Showing posts with label Symmetry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Symmetry. Show all posts

Thursday, May 08, 2014

Death is Not Final

You all have to know the hammer analogy was made aware to me about a week before this debate took place. Also,  a YouTube label given to this demonstration was posted under "gaming" so I find that kind of funny given the seriousness of this debate.



I pushed Number 1.  But, you also know my bias right so I did not think providing this image would hurt in an way given that you already have some insight into my perspective? My opinion at Sean's Blog as well pertaining to this subject.

So as I am going through the debate I thought it necessary to keep a running tab for my self so as to see from what position one is speaking.  So now that I know Sean is speaking from a Naturalist point of view. I will continue.

A metaphysics that goes beyond the commitments of science is simply unsupported by the best available evidence.[27]
—Lynne Rudder Baker, Naturalism and the First-Person Perspective

 A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method.
— Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, (Routledge, 2002), pp. 52–53, ISBN 0-415-27844-9.

Okay I am at 36:58 of the video so I have had the opportunity to listen to the four speakers. I have to say oh my gosh, there is a lot here to consider, and a lot I have already considered. So I need to respond to that first part of the video.

As life calls us to do our things in the day to day, I also have a schedule today, so this posting will be broken up in terms of my response as to the first part of the video. Please be patient. It also gives me time to think about what has been said.

I want to open with the quote Sean responded too, of Eben Alexanders of Einstein. So give me time to drawn this comment out of Eben's book.

A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks  should be. -Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

I am still ay 36:58 so I needed to finish what  what I have surmised in that first part so I can go on with the video. Below is something that I had written to my Aunt,  so hope she is okay with me repeating it here.  You will see that entry below. It basically sums up the first part of the debate for me.

As I was finishing listening to Steven Novella speak, the quote of Einstein, now gotten from Eben's book, Proof of Heaven under Prologue,  and response given by Sean Carroll was a matter of fact to the whole first part to me as it was for Sean to Eben's Alexanders use of the quote.

Something also interesting to me was Sean's admittance of wanting to believe (that death is not final) but at this point not being able too.That said a lot to me, and in the aspect of being a scientist,  I believe what he is saying.:) So I will continue on with the rest of the video now.

***
 In a note to my Aunt.

Hi Aunt Celine,

 I am a bit of a science buff when it comes to what is currently happening in science. I too had been reading about the NDE for quite a long time as well. Moody agrees with you, about science not quite ready. Since I have studied other aspects of consciousness research, it is my hope that one day we will understand this debate, as a recognition of who we all are as spiritual beings, in a physical body.

What Moody proposes is the beginning of a true dialogue based on logic and reason, and these stem from philosophy. So it is important to see the discussion in terms of where this dialogue can truly begin. Moody mentions pseudoscience and from that, his journey through philosophy. He is trying to set up a credible debate.

 I read Eben Alexander's book as well so I knew where he was coming from, as well I have been following Sean Carroll's science for sometime now. The only one that was sort of new to me was that Steve Novella, and as a neuroscientist, I am open to what he has to say. I must say then I am also a bit of philosopher that has had me venturing through aspect and developments about the Mind/ body debate that is going on, and that is where the science is saying that it is based on materialism. On my own, I have studied Plato and other philosophers.

 In order to accept materialism one has to believe, that consciousness is derived from the brain, while the other perspective is that the brain in my view, is what consciousness uses while the body is alive, but that consciousness can exist, once our body dies. That understanding is in contradiction to what science saids today, but I am saying to science, that they indeed do not have all the facts to make this conclusion even though they can simulate experience from manipulating the physical aspects of the body to produce the near death experience.

Religion has not helped me and I must say, that my upbringing within the Catholic Church has left much for me say, about its patriarchal construct, and how it falls short of providing support for what spiritual means to me. I hope you are not offended.

I do believe in a higher power, and I do believe that Heaven is capable in all of us now. In my education, I might of called it Symmetry, in the very beginning, and science has something to say about that. While I have a real study in reductionism, the work that has been going on, I believe eventually it will lead to an understanding within science, but it has to be developed, and in my view Moody's philosophical standpoint, is where we will start.

***

So I finished the rest of the video last night. There were somethings that were quite memorable to me that stood out.I wanted to quickly move to the end of the debate where each had an opportunity as they did in the beginning to give their last assessment as to why Death is Final, or not.

I was more focused on Sean's response and reiteration of respect for people and their beliefs. This was important to me. When Moody spoke of the work that he had been doing for the last forty years with regard to NDEs and the listening to people about these experiences, these were genuine stories of,  "Death was not Final"  for Moody. I was encouraged by the votes last night, not for which side supposedly won, but by the uncertainty(final 12%) as to the question of what remains as a definitive, as to Death is Final. These shows to me that people in the end still do not know, and that,  they could not be decisive. This to me,  leaves room for work to be done.

I also liked Sean Carroll's response too,  the responsibility of acceptance as to how one may look at life given the perspective of responsibility he has having accepted his position on Death is Final. Of course he might used,  when he was a child, as one might use as Moody did, as was his thrust to understand astronomy.

I believe this to be sincere, and such a question about death that would come to all in the child's mind, a determiner of what the future would bring for him as he sat on that panel. Not so much as a Skeptic full blooded, so as to be glib with the response of,  as if Steve Novella was the amazing Randi and waited for the bet that has not been collected. :) But to remain open, as the undecided results spoke toward, as if,  more information would be needed to make a final definitive statement.

So anyway, another moment stood out in regard to Sean Carroll's response to a woman about where the energy goes once we die. His analogy of a flame going out was like the hammer statement used above, as used in the repertoire of such a question about energy and death. What I liked about the response, was as to where it put the woman in mind. If you have ever come to the point of a logical constructive immobilizing one's position, as it was on the face this woman wore,  as to where the woman could go next. That final deductive state is an important one to me.

