|
Post by Al Truest on Nov 5, 2003 1:19:46 GMT
It is my belief that the incongruity between the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics will not be solved mathematically. Ultimately math and physics will explain the unified theory, but the inspiration will come from artists and philosophers who, standing on the shoulders of their predecessors, can grasp the concepts of a universal code, which may be known for now as "Strings" The Mandelbrot set, the double helix of DNA and the existence of black holes all display a pattern of cycles and regeneration. I believe that time, space and reality are in a constant state of flux and rejuvenation. The absolute core of all that exists, I think is like the eye of a hurricane. More precisely a black hole. The center can be known as enlightenment, nirvana, heaven or the supreme being if you will. Therein a continuous loop of time and space is consumed and then reborn. The universe, I theorize, is both expanding and collapsing on opposite sides of itself simultaneously. The symbol for infinity shows the center to have no beginning or end. Following the line of this symbol, forward becomes reverse, up becomes down and so on. (the 'ten dimensions' theory of 'Strings' is lost on me here, but read on).. This concept can be explained by Einsteins theory of relativity on a large scale. The problem with applying the principles of quantum mechanics to the larger universe is that scientists are (erroneously) extrapolating their formulas under the assumption that the universe is constantly expanding. I believe they are wrong. I also believe that positive and negative forces marshal each and every atomic particle into action or stasis, thereby creating a subatomic model analogous with the larger universe. 'For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'. This, I believe, happens on an emotional and spiritual level as well. It is more than cause and effect. There is chemistry involved in all of life's emotions. Smell, sight, taste, sound etc. can orchestrate the release of adrenaline, endorphins, blood flow or saliva. Even memory is believed to be a chemical imprint that can re-invigorate the senses based on past experience. Anyway...Lust begets satiation. Hate>Anger. Love>Peace and so on. These harmonious or opposite forces drive the atomic engines that make up every living thing. Quantum mechanics can handle explaining concepts on a sub-atomic level. If we assume that the universe is NOT ever expanding, then I think the two theory's can co-exist. The missing element is the stimuli for setting all of the atomic and chemical reactions that spark life into evolutionary motion. Here is the hard part... Strings.. These theorized subatomic bands or wavelengths are easier to explain in light of my previous comments. I think they are like musical notes or vibrations. (this is someone elses' revelation-not mine) that dictate the movement and formulate the "Universal Code" for all of creation. The tone for each of these strings, I believe is created by the initial "Big Bang" of compressed matter at the center of the universe. This process I think is ongoing though. See I believe that there is no beginning or end to the universe. We are only limited by our perceptions and our ignorance. But, I also think that the collective consciousness of mankind can alter the reverberations of these strings. Some individuals will shape this awareness, for better or worse, more than others e.g. Jesus, Buddha, Hitler etc.. The power and the glory of these concepts can be mutually enjoyed by the religious and the humanists (if this theory could be proven ). Life and decay then become the alpha and omega. Spiritual and intellectual enlightenment, wisdom, heaven or almost any theological/philosophical belief that exists, can be supported by this theory. Over the top?
|
|
|
Post by Neo Stella on Nov 5, 2003 10:29:50 GMT
You are indeed a thinker Altruest and your conclusions are very similar to mine. Having read many of the great thinkers works: Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein to name but three, what you say about what philosophers and artists have to offer is very valid. Almost all discoveries arrive on an intuiative wave as opposed to a logical path, suggesting an expanding creative universe that only exists as such through perception, i.e. We see what we expect to see, (The Anthropic Principle)
If however we get the opportunity to view the cosmos through the sensory apparatus of an alien species, then perhaps we will get to grips with the multi-dimensional aspect of reality and as you say its eternal nature.
To use a metaphor, there are some very tasty cosmic dishes awaiting us when we discover a new mix of ingredients (Theories) that will allow us to dine with some exotic beings from the heavens.
No Al, this is not over the top. On this subject there is no over the top. When you have a new idea quite often the status quo reject you. If the idea has enough energy, it eventually becomes established fact. You can go from madman to genius. It depends on whether you have the stomach to see it through.
This is how the universe works......................................
Or maybe it works like this.............................................
Perhaps it is always a relationship.................................
