting.
So what would the act of remembering the future really entail? Would you be in the act of manifesting from an imagined future? Would you be realizing a predetermined path through a strictly deterministic system? If the latter and not the former were true, then the most logical conclusion as to why we do not remember the future would be that it would drive us all mad! If the future were "solid" and strictly deterministic in nature, one could argue that the system had (at least on some levels) already been "played out." To know what would happen, to play your part, and to not have any volition, no personal control of that system or your role in that play, would certainly prove to be unbareable! (Maybe thats why we cant remember our future - because we need to forget it, in order to function as we should, to play our part as we should, as we will.)
Of course MWI cosmology should not support the previous set of options. It should dictate that the knower of future events would simply be privy to the events within other universes (which held a time-positive value to that of their own) so that looking into them, would be very much like looking into the future of their own world. We can add in the concept of strict determinism if we like, achieving a set of universes each with its own unique "play script" and with its own predetermined outcomes. (We could call the outcomes of such a universe its empty set, as it describes the end state of equilibrium for that system.) We can also add in an element of the Law of Attraction by saying that in that universe's events would arise out of the act of viewing events of other universes and focusing on them, thus shifting into that new reality. The previous reality would really describe an entire reality system housed within a multiverse, and not one finite universe. It should also be held that a strictly deterministic system could not be compatible with one that is infused with The Law of Attraction.
Some questions to consider?
1.) Why do we not remember the future?
2.) Why do we remember the past?
3.) How do we remember the past, what functions allow us to store and access these events? (The same kind of automatic process should allow us to remember the future, should it not?)
Illustration by: John Tenniel (1863)
Literature by: CL Dodgeson, A.K.A. Lewis Carroll (1863)
Friday, April 3, 2009
* It is important to understand that the term "foreign," as I have used above, is intended to describe the degree to which the (newly) observed universe's initial conditions deviate from those of the observer's universe of origin. Any other effects that have occurred due to chance (or since the formation of the observed universe) should not and will not affect the observer's reality concept or their ability to function within any given universe. It would affect the observer's specific experience with that universe. Imagine a world where planet Earth was ruled by telepathic spiders, alterations in evolution of a worldline from that of our own worldline's history should significantly change one's viewing experience.
Monday, March 30, 2009
[Some people will disagree with the use of terms like Omniverse and multiverse, saying that the term "universe" "uni" meaning one and "verse" meaning word, implies that that "one-word" is as all inclusive a term as we need to use. This view and terminology is fine, unless you want to explain the larger concepts of MWI. An infinite universe would work just fine as long as it was truly infinite "enough" so that all possible outcomes and all possible interactions could take place somewhere or somewhen within that one universe.]
These similar universes need not appear so much the same (at least considering their appearance) some planets might be missing or out of place, some might be unusual additions. The laws, and the way that everything functioned would be very much the same. It can be said (with more than a little certainty) that the initial conditions and the act of the universe's creation should contribute that universe's laws and the way that it functions all at the same time. A twin or sibling universe to our own might look like our universe down to even the species of grass growing on (what might be your "twin's" front lawn,) but subtle and not so subtle changes would inevitably occur as random outcomes gave way to alternate historical time-lines. Hitler might have teamed up with Mexico and South American forces, winning the second world war, or maybe WWII never even occurred! I have noted before that some universes should not hold our same initial conditions, and would thus be grouped into a different set of universes outside of our Multiverse. It is important to remember though, that this designation is purely one of categorization. There is no reason why these universes (with different initial conditions and laws) could not exist right next to or even right on top of one another, possibly sharing the same physical space or containing gateways in and out of one another. Many current cosmologists view the MWI model to suggest that each universe is contained within some kind of cosmic "soap bubble." Since we have not even the means to suggest how we can leave our own universe, or manage to see it from a greater vantage point, this "bubble concept" will have to remain a logical supposition. In the blog entitled "...world without end..." I discussed the idea that whatever the state of the greater cosmos may be, the end result must logically be an infinite in time and space larger "whole." This all inclusive, all containing "whole" I refer to as the Omniverse, a staggering concept that contains (as the picture in MWI diagram shows) all worlds in all universes, across all time and space. This Omniverse is infinite in every way. Logic tells us that beyond the boundary of the larger container lies something, that something must be contained by something else, and so on and so on, ad infinitum. An ancient philosopher once asked, if a man threw a spear, and were able to continue to do so on and on, where would the end be? If that spear were a spaceship traveling in hyperspace (far faster than the speed of light) where should it end? The answer is the same. There can be no end, for the Omniverse is infinite in both every quality and every quantity, it is the sum total of all existence and all non-existence!
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Erwin Schrodinger helped to pioneer the field of quantum mechanics during the 1920's, when it was still in its proverbial infancy. One of the unique ideas attributed to Schrodinger is his equation concerning the evolution of quantum states within physical systems. (Schrodinger's famous equation) Schrodinger's theories would later become some of the basic building blocks of Quantum Mechanics. At the time Schrodinger probably didn't realize that he would be remembered for a strange little thought experiment he worked out in 1935, (Schrodinger's Cat Paradox.) In which a cat is placed into a sealed box for a given length of time. Inside the box is a device containing a radioactive isotope and a trigger mechanism. If the isotope decays spontaneously (as they sometimes do) then the trigger is tripped and allows a hammer to drop onto a glass vial of poison. Once the poison has been spilled the box will flood with toxic fumes, instantly killing the cat, as seen in the above diagram. His big question: At a given time, without opening or looking into the box, what is the state of the cat? The cat is part of a physical system (essentially a closed system) which is either a lethal or a non-lethal environment depending on the quantum state of the isotope-trigger mechanism and the corresponding poison-release mechanism at that exact time.