I have much more to say about reductionism and how that research is important to me as if the table would be permanent as the atom that make it up, would be a table ad infinitive. So as sure as, matter in all it's constitutions have been described, as to say I am pointing right a it?:) We are not objects like the table. The analogy of the narrative is always important as it is spoken, and as subjective and alone as it might seem there is the greater picture of the story of the NDEr.

I must say too, that the idea of reductionism as much as materialism, causes flinches in those who speak about spiritual things, would make one from that side speak about what is not reducible?  Since energy is an important topic and how we use configuration space to surmise  it's existence,  it becomes a classification of matter. I would assume there is much still to be ascertained.  I read the blogs of other scientists who are at the front with questions phenomenologically expressed that want to see where the science goes next. Just as we have been taken t the limits of where the identification of the Higg's operates and what that energy range is.


Sunday, February 09, 2014

What is Beauty in a Abstract World?

 Pierre Curie (1894): “Asymmetry is what creates a phenomenon.”

This has been of some interest to me as this issue is explained.  I can see where such abstraction when not in some way connected to the real world would to one seem as if it is a dry unimaginative world,  just moving through qualitative functions. It has to mean something more, doesn't it?

Pauli understood that physics necessarily gives an incomplete view of nature, and he was looking for an extended scientific framework. However, the fact that the often colloquial and speculative style of his letters is in striking contrast to his careful and refined publications should advise us to act with caution. His accounts are extremely stimulating, but they should be considered as first groping attempts rather than definitive proposals. See: Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science

Held in context we trust that the philosophical basis is understood as it is being represented in today's world of science. This position with what is self evident must be correlated between theory and physics. So,  I wanted to point to something quite significant for the dry and death forborne mathematician who finds no correlates in the real world. Just goading.

Many prediction-making abilities are low-level and innate. We might say that trees \predict" the arrival of winter and decide to shed their leaves, for example. But in discussing the sense of beauty we are dealing with something that is uniquely human, or nearly See: Whence the Beauty of Mathematics?

It has not past my attention that Beauty is described as not being significant by some of these mathematicians who find no value to it. It means nothing? But for a minute,  think, that if supersymmetry is not established,  then does this in some way reduce the effectiveness of math to explain the symmetrical nature of reality? Should we try to describe these abstract things as being less then beautiful? What use then "any language" that is established,  from that math?

Professor Gates,  what would happen with the beauty of the Adinkra?

***

See Also:

Friday, December 13, 2013

Symmetry Breaking and the Crab Nebula

The connection between superfluidity and symmetry breaking has had a glorious history. It has left us a rich legacy of fertile ideas, that seems far from exhaustion. PG 60 Superfluidity and Symmetry Breaking
You know while there have been processes unfolding with regard to supersymmetry, for the life of it,  I am having a hard time ever denying to myself that the result of any beginning had to have some emergent feature that arose from the very nature of the big bang itself.



So to then, one may see some signs in a biological sense,  as to the nature of evolution? So,  that all things can be defined in this way. But the issue then for me is how "information can exist, " so as to say that such a direction for that evolution,  as an emergent product,  must have some location with which such presence makes itself know(far left of the picture above)? Sure,  because of my ignorance, I would be asking how such information could have ever come into being so as to say that this universe is the one with which such expressions came to be, so I accept the universe as it is.

Click on image above and you create a larger view of a microscopic world

So to then,  for such a gap to exist.  I was most certainly thinking about the LHC's use with which such reductionism were being taken.  I was looking for such signatures as to wonder that if such a location is found then(QGP),  so we could say indeed,  the beginning of the universe, and the correlation drawn,  as to the ever reducibility pursuit as some relation to nature?


The Crab Nebula, created by a supernova seen nearly a thousand years ago, is one of the sky's most famous "star wrecks." For decades, most astronomers have regarded it as the steadiest beacon at X-ray energies, but data from orbiting observatories show unexpected variations. Since 2008, it has faded by 7 percent, activity likely tied to the environment around its central neutron star. (Video Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center)


Cosmologically it had to make sense too. So I  looked at events in the cosmos to help me understand what it is that was created in the moments we align ourselves too,as  in the LHC. While I looked at the picture(jet development and expression) above as to the timing with which such a environment, it is now reduced too, the Crab Nebula in its design. Would you deny the Crab Nebula had a previous showing with which the jets them self began to emerge?

An example then exists for me as to how such contributions that could arise in any nebula could have ever contributed to the way the universe is,  and if all such contributions taken to the same question,  helps to define the universe in ways that were preceded . Where that nature of the information is to reside.

So while we had found our limits with regard to Planck scale,  it is thought to me that such a symmetry had exist,  that all forms of that symmetry expresses itself as a forming dualistic nature,  for a symmetry breaking to exist,  and for such a division to take place from such a perfect place.

Tuesday, October 01, 2013

Abdus Salam Movie – The Dream of Symmetry



The movie presents the extraordinary figure of Abdus Salam of Pakistan, who not only was an outstanding scientist but also a generous humanitarian and a valuable person. His rich and busy life was an endless quest for symmetry, that he pursued in the universe of physical laws and in the world of human beings.See:Abdus Salam Movie – The Dream of Symmetry


See Also:

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

A Visual Correlation to Symmetry Breaking

"Symmetry breaking illustrated": – At high energy levels (left) the ball settles in the center, and the result is symmetrical. At lower energy levels (right), the overall "rules" remain symmetrical, but the "Mexican hat" potential comes into effect: "local" symmetry inevitably becomes broken since eventually the ball must roll one way (at random) and not another.