................................................................with ourselves
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Nov 5, 2003 14:10:08 GMT
There may be a fine line between madness and genius. That's why I believe artists or conceptual thinkers should lead the way, with physicists and mathematicians verifying their revelations. My theory can allow for a spiritual understanding of the cosmos. Recognizing great power at the center of the universe is an accepted theological and philosophical concept. The calm at the center of the storm is a comforting idea. This nirvana can be achieved without being physically there. Peace can come through faith, knowledge and enlightenment. Karma, destiny or re-incarnation are theories of arriving at this 'place' of peace. 'Talent does what it can, genius does what it must' or 'it is ok to build a house in the clouds as long as you don't try to move in' (at least until it meets codes ) MM Where do you weigh in?
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Nov 5, 2003 14:17:53 GMT
I will continue to expand on my perceptions about 'String Theory" until it has no legs. If there is interest though we'll keep it going. If you consider these 'strings' as wavelengths, then human awareness would be the receiver of these codes. Would time and space even exist without intelligent life to observe and analyze it? Much like radio frequencies, signals are picked-up from various sources and are processed on both the conscious and sub-conscious level. Humans can compute facial expression and body language, for example, which would constitute what could be called the 'chemistry of communication'. The waves or 'vibes' that we broadcast have a rippling effect on those we encounter. Harmonious waves advance the well being of all. Evil and hate disrupt the peace and happiness of others in varying degrees. Ignorance and fear prolong the struggle between good and evil. But does one exist without the other. Is the struggle not the purpose Without resistance what is there to strive for. (BTW these are rhetorical questions ) Anybody care to join in this discussion? Please do. And for extra credit, see if you can relate these two Kate Bush songs to the topic: "The Fog" and "Rubberband Girl"
|
|
Sven Golly
Moving
"In the night you hide from the madman you're longing to be"
Posts: 800
|
Post by Sven Golly on Nov 5, 2003 18:18:24 GMT
Al, or anyone else. How long has "String Theory" been 'out there'?
|
|
|
Post by madscientist on Nov 5, 2003 21:00:56 GMT
Dear All, I belive string theory has been out there for around 15-20 years and has helped to explain certain aspects of time just after the big bang and inflation. Al can your theory explain away the expansion of the universe? as described by Hubble in the first half of the 20th centure (by observing the magnitudes of Cephid variables over varing distances and comparing them to the expected theoretical value as obtained by paralax observations of near by Cephids) . Einstein in his most famous mistake also included a term in E=MC2 to counter a theoretical expansion of the universe that at the time of relativities publication was not known about and now is also cropping up in the recent theories about and accelerating univers where vacuum energy has in the last couple of billion years overcome the force of gravity and predicts a dark end for us all. Just wonderin! KB relevance to this: - The Fog - is it something to do with the opacicity of the univers when the temperature of the univers dropped sufficiently for nuclii to capture electrons and allow the free passage of photons? Rubber Band Girl: - let me guess, vibrating strings n all that jazz. Best wishes to all on Rockets Tail night!! MM
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Nov 6, 2003 2:48:40 GMT
Thanks for the challenge MM. It is good to stand on the shoulders of those great minds before us. But, if we do not elevate ourselves, then they just block our view. It's like John Nash said in "A Beautiful Mind" (paraphrase) going to class will ruin your mind. As Hubble and others found out; there is not a yardstick long enough to accurately measure the furthest parts of the universe (in order to determine the time of the initial 'big-bang', by running the calculations in reverse) Cepheids demonstrate that the universe does appear to be expanding, by formulating distances between objects in our known realm. The assumption is that everything is constantly expanding. It's as if the stars and planets are like raisins in rising dough. These objects are moving with and not through space. The earth is seemingly in the center of all this movement. My theory allows for this expansion. But, instead of infinite outward movement there is a bending of light, time and space at the apogee of the outer waves of expansion. The patterns of geo-magnetism can best demonstrate my theory as seen here: The nucleus here is earth. But the pattern is repeated in much of natural law. From cells, to atoms to solar systems, there is a center, around which things spin or rotate. Why would these atomic principles not be extrapolated into a view of all of creation? Why can quantum mechanics not be unified with Einsteins theory. Until now the calculations become unstable. Without anomalies it would appear that the disruption could be an immense black hole that swallows and regurgitates all of time and space. Matter is compressed into a tiny mass and then exploded again to regenerate the process. Perhaps there are poles at opposite sides of all black holes. Including the one I theorize that is at the center of everything. This could cause the swirling and expanding and contracting of time and space that is constantly being recycled by unthinkable power. There is a an everlasting cycle of birth and decay. My theory is as valid as any until a telescope or vessel can reach the points of no return. Hell, it has not been that long ago that science determined that neutrinos had mass and which direction they are going. I believe in the string theory as modified by my observations. But unlike some (at least 5 groups, including M-theorists) string theorists, I don't need 10 or 11 goddam dimensions to make mine viable.