The common sense answer is that the cat can only be in one of three states, dead or alive or somewhere in the process of dying (easy enough.) Quantum Mechanics, (notably Schrodinger's equation) says that the answer isn't that simple. As with much of QM, things tend to go from weird to weirder to weirdest - this is no exception. After a given length of time has progressed, the cat is said to be both dead and alive at the same time! It is then the act of opening the box and observing the cat that brings about the observable state of the cat. This same act takes place whenever we peer into the subatomic world of the electron, or view the "Color Phi Phenomenon" or the famous "Double Slit Experiment." We are experiencing the strange yet ordinary world of quantum states within physical systems, as they evolve over time.
It is important to remember that this experiment did not take into consideration Bryce Seligman DeWitt - Hugh Everett's MWI of QM. Instead this experiment sought to describe the events of the system in the terms of a more classical view of QM. MWI was initially rejected by mainstream physics in favor of more classical Newtonian physics and its related theories. It is important to note that the laws of "classical" or "Newtonian physics" do not hold up when applied to systems within the quantum scale. Strangely enough, objects and systems that are this small have their own set of unique laws which govern behavior of particles and systems. It is for this reason that QM emerged in the first place, to explain these new troublesome questions and paradoxes. So what does the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) of QM have to say about the Schrodinger's Cat Experiment? MWI would say that 1.) there are more than just the one cat and system involved, 2.) the cats and systems exist within an infinite system (we can call that the "omniverse,") 3.) the cats and their systems exist in an infinite number of states within that infinite super-system - at least one experimental cat per universe or "world-line" exists in one definite state (dead, alive, dying, zombie, mutant, slightly sick, happy, sleepy, confused, enlightened or non-existent.) The previous list is meant to be slightly humorous, but you get the picture right? Sometimes the cat changes color, sometimes it was never there in the first place, sometimes the experimenter becomes the cat, sometimes it vanishes into a puff of smoke and sometimes that little hammer doesn't break the glass vial of poison. Why so many crazy options to choose from? Because this group of cats exists in universes where all those things are possible, even one where the cat mutates, grows to the size of a lion and eats the observer before they can even know what has hit them. Universes where these "novel" effects frequently take place might simply have a different set of physical laws governing the discreet action of particles or Newtonian physics may be completely re-written. It is likely that we in this universe share some degree of these strange effects with all others. It is also likely that the laws which govern our own universe exist (at least in some fashion) within others. This is a thought experiment (largely because a real experiment would be difficult, and probably toxic to cats) but even if it were a "real" experiment, we could expect to see these kinds of results to occur across the infinite omniverse we live in. I'm not usually a betting man, but the universe I live in is only slightly random, with fairly predictable laws (at least on the Newtonian scale.) I don't often witness Tabby cats growing into lions and eating people, but I am not willing to throw out the possibility that somewhere out there it does happen. Because I do not witness it does not make it any less possible. After all, stranger things happen all around us everyday!
The sooner you begin to view the universe around you as a strange and sometimes random environment, the easier it becomes to learn about the very odd world of Quantum Physics and its Many Worlds Interpretation. The sooner you learn about MWI and QM, the sooner you become ready for the dawn of the Quantum Age.
(portion below from Wikipedia free online encyclopedia) of Erwin Schrodinger's Equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation#General_quantum_system
General quantum system
For a general quantum system:
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
"Geneva, 9 February 2009. CERN1 management today confirmed the restart schedule for the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) resulting from the recommendations from last week’s Chamonix workshop. The new schedule foresees first beams in the LHC at the end of September this year, with collisions following in late October. A short technical stop has also been foreseen over the Christmas period. The LHC will then run through to autumn next year, ensuring that the experiments have adequate data to carry out their first new physics analyses and have results to announce in 2010. The new schedule also permits the possible collisions of lead ions in 2010.
In Chamonix there was consensus among all the technical specialists that the new schedule is tight but realistic." (From CERN website press release) http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2009/PR02.09E.html
Monday, February 9, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Perhaps if we plug in the element of consciousness into the equations of the universe, things might make more sense. When we run into problems, paradoxes or conundrums it usually a flaw in our perception or understanding that quickly resolves the matter. It took us many centuries to realize the the world was round, rotated around the sun and was one of many other heavenly bodies. Once we recognize the fact that consciousness is linked to both matter and energy, as the third primordial element then the problem of measurement makes sense, and the long battled arguments over dualism become resolved. We are forced to admit that we are inexorably linked to the systems we reside in, if our consciousness were removed from this universe (this world) it would be different because of our departure. If all consciousness were to disappear, the universe would collapse and disintegrate. We are made out of a complex process that temporarily fuses these three elements together. As conscious beings we are part of the system we are trying to understand and observe, this is bound to cause some difficulty. How are we to gain the lofty vantage point by which we might see clearly the world we live in? The Measurement Problem isn't really a problem at all! It is one of the many sign-posts pointing to the solution, (a solution I am confident will one day free mankind from the world and existence we now live in.)