The Standard Model hypothesizes a field which is responsible for this effect, called the Higgs field (symbol: \phi), which has the unusual property of a non-zero amplitude in its ground state; i.e., a non-zero vacuum expectation value. It can have this effect because of its unusual "Mexican hat" shaped potential whose lowest "point" is not at its "centre". Below a certain extremely high energy level the existence of this non-zero vacuum expectation spontaneously breaks electroweak gauge symmetry which in turn gives rise to the Higgs mechanism and triggers the acquisition of mass by those particles interacting with the field. This effect occurs because scalar field components of the Higgs field are "absorbed" by the massive bosons as degrees of freedom, and couple to the fermions via Yukawa coupling, thereby producing the expected mass terms. In effect when symmetry breaks under these conditions, the Goldstone bosons that arise interact with the Higgs field (and with other particles capable of interacting with the Higgs field) instead of becoming new massless particles, the intractable problems of both underlying theories "neutralise" each other, and the residual outcome is that elementary particles acquire a consistent mass based on how strongly they interact with the Higgs field. It is the simplest known process capable of giving mass to the gauge bosons while remaining compatible with gauge theories.[79] Its quantum would be a scalar boson, known as the Higgs boson.[80]

The potential for the Higgs field, plotted as function of \phi^0 and \phi^3. It has a Mexican-hat or champagne-bottle profile at the ground.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

CERN NEWS : LHCb announces new results in matter-antimatter asymmetry


Matter and antimatter are thought to have existed in equal amounts at the beginning of the universe, but today the universe appears to be composed essentially of matter. By studying subtle differences in the behaviour of particle and antiparticles, experiments at the LHC are seeking to cast light on this dominance of matter over antimatter. Now the LHCb experiment has observed a preference for matter over antimatter known as CP-violation in the decay of neutral B0s particles, read more: http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates...



See Also:

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Supersymmetry

Image: Event display of candidate event for this ultra-rare decay observed in the LHCb experiment
Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, near Geneva, have spotted one of the rarest particle decays ever seen in nature. The result is very damaging to new theories like the extremely popular Supersymmetry (or SUSY for short).

Current knowledge about the most fundamental matter particles (quarks and leptons, such as an electron) and the forces between them is embedded in the so-called Standard Model. The particle masses are a consequence of their interactions with the Higgs field. Exciting the Higgs field in particle collisions at the LHC recently resulted in the discovery of the Higgs boson.

However, the Standard Model is not the ultimate theory; it does not include gravity nor explain 95% of the Universe, which is in the form of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.  See:
SUPERSYMMETRY SQUEEZED AS  LHC SPOTS ULTRA RARE PARTICLE DECAY

Monday, July 16, 2012

Where is Our Starting Point?



"The end he (the artist) strives for is something else than a perfectly executed print. His aim is to depict dreams, ideas, or problems in such a way that other people can observe and consider them." - M.C. Escher


Can you trace the patterns in nature toward matter manifestations?


To them, I said,
the truth would be literally nothing
but the shadows of the images.
-Plato, The Republic (Book VII)

The idea here is about how one's observation and model perceptions arises from some ordered perspective. Some use a starting point as an assumption of position. Do recognize "the starting point" in the previous examples?

 Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Indentity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano


In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. It is entwined with a grand set of concerns, one famously encapsulated in an 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? "Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?"


The effective realization that particle constructs are somehow smaller windows of a much larger perspective fails to take in account this idea that I am expressing as a foundational approach to that starting point.




If you do not go all the way toward defining of that "point of equilibrium" how are you to understand how information is easily transferred to the individual from a much larger reality of existence? One would assume information is all around us? That there are multitudes of pathways that allow us to arrive at some some probability density configuration as some measure of an Pascalian ideal.

Of course there are problems with this in terms of our defining a heat death in individuals?

That's not possible so one is missing the understanding here about equilibrium. I might have said we are positional in terms of the past and the future with regard to memory and the anticipated future? How is that heat death correlated? It can't.

So you have to look for examples in relation to how one may arrive at that beginning point. Your theory may not be sufficiently dealing with the information as it is expressed in terms of your approach to the small window?

There are mathematical inspections here that have yet to be associated with more then discrete functions of reality as expressive building blocks of interpretation. The basic assumption of discrete function still exists in contrast to continuity of expression. This is the defining realization in assuming the model that MBT provides. I have meet the same logic in the differences of scientific approach toward the definition of what is becoming?

On the one hand, a configuration space as demonstrated by Tom that is vastly used in science. On the other, a recognition of how thick in measure viscosity is realized and what the physics is in this association. Not just the physical manifestation of, but of what happens when equilibrium is reached. Hot or very cold. Temperature, is not a problem then?

See my problem is that I can show you levitation of objects using superconductors but I cannot produce this in real life without that science. Yet, in face of that science I know that something can happen irregardless of what all the science said, so I am looking as well to combining the meta with the physical to realize that such a conditions may arise in how we as a total culture have accepted the parameters of our thinking.

So by dealing with those parameters I too hoped to see a cultural shift(paradigm and Kuhn) by adoption of the realization as we are with regard to the way in which we function in this reality. So if your thinking abut gravity how is this possible within the "frame work" to have it encroach upon our very own psychological makeup too?

Wednesday, July 04, 2012

Higg's Boson: Analogies Help


John Ellis,theoretical physicist, answers the question "What is the Higgs boson?" in preparation for the press conference following the seminar on LHC 2012 results on the Higgs boson search, due on July 4 2012 at CERN. For more details: http://cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2012/PR16.12E.html

See Also: What is the Higgs boson? John Ellis, theoretical physicist





webcast of seminar with ATLAS and CMS latest results from ICHEP




You know analogies are important in that they can bring a lay person some clarity in helping to understand what s going on in the world of science. As a blogger I have attach myself to some scientists who have been more then willing to share this aspect of them-self with the world. I do not know of a more honorable thing a scientist can do but by taking this time to help the public.

Monday, April 30, 2012

A Superset Universe?

How would you draw a Universe with all theories as being part of,  as a subset?





Pictorial representations can be very useful in presenting information or assisting reasoning. Venn diagram is an example. Venn diagrams are used to represent classes of objects, and they can also assist us in reasoning about the relations between these classes. They are named after the English mathematician John Venn (1834 - 1923), who was a fellow at Cambridge University.


A few may have taken in the link supplied to a lecture given by Thomas Campbell with regard to his MBT book he had written. Now, I was drawn to the idea of a Venn diagram presented in his lecture and the idea of how one might have use this diagram as a question about the universe and it's subsets? How would you draw it?