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Nov 6, 2003 3:49:13 GMT
Dear All, KB relevance to this: - The Fog - is it something to do with the opacicity of the univers when the temperature of the univers dropped sufficiently for nuclii to capture electrons and allow the free passage of photons? Rubber Band Girl: - let me guess, vibrating strings n all that jazz. Best wishes to all on Rockets Tail night!! MM On "Rubberband girl you got it! ;D On "The Fog" I wasn't going that deep. Althought her co-valent bond to another may be a consideration. However, it was the lyrics "Just like a photograph, I pick you up"..."Just like a station on the radio, I pick you up." This demostrates the atomic chemistry of perception as I theorize the influence of 'strings' can have on all living things.
|
|
|
Post by Neo Stella on Nov 6, 2003 14:14:07 GMT
Just one point Al on the expansion of The Universe. The only reason we, The Earth appear to be at the centre of this is it is expanding in all directions at once. So wherever you observe it it would seem as if you were at the centre.
It has been said that scientific discoveries are like climbing a mountain, the higher you rise the more you see. This doesn't make the earlier (lower) view wrong, it is just that with more insight (higher) view you have the benefit of a more comprehensive perception.
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Nov 6, 2003 14:39:49 GMT
Yeah, NEO, I thought I made the point that we were "seemingly" at the center. I concur that we are a part of an expanding universe. The question is direction. Is it constantly outward, or is it like roman candle spewing from a central force? Are there forces that will recycle and renew the cosmos, or are we headed for a burn-out? If this is a one shot (one big-bang) deal then how can it go on forever?...it can't. I don't believe that the future will hold just empty space. How can there not be a regenerating force that is in control of this? Or does everyone believe we're on a runaway train?
Perhaps black holes are like sub-stations, directing the regeneration process. Or maybe the universe is expanding with each cycle, bringing life and energy to a black void. As our understanding of the universe grows, maybe the cosmos will always be one step a head. We may have a carrot dangling in front of us that we can never reach. Will it be a never ending mystery?
The plan is too ordered and neat to be a mistake. A huge multi-billion year fireworks display, is not the grand scheme, I would think. There is order to the universe.
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Nov 6, 2003 14:59:34 GMT
BTW, My theory is subject to de-bunking NEO, MM or anyone out there. My point is that creative thought should be in spite of convential wisdom or theory. The "exact sciences" should police the free flowing creative process.
I think that when you must build in so many anomolies and variables (e.g. 10 dimensions or more) then it seems that you can prove almost any theory. I believe that scientists, Einstein include, cannot bear to be wrong. Their brilliant life's work may only be a stepping stone for each new generation; and that is hard for any one to cope with. Like the "Myth of Sisyphus", you must keep pushing that rock.
|
|
|
Post by Neo Stella on Nov 6, 2003 17:58:00 GMT
Al, very well put in that last post. Science is always concerned with exact repeatable measurements. Yet when you look at nature everything has an unique formation. (DNA shows this for sure) Therefore all reality can have an infinte possibility. String theory allows scope for such a state of affairs. When we take this in mind, we find the challenge is then the extent of our imagination. Our consciousness is stretched as is the expanding universe. In the words a great spirit master, "If you can imagine it, it is."