I give a current posting by Sean Carroll with regards to his opinion on a book written by Lawrence Krauss. So there all these theories about the nature of the universe and some scientists of course have their opinions.

............Or not, of course. We should be good empiricists and be open to the possibility that what we think of as the universe really does exist within some larger context. But then we could presumably re-define that as the universe, and be stuck with the same questions. As long as you admit that there is more than one conceivable way for the universe to be (and I don’t see how one could not), there will always be some end of the line for explanations. I could be wrong about that, but an insistence that “the universe must explain itself” or some such thing seems like a completely unsupportable a priori assumption. (Not that anyone in this particular brouhaha seems to be taking such a stance.) SEE:A Universe from Nothing?







Physicists have proposed several theories to explain why Λ is so small. One of the most popular -- the "anthropic principle" -- states that Λ is randomly set and has very different values in different parts of the universe (figure 1). We happen to live in a rare region, or "bubble", where Λ has the value we observe. This value has allowed stars, planets and therefore life to develop. However, this theory is also unsatisfactory for many scientists because it would be better to be able to calculate Λ from first principles.



See also:

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Relativism

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1914 Max von Laue

I am not sure what I can add other then what I have already been saying toward logical deduction....I still need to get a handle on the essence of what is being said here in opening thread.

So with what I looked at, can we say that the deductive recognition of lets say symmetry would be in contrast to how you might look at the world in a relativistic sense versus Platonism.










See: Against Symmetry

This setting was used more I think in terms of how a scientist is explaining himself and his relationship with the way in which he had approached science.....yet I could see there were scientist who had adopted the Platonic Tradition. Example of Penrose and Coxeter were demonstrative of this idea?


5.4.3 Platonism and Relativism

Platonism is a family of views that get their name because they involve entities--propositions, properties, sets--which, like Plato's Forms, are held to be abstract, immutable things that exist outside space and time. On many platonistic approaches, concepts express abstract properties and beliefs are relations between people and abstract propositions. This suggests a way around some types of relativism, since people in quite different cultures could have many of the same beliefs (because they could believe the same abstract propositions), and a belief would be true just in case the immutable proposition it expresses is true.
The relativist may reply that platonistic accounts lead to severe difficulties in epistemology and semantics. The problem is that we are physical organisms living in a spatio-temporal world, and we cannot interact causally (or in any other discernible way) with abstract, causally inert things. Moreover, few people are aware of having any special cognitive faculty that puts them in touch with a timeless realm of abstract objects, neuroscientists have never found any part of the brain that subserves such an ability, such a view is not suggested by what is known about the ways children acquire concepts and beliefs, and nothing in physics suggests any way in which a physical system (the brain) can make any sort of contact with causally inert, non-physical objects. Moreover, if our minds cannot make epistemic contact with such things, it is difficult to see how our words and linguistic practices can make semantic contact with them.
None of this proves that abstract propositions don't exist, but it shows it isn't obvious that they do. There have been few debates between relativists and platonists over such matters, however, perhaps because the two views lie so far apart that their proponents cannot easily engage one another.

So these were two positions that were adopted within the push toward understanding the basis of science and it's mathematics.

In theory model development was pushed forward on the basis of such adoptions. Loop Quantum Gravity?

Quasicrystal: Prof. Dan Shechtman

***


Just throwing some stuff together in order to understand the extent of relativism as a universal truth, while seeking to understand the subjective realism that make up our individuality. As a layman I do not know if it will be useful under that admittance. You can judge for yourself of course.

Most people think of "seeing" and "observing" directly with their senses. But for physicists, these words refer to much more indirect measurements involving a train of theoretical logic by which we can interpret what is "seen."- Lisa Randall

If one was to solidify some basis to truth how would this be done? The question of a logic oriented view for me saw a basis in what Penrose was explaining using his Twistors, as a foundation in incorporating Fuzzy logic?

While examining the psychological model of Venn logic and TA combined, it was important that there be some relative framework for such a subjective interpretation of a logic orientated world. How subjectively could this have been managed?


Perspective of the Theoretical Scientist


So you have this history and theoretical perspective that sees the world in one way or another? How do you reduce it to a process through Computing that establishes a basis in machining the effects of [and\or-so that we say a statement is .7 true and .3 false.]? We've created a space in between a true and false statement?

DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, molecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing See:DNA computing

Entanglement then provides for other understanding then of a framework that sees the interrogation of a subjective world?


Do we selectively ignore other models from artificial intelligence such as Zadeh's Fuzzy Logic? This is a logic used to model perception and used in newly designed "smart" cameras. Where standard logic must give a true or false value to every proposition, fuzzy logic assigns a certainty value between zero and one to each of the propositions, so that we say a statement is .7 true and .3 false. Is this theory selectively ignored to support our theories? Ideas on Quantum Interrogation
***

Geometry Leads us to the Truth?

Part of the realism here for me is the idea that such patterns established deep within our psyche are inherent in each of us as an image first to our awareness, but encompasses a geometric patten of sorts. This was part of the work I did on myself as I explored the realm of dreams. The idea then manifested in what was the basis of this thought process as mandala in origins. A historical vision of an ancient idea of model building. In today's world I thought this as appropriate toward how theoretical ideas are built around a whole history of science and information.

Monday, November 28, 2011

History of Supersymmetry to Today

Special Topic of Supersymmetry

by Science Watch


Since the 1980s, if not earlier, supersymmetry has reigned as the best available candidate for physics beyond the standard model. But experimental searches for supersymmetric particles have so far come up empty, only reconfirming the standard model again and again. This leaves supersymmetry a theory of infinite promise and ever more questionable reality. See Link above.

Also: What's Inside ScienceWatch.com This Month - ScienceWatch.com - Thomson Reuters



 Update-

See Also :

Monday, May 23, 2011

The Truth of Symmetry?

Fidel wrote:
Canadian Tom Harpur wrote that modern day religious scholars began to realize that indigenous people in this hemisphere possessed what are some of the most sophisticated and deeply held spiritual beliefs in the world.
I agree with your perspective about the historical perspective with the introduction of the white people assertions toward the beliefs of their spirituality  and that expressed by the indigenous people of that time. The "new culture"  to squashed that belief.

Over all I see in a  sense what you are saying that what could have befell the indigenous peoples is what could have fell upon the generations that exist now upon the planet by some alien society as an act of evolution and change with those same correlative situations as it did in our past. Many fictions written in this context today.

But again these are the finer mental states of existence of belief structures, polarization and centralization of such beliefs are "matter states" in the conquest of how we may perceive that evolution.

Quote:
LEE SMOLIN- Physicist, Perimeter Institute; Author, The Trouble With Physics

Thinking In Time Versus Thinking Outside Of Time

One very old and pervasive habit of thought is to imagine that the true answer to whatever question we are wondering about lies out there in some eternal domain of "timeless truths." The aim of re-search is then to "discover" the answer or solution in that already existing timeless domain. For example, physicists often speak as if the final theory of everything already exists in a vast timeless Platonic space of mathematical objects. This is thinking outside of time. See:A "scientific concept" may come from philosophy, logic, economics, jurisprudence, or other analytic enterprises, as long as it is a rigorous conceptual tool that may be summed up succinctly (or "in a phrase") but has broad application to understanding the world.

 Lee Smolin does not obviously like the abstractions in the mathematical realm, and prefers to set the pace for scientific realism by denouncing the historical past with regard to foundational approaches by Plato Thales and others who were our forefathers of expression. Like Hawking,  he is seeking to set foot in the realism of today?
So I am struggling with what we can define as "outside time" is no more then the belief of, while in science we are asking to deal with a methodology that is repeatable by expression, so how can we say spirituality is of a kind of substance or can exist amongst all substances and does not exist outside of time?
In dealing with the opinion of Hawking and Smolin I raise the question of Meno,


Quote:
SOCRATES: But if he always possessed this knowledge he would always have known; or if he has acquired the knowledge he could not have acquired it in this life, unless he has been taught geometry; for he may be made to do the same with all geometry and every other branch of knowledge. Now, has any one ever taught him all this? You must know about him, if, as you say, he was born and bred in your house.SEE:Meno by Plato
 
It relates to the question of how the house boy knew what he knew.

Quote:
MENO: And I am certain that no one ever did teach him.

SOCRATES: And yet he has the knowledge?

MENO: The fact, Socrates, is undeniable.

SOCRATES: But if he did not acquire the knowledge in this life, then he must have had and learned it at some other time?

MENO: Clearly he must.

Quote:
Spectrum wrote: Macdougall's mistake was to believe that spirituality could actually weigh something?
Fidel wrote:
I have no idea except to say that some scientists have said that certain phenomenon may not be detectable by our five senses as developed throughout our evolution. Astronomer Lord Rees suggests that we may need to evolve physically and otherwise a lot further in order to fully understand the universe. And I can see that. If we have evolved in a corner of the universe where atomic matter rules, then of course scientists are going to know a lot about physical matter, which is about 4% of everything that there is.
You actually quoted from a post that dissappeared when providing the links for the cultural Books of the Dead. MacDougall reference and materialism. My point was to supply the Macdougall reference to show how spirituality from my perspective is much lighter and really can't be measured in the way you captured the quoted statement I have suggested.

It goes back to the panel I provided about the weighing of the heart against the feather as truth. To me, it is about Gravity and how we are looking at it. Conceptually modelling according to the questions of a theoretical unification of all the forces. Where gravity actually begins and is inclusive. I really have to be careful here of my statements so as to maintain a mainstream correlative thinking that is current and correct. There is so much to remember.

Fidel wrote:
Apparently some pyramidologists believe that if they substitute years for inches, the great pyramid becomes a prophetic calendar of human events culminating in a forked path to our future. A similar dual future is predicted by prophecies according to Hopis of the Americas. Time is a river that flows and branches into forks and even whirlpools according to Einstein.
That's interesting as it related to my own research on that topic. Developing the concept about our "metal imagery" according to some scale was implemented in the construction of the geometry of the pyramid. I tried scaling the substance of thought as a elementary consideration of where and what we grab onto in life so as to show that the harboring of thought in such a domain, reveals how close indeed we court the matter distinctions of the world we live in.

Newton the Alchemist


Newton's Translation of the Emerald Tablet

Quote:
It is true without lying, certain and most true. That which is Below is like that which is Above and that which is Above is like that which is Below to do the miracles of the Only Thing. And as all things have been and arose from One by the mediation of One, so all things have their birth from this One Thing by adaptation. The Sun is its father; the Moon its mother; the Wind hath carried it in its belly; the Earth is its nurse. The father of all perfection in the whole world is here. Its force or power is entire if it be converted into Earth. Separate the Earth from the Fire, the subtle from the gross, sweetly with great industry. It ascends from the Earth to the Heavens and again it descends to the Earth and receives the force of things superior and inferior. By this means you shall have the glory of the whole world and thereby all obscurity shall fly from you. Its force is above all force, for it vanquishes every subtle thing and penetrates every solid thing. So was the world created. From this are and do come admirable adaptations, whereof the process is here in this. Hence am I called Hermes Trismegistus, having the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world. That which I have said of the operation of the Sun is accomplished and ended.
Metal should read Mental, but using the analogy of what Gold men/woman are is as much a part of the allure of chymistry as a novel idea of bettering ourselves is an inclusive thought as well.

Quote:
The Errors & Animadversions of Honest Isaac Newton
by Sheldon Lee Glashow


ABSTRACT:
Isaac Newton was my childhood hero. Along with Albert Einstein, he one of the greatest scientists ever, but Newton was no saint. He used his position to defame his competitors and rarely credited his colleagues.His arguments were sometimes false and contrived, his data were often fudged, and he exaggerated the accuracy of his calculations. Furthermore, his many religious works (mostly unpublished) were nonsensical or mystical, revealing him to be a creationist at heart. My talk offers a sampling of Newton’s many transgressions, social, scientific and religious.
Many did not like this part of Isaac Newton's research but to me even with all the failures of Newtons "mental state" he was trying to better himself, and that is what the Books of the Dead represented to me about trying to understand matter creation in the sense of what we gather together to become who we are. That is a consistent feature of living beings that what gathers around our human feature, gathers around all things? Matter gathers around "a spiritual principal" from inside each of us.