|
|
|
Post by madscientist on Nov 6, 2003 20:50:34 GMT
The roman candle part sounds like fred Hoyles steady state theory (circa 1950) where there was no big bang, the universe just came to be and matter is created at just the right rate to counter it's destruction. This has probably been side lined by the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in the 60s and the variations in it discovered since the 90s that fit perfectly (well, as well as the resolution of the detectors will allow at present) with the big bang theory and the gubbins that comes along with it. So persnly, roman candle, no, BB yes. As for expansion/acceleration of the universe, ok, I'll conceed that there ain't a measurin stick really big enough (Read 'Measuring the Universe' by Kitty Furgeson, very good, starts from parallax and goes on from there), but the Cephids do agree with super nova measurements (Type 1A) in distant galaxies within an order of magnitude, and the distances to the galaxies themselves can be implied by their red shift (which is something we can measure directly on Earth quite easily). So the evidence is building. But then again all the previous depend on (allowing for the curvature of space due to the presence of matter) on the light from these objects travelling in straight lines (I think that makes sense!) and nothing in the intervening space interfering woith the light, such as it being accelerated or decelerated by dark matter, or absorbed by molecular clouds (although these should show up in the spectra!. So until there is a piece of string between us and the galaxies in the Hubble deep field and some bloke with a jolly big measuring tape...... Black holes being the source of matter... not sure, they tend to eat an awful lot and the bigger they get the more they eat n so on. However that nice Prof hawking has worked out that black holes can evaporate and it is possible to create matter from them from light. also if they were generating this matter/energy influx it is likely that we would have seen it (unless it is creating it in one of the other 6 dimensions that we, at the present time, can not measure)!! Chat soon. Be happy ;D being glum gets you sad. MM
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Nov 7, 2003 0:09:54 GMT
The roman candle part sounds like fred Hoyles steady state theory (circa 1950) where there was no big bang, the universe just came to be and matter is created at just the right rate to counter it's destruction. The roman candle analogy I've used is only to provide a model of how the expelled matter from a big-bang would react at it's decaying arch. I do support a compressed matter/big-bang origin. I just think it is on-going.is has probably been side lined by the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in the 60s and the variations in it discovered since the 90s that fit perfectly (well, as well as the resolution of the detectors will allow at present) with the big bang theory and the gubbins that comes along with it. So persnly, roman candle, no, BB yes. As for expansion/acceleration of the universe, ok, I'll conceed Aha! you conceed! that there ain't a measurin stick really big enough (Read 'Measuring the Universe' by Kitty Furgeson, (mmm-kitty fur ) very good, starts from parallax and goes on from there) Thanks! I will., but the Cephids do agree with super nova measurements (Type 1A) in distant galaxies within an order of magnitude, and the distances to the galaxies themselves can be implied by their red shift (which is something we can measure directly on Earth quite easily). So the evidence is building. But then again all the previous depend on (allowing for the curvature of space this curvature supports my theory! due to the presence of matter) on the light from these objects travelling in straight lines (I think that makes sense!) and nothing in the intervening space interfering woith the light, such as it being accelerated or decelerated by dark matter, or absorbed by molecular clouds (although these should show up in the spectra!. So until there is a piece of string between us and the galaxies in the Hubble deep field and some bloke with a jolly big measuring tape..... I could be right, right?] Black holes being the source of matter... not sure, they tend to eat an awful lot and the bigger they get the more they eat n so on. However that nice Prof hawking has worked out that black holes can evaporate (as they would as part of a self correcting mechanism in the movement of light and matter back to a central source)and it is possible to create matter from them from light (totally supporting my theory!) also if they were generating this matter/energy influx it is likely that we would have seen it (unless it is creating it in one of the other 6 dimensions that we, at the present time, can not measure)!! I would maintain that this energy is being thrust out continiously. It would appear as remnants of an intial big-bang; however it would be at such a vast distance that it can not be detected as such. From the source it may only appear as a forming star, in that it would be a narrow, but ever widening portal that we would be observing. What would be harder for me to understand is why there is not a vast void from the source of the original BB. If new energy were to be continiously thrust from a central source, then the expansion would continue from the forces of the new matter. Besides, do Big-Bang proponents deny that there was a 'center' to the universe originally? If they concede that, then where is it? And why is there not a big void? MM My comments are in color above. MM do YOU believe that the universe can survive forever from this single big-bang event? And why doesn't it make sense that quantum mechanics should prove to describe a larger universe as well? Today I was observing a pond with 2 fountains. The water was being sprayed upward, only to arch beautifully and symetrically back into the pond, thus becoming part of the original source. Matter can NOT (in my opinion) continue in an outward motion for eternity (whatever THAT means.) Keep me on my toes.
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on Nov 7, 2003 3:08:21 GMT
Has anyone else noticed that the ads on this board often reflect the subject matter in our posts. Perhaps keywords that we use prompt certain ads. August pointed out this coincidence (? ?) when we were discussing Steely Dan, anf concert ticket offers appeared. Now I just noticed ads for the book Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell" coincidence? I think not. Maybe I was wrong; maybe money is at the center of the universe
|
|