Quote:
The standard model of particle physics is a self-contained picture of fundamental particles and their interactions. Physicists, on a journey from solid matter to quarks and gluons, via atoms and nuclear matter, may have reached the foundation level of fields and particles. But have we reached bedrock, or is there something deeper? Savas Dimopoulos
The Sun then becomes a interesting feature of what "rays of creation" may mean as it gives life to all that falls under it's light that such a light could have existed inside of us as well. That we came from such a place as to exemplify that we are being first of the true signs of spirituality and then become all that falls under these rays of creation.

A refractory status of light itself and Thomas Young's question about spectrum of light and being.
Objects like the pyramid were shadow markers and were part of the history and development of concepts of geometers and angles of Euclid in my views. This is a materialistic explanation while the pyramid itself is a model for understanding the matter creation and sub developmental model of such scaling of human thought. This represented in my views as an attempt to help people of the times to understanding the truth and comparison of what values we hold to heart and our own evolution of being.

Newton Prism Experiment



The pyramidal model of refractions is a display of the light representation of the spectrum of possibilities, as a relational experimental model in my mind of something quite ancient in it's notion,  is applicable in the views of the science today. Something that is forgotten, but as a attempt of all our remembrances whether we like to admit it or not, is a universal understanding of our depth of being and our loss of memory as we are immersed in materiality.

To me this is a aspect of understanding how ideas emerge as if from a world Smolin liked to assign toward "outside of time" and a diversion of the quest to understand aspects of materiality as "not in time." That is my disagreement of him and his thoughts as it relates toward. The "idea of symmetry" and how this is assigned as a relational aspect of the idea of "outside of time." We are of such perfection that such a beauty is simplified in our own existence as spiritual beings that we each contain this within ourselves? This possibility of becoming in the world of materiality.

Monday, April 04, 2011

It's Lowest Energy State....Matter Formed?

Shape as Memory : A Geometric Theory of Architecture

also

The structure of paintings

 

 
I just wanted to lay out a perspective in relation to how one might describe the engine in relation to the design of the exhaust system as supportive of the whole frame of reference as the engine.

The pipe is a resonant chamber which shapes the exhaust pulse train in a way which uses shock waves to constrain the release of the combustion.Russell Grunloh (boatguy)
I mean it is not wholly certain for me that without perception, once realizing that potential recognizes that like some "source code" we are closer to recognizing the seed of our action, is an expression of the momentum of our being. It is a stepping off of all that we have known, is an innate expression of our being in action.

So as souls, we are immortalized as expressions of,  like a memory that tells a story about our life, our choices and the life we choose to live.

Dr. Mark Haskins
On a wider class of complex manifolds - the so-called Calabi-Yau manifolds - there is also a natural notion of special Lagrangian geometry. Since the late 1980s these Calabi-Yau manifolds have played a prominent role in developments in High Energy Physics and String Theory. In the late 1990s it was realized that calibrated geometries play a fundamental role in the physical theory, and calibrated geometries have become synonymous with "Branes" and "Supersymmetry".

Special Lagrangian geometry in particular was seen to be related to another String Theory inspired phemonenon, "Mirror Symmetry". Strominger, Yau and Zaslow conjectured that mirror symmetry could be explained by studying moduli spaces arising from special Lagrangian geometry.

This conjecture stimulated much work by mathematicians, but a lot still remains to be done. A central problem is to understand what kinds of singularities can form in families of smooth special Lagrangian submanifolds. A starting point for this is to study the simplest models for singular special Lagrangian varieties, namely cones with an isolated singularity. My research in this area ([2], [4], [6]) has focused on understanding such cones especially in dimension three, which also corresponds to the most physically relevant case.

So it is also about string theory in a way for me as well, and my attempts to understand those expressions in the valley.  Poincare's description of a pebble, rolling down from the hilltop.


It follows then that not all comments will not all be accepted, yet,  I felt it important for one to recognize what Poincare was saying and what I am saying.


HENRI POINCARE Mathematics and Science:Last Essays


Since we are assuming at this juncture the point of view of the mathematician, we must give to this concept all the precision that it requires, even if it becomes necessary to use mathematical language. We should then say that the body of laws is equivalent to a system of differential equations which link the speed of variations of the different elements of the universe to the present values of these elements.

Such a system involves, as we know, an infinite number of solutions, But if we take the initial values of all the elements, that is,their values at the instant t =(which would correspond in ordinary language to the "present"), the solution is completely determined, so that we can calculate the values of all the elements at any period
whatever, whether we suppose />0, which corresponds to the "future," or whether we suppose t<0, which corresponds to the "past." What is important to remember is that the manner of inferring the past from the present does not differ from that of inferring the future from the present.

Contrast the pebble as an issuance of,  from symmetry, and the top of mountain(a sharpened pencil standing straight up) and the decay(asymmetry), as an expression of the solidification of who we are in that valley. as a pebble?? After the example, we are but human form with a soul encased. The present, is our future? Our past, our presence?

Mathematics and Science: Last Essays, by Henri Poincare

8 Last Essays

    "But it is exactly because all things tend toward death that life is
    an exception which it is necessary to explain.

    Let rolling pebbles be left subject to chance on the side of a
    mountain, and they will all end by falling into the valley. If we
    find one of them at the foot, it will be a commonplace effect which
    will teach us nothing about the previous history of the pebble;
    we will not be able to know its original position on the mountain.
    But if, by accident, we find a stone near the summit, we can assert
    that it has always been there, since, if it had been on the slope, it
    would have rolled to the very bottom. And we will make this
    assertion with the greater certainty, the more exceptional the event
    is and the greater the chances were that the situation would not
    have occurred."

Of course I do not believe our lives are just an expression of chance,  but choice as "a memory" we choose. Of course too, how do you set up a life as an expression if you do not continue to learn?



In the pool of symmetry, how did we ever begin? I looked for such expressions as if mathematically deduced from a time where we might be closer to the idea of such a pool. Ramanujan comes to mind.

Then too, if we are to become spiritually immersed back again from where we came from,  then how can we individually be explained "as a spark of measure,"  for each soul as a memory to be chosen from all that has existed before, for such an expression in this life as the task of it's future??

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

It's Neither World, not Nether

Netherworld is often used as a synonym for Underworld.

Okay this may seem like a strange title, but believe me when I say how fascinating that such dynamics in meeting "each other: will allow something to "pop" right out of existence.

Underworld is a region in some religions and in mythologies which is thought to be under the surface of the earth.[1] It could be a place where the souls of the recently departed go, and, in some traditions, it is identified with Hell or the realm of death. In other traditions, however, such as animistic traditions, it could be seen as the place where life appears to have originated from (such as plant life, water, etc.) and a place to which life must return at life's end, with no negative undertones.

I mean I am not quite sure how this post must materialize, to conclude "non-existence" until it is clear, that such dynamics  will allow such a thing to happen, that one could say indeed,  they have completed their journey.

Now can I say that this is the process of the universe,  I can't be sure.I know that in the "mediation process" for concluding the experience,  such an experience has to come undone. Again this is such a strange thing in my mind that I had to say that "I was the experience" until such a time, that going along with other things in sameness of dynamics, that it was hard at first to see this dynamics in play as being apart from it.  I could actually only say enough of this experience to concluded  the realization of coming undone. Hmm...

To solidify this until understanding, I relived these things until I saw the last of the tension ebb away to allow  "a tension" to become undone. As if such tension "had to exist" until the very bubble that harbored and allowed all of the world of our expediency no longer supported such a viable option as that bubble.

I know this is not such a cute analogy but to get to the essence of the story then it has to be understood that underneath "this experience"  is a dynamcial revelation of sorts that hides the equation of such an experience?

You should know then that I see this very schematics of the world as having this nature to it that we may describe reality as something closer to the definition of it's very existence and that such a attempt at describing nature was to get to the very end of what begins? Imagine arriving at the juxtaposition of such a point?

How are We to Contained Experience?

In mathematics, the Klein bottle ([klaɪ̯n]) is a non-orientable surface, informally, a surface (a two-dimensional manifold) with no identifiable "inner" and "outer" sides. Other related non-orientable objects include the Möbius strip and the real projective plane. Whereas a Möbius strip is a two-dimensional surface with boundary, a Klein bottle has no boundary. (For comparison, a sphere is an orientable surface with no boundary.)
By adding a fourth dimension to the three dimensional space, the self-intersection can be eliminated. Gently push a piece of the tube containing the intersection out of the original three dimensional space. A useful analogy is to consider a self-intersecting curve on the plane; self-intersections can be eliminated by lifting one strand off the plane.
This immersion is useful for visualizing many properties of the Klein bottle. For example, the Klein bottle has no boundary, where the surface stops abruptly, and it is non-orientable, as reflected in the one-sidedness of the immersion.

The geometry was revealing as I tried to encapsulate this point, so as to see where such a description fell away from all that we can contain of the world. That we can truly say we had indeed let go. To imagine then that one's grip on things became ever tighter, while wishing to let the strength of this while becoming ever stronger to fall away.

"While Gassner was watching television, the natural motion of the Earth must have carried him through a small non-orientable pocket of the universe," said Boris Harkov, a mathematician at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. "That's the only reasonable explanation."

One way to test the orientation of the universe is to hurl a right-handed glove into the air and see if it falls back to Earth as a left-handed glove--if it does, the universe must be non-orientable. Since Gassner's announcement, physicists have been carrying out such experiments, both outdoors and in Gassner's TV room, but so far all tests have come back negative. Still, many researchers are optimistic. "I'm confident that the glove will flip soon," said Chen Xiang, an experimental physicist at Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York. The Klarreich Occasionally


Ultimate realization that what is negative is a positive toward completion.That is how one might define the whole perspective of validation of no longer being negative?

As if one wold realize that such a tension revealed in the Tao, no longer existed in the picture as a demonstration of the Tao now gone.
Now, such a object seemed part of the experience,  as to the unfolding, yet in my inadequate understanding how could such a thing be taken down to such a point as to say it no longer existed. How can I say say such a geometry was part of that process while I struggle to define such an action as falling away or reducing it to such a point of nothing?

It's enough then that one sees "around that point"  that the ultimate quest envisions such  an "undoing" that we see where the relevance of such a tension can and should no longer exist?

The Experience Most Fitting then ?

As I relayed earlier I experience many things until I understood this undoing, that such reason then to awareness of "what should be" was capsulized in only one example. How shall I say it then that I understood all that befell me to dissolution to show that such a demonstration was complete. I would still be here? That such an equation of resistance could have been imparted not only in the equation, but in the telling of the experience too?

While I show by experience such an example it should be taken that in this example I have changed the name of the person in order to protect our association. Shall I be so forthcoming that only the "object of relation" shall be the only thing identifiable  so as to know that this association is very real to me, and only to me by that person's identification as an experience that is real? Aw....well anyway "more then one" for sure, as to the way in which I use that experience to demonstrate.

It all began, as I noticed a tension in his voice, as he slipped into the realization of something that had happen to him earlier in that day. I was taken to a "good observation point" so that I might admit to seeing what he was seeing.  As hard as I looked at first I could not tell what he was so upset about that I tried ever harder  to see, that slowly I understood then what he was pointing at. Why such a tension could exist in him and his voice, that such a rectification and adjustment was needed in order to make this right.

As I relay this situation it was apparent at the time of such a demonstration, as to a example that this situation popped up,  as such a reason to be demonstrated that to make it right, had to be the undoing of what made it wrong you see. To make the point ever driven home for realization was to demonstrate that such undoing had to rectify the situation of where it began, so of course,  all actions taken to get it fixed. Could it have ever been undone?

Well as if I understood why such an experience came frothing to the surface of awareness I thought to conclude this example by what I saw, that it took me by realization that "in turning" to back up, a hand imprint in oil was left on the back of the seat in order for the person to complete the job. A "new point of tension" by not washing their hands, or not covering  pristine upholstery that was just purchased, was created.

All of this has to be undone in order for one to say that this experience has popped out of existence you see?

That was how such a demonstration was shown to be reasonable in my mind for such an equation to manifest such a description about that experience that I could say that it was reasonable to me that I had understood.

Was it a good example rests on you to be sure.

***
Physically, the effect can be interpreted as an object moving from the "false vacuum" (where = 0) to the more stable "true vacuum" (where = v). Gravitationally, it is similar to the more familiar case of moving from the hilltop to the valley. In the case of Higgs field, the transformation is accompanied with a "phase change", which endows mass to some of the particles

"Quantum Field Theory

Quantum Vacuum:

In classical physics, empty space is called the vacuum. The classical vacuum is utterly featureless. However, in quantum theory, the vacuum is a much more complex entity. The uncertainty principle allows virtual particles (each corresponding to a quantum field) continually materialize out of the vacuum, propagate for a short time and then vanish. " http://universe-review.ca/R15-12-QFT.htm#vacuum

"The idea behind the Coleman-De Luccia instanton, discovered in 1987, is that the matter in the early universe is initially in a state known as a false vacuum. A false vacuum is a classically stable excited state which is quantum mechanically unstable." http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/qg_qc.html

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Old News Can Still Be New Information

Getting a handle on Symmetries is an always work in progress for me, so as to keep abreast of the science and the theoretic involved.

Why has Physics Today's news coverage of string theory been so sparse?

Given string theory's high ambition to account for all nature's forces and particles, given the number of string theorists working to achieve that ambition, and given the general public's interest in string theory, two stories in seven years might seem low. But is it? (See above link)

So traveling back in time,  one can move forward.


Nambu - Credit: Univeristy of Chicago
Kobayashi - Credit: KEK
Maskawa - Credit: Yukawa Institute, Kyoto University
Nambu
Kobayashi
Maskawa

Spontaneous symmetry breaking

Introduced into particle physics by Nambu in 1960, spontaneous symmetry breaking was to become a pillar of the field’s standard model, which since its completion in the mid-1970s has survived every experimental challenge. When a physical state does not exhibit all the symmetries of the dynamical laws that govern it, the violated symmetries are said to be spontaneously broken.
The idea had been around for a long time in classical mechanics, fluid dynamics, and condensed-matter physics. An oft-cited example is ferromagne­tism. Its underlying laws of atomic physics are absolutely invariant under rotation. Nonetheless, below a critical temperature the atomic spins spontaneously line up in some arbitrary direction to create a state that is not rotationally symmetric. Similarly, the cylindrical symmetry of a state in which a pencil is perfectly poised on its tip is spontaneously broken when the pencil inevitably falls over. But such examples give little hint of the subtlety and power of the notion once Nambu began exploiting it in quantum field theory.
It began with a paper Nambu wrote in 1959 about gauge invariance in superconductivity.1 The paper exhibits his virtuosity in two disparate specialties—quantum field theory and condensed-matter theory. He became conversant with both as a graduate student at the University of Tokyo after he was mustered out of the army in 1945. Eventually he began working with the group around Sin-itiro Tomonaga, one of the creators of modern quantum electrodynamics (QED). Tomonaga was actually based at another university in Tokyo. But the University of Tokyo was strong in condensed-matter physics. So Nambu started out working on the Ising model of ferromagnetism.
After two years at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, Nambu came to the University of Chicago in 1954, just before the untimely death of Enrico Fermi. When John Bardeen, Leon Cooper, and Robert Schrieffer published their theory of superconductivity in 1957, Nambu and others noted that the BCS superconducting ground state lacked the gauge invariance of the underlying electromagnetic theory. In classical electrodynamics, gauge invariance refers to the freedom one has in choosing the vector and scalar potentials. In QED that freedom is linked to the freedom to change the phase of the electron wavefunction arbitrarily from point to point in space. Did the gauge-symmetry violation mean that the BCS theory was simply wrong? Or perhaps superconductivity was a manifestation of some yet unknown force beyond electromagnetism and atomic physics.
Having heard Schrieffer give a talk about the new theory in 1957 without mentioning gauge invariance, Nambu spent the next two years thinking about its role in the theory. He recast the BCS theory into the perturbative quantum-field-theoretic formalism with which Richard Feynman had solved—independently of Tomonaga—the problem of the intractable infinities in QED. From that reformulation, Nambu concluded that the superconducting ground state results from the spontaneous breaking of the underlying gauge symmetry. He showed that all the characteristic manifestations of superconductivity—including the expulsion of magnetic flux and the energy gap that assures lossless current flow—follow simply from that spontaneous symmetry breaking.
See:Physics Nobel Prize to Nambu, Kobayashi, and Maskawa for theories of symmetry breaking by Bertram Schwarzschild Physics Today and references cited in article below.

  1. 1. Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. 117, 648 (1960) [SPIN].
  2. 2. Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 380 (1960) [SPIN].
  3. 3. Y. Nambu, G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961) [SPIN]; 124, 246 (1961) [SPIN].
  4. 4. P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 130, 439 (1963) [SPIN].
  5. 5. F. Englert, R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 321 (1964) [SPIN]; P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 508 (1964) [SPIN]; G. S. Guralelnik, C. R. Hagen, T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 585 (1964) [SPIN].
  6. 6. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1264 (1967) [SPIN].
  7. 7. M. Kobayashi, T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652 (1973) .
  8. 8. S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, L. Maiani, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1285 (1970) [SPIN].