Here is a nice explanation of WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE, a concept from Quantum Mechanics,

Is Consciousness the ultimate wave?

Is Self the collapse of consciousness wave function?

Is Thought the collapse of self wave function?

Is Reality the collapse of thought wave function?

Is Physical universe the collapse of reality wave function?

The ultimate observer or looker is, of course, Unknowable. 🙂

Like the last digit of the decimal rendition of pi.

Because neither exists as we know existence.


Added October 28, 2012:


What is there before manifesting may only be speculated upon. Speculation then manifests.

So all manifesting may simply be preceded by speculation or visualization.



Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Chris Thompson  On October 22, 2011 at 11:33 AM

    Finally! Thank you Vinaire! . . . And now what can collapse and what may not collapse?

    This morning, as I looked at this. it came to me that “anything at all at any time at all” may be collapsed out of the infinite potential of the field of wave function. What “governs” is not “what is possible” because everything is possible. What governs is what has been agreed upon which agreements together create the consensus reality. This may not be an exotic agreement but may be like the normal social agreements by which we live all the time. The difference in these agreements may only be their age and breadth of application. To violate these agreements seems to be a “very high crime” indeed.

    They are social agreements and they evolve through time as all social agreements do. Such as “last year it was not ok to wear short skirts but this year it is acceptable.” The agreements are different for every frame of reference.

    On Sunday mornings, in every church around Phoenix, one can find people exercising their acceptable collapse of the wave function. Are the routines and practices VERY different? No they are not very different but they are slightly different (talking in tongues and rolling on the floor in one and burning incense in another, shouting to the Lord in one and sitting quietly in another) But the differences ARE important and it is not acceptable to mix them. If one attends a fashion event and is not dressed “in vogue” then a violation will occur and some measure of ostracism will befall the offender.

    Each frame of reference has a consensus reality which should be closely adhered to and violating this is important within that frame of reference. This remains consistent in the framework of physics. And why shouldn’t it? Integral to the development of quantum theory was the mathematics of Albert Einstein; however, faced believing the very correct mathematics of QM when it pointed to the “spooky” effects, Einstein chose to prefer to believe that QM was in error and that there were still unknown physical influences at work.

    • vinaire  On October 22, 2011 at 3:47 PM

      I will go with Einstein. To the degree there are inconsistencies in QM there is more to be discovered.


      • Chris Thompson  On October 23, 2011 at 5:35 AM

        What do you see as inconsistent?

      • vinaire  On October 23, 2011 at 6:03 AM

        There is no single universal theory.


      • Chris Thompson  On December 21, 2011 at 10:48 PM

        I understand your writing to mean the inconsistency in QM is that it is not complete. Is this a correct understanding of your comment?

      • vinaire  On December 22, 2011 at 5:29 AM

        What I meant was that there is no single theory that covers both the cosmic and the atomic realm. We have separate theories to cover them.


        • Chris Thompson  On December 22, 2011 at 11:42 AM

          Have you noticed any inconsistency in QM? I do not know enough about it and what I do know is counter-intuitive to “normal” things that I have been taught. The various statistical experiments and such I only read from books and take at face value same as I do Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings or Elizabeth’s writing.

      • vinaire  On December 22, 2011 at 2:25 PM

        I think I really have to straighten out my math before diving into QM.


  • Chris Thompson  On October 22, 2011 at 11:36 AM

    What do I mean by a FRAME OF REFERENCE?
    I have been looking at this for a while now and like the idea of greatly differing “orders of magnitude” determined by a possibly simple but massively different fractal calculation.

    You see, there is “INFINITE SPACE WITHIN FINITE SPACE” Have I gone mad? — Maybe.

    • vinaire  On October 22, 2011 at 3:52 PM

      Well, look at the irrational numbers… Plotting irrational numbers on a number line simply means that no matter how close two points are, there are infinity of points between them.


      • Chris Thompson  On October 28, 2011 at 7:10 PM

        This is what I mean by “serial universes.” Do you think that irrational numbers might hold a secret such as that it is only the (so far) arbitrary “orders of magnitude” for a frame of reference which can contain entire systems? Do you follow because I don’t think I am writing this very well.

        When we look at say just microbiology, we see whole systems of existence which come and go. Are these creatures sentient? And what comprises sentient anyway? Their similarity to us? haha All I know is that fractal construct has opened my eyes.

  • Chris Thompson  On October 22, 2011 at 11:45 AM

    Fractal calculations allow for the physical universe to be a closed and finite system while containing “infinite space” within. If you detest my use of the words “infinite space” in this context, then you might use “infinite frames of reference” if that is more comfortable.

    • vinaire  On October 22, 2011 at 3:54 PM

      Please… the less you assume about me, or bring the discussion of a particular self in the picture, the better this discussion would be. 🙂

      I have no idea what fractal calculations show that the universe is finite.


  • R  On October 22, 2011 at 5:09 PM

    “The observer or looker is, of course, Unknowable.”

    i think there is the observer and the observed (not to mention the observation, which is necessarily implied for both to exist), which are all knowable, and there is another element that includes them all while being none, that one being unknowable, though present and reachable

    • vinaire  On October 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM


      If one comes to know the observer, then it would no longer be the observer!

      It would be the observed. 🙂


    • Chris Thompson  On October 23, 2011 at 7:44 AM

      Agree. With R. Unknowable is inconsistent. Believing in unknowable blunts looking.

    • vinaire  On October 23, 2011 at 9:29 PM

      Observer, observed, observation
      Make a tight circle
      Round and round it goes
      Circular logic.

      You may meet the unknowable
      When you step off this circle
      Or, maybe not
      Who knows?
      Probably, there is no
      Who, what, where and when

      The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda

  • R  On October 22, 2011 at 5:28 PM

    i love the way you say “correct”, as if your word were the last like the master teacher.

    you’re funny Vinaire

  • R  On October 22, 2011 at 6:01 PM

    and isn’t it nice to relate… 😉

    • vinaire  On October 22, 2011 at 6:09 PM

      yes, that is where the fun is… specially when it is harmonious! 🙂


  • R  On October 22, 2011 at 6:10 PM

    yes. and then we can even hear a sweet melody 🙂

  • Chris Thompson  On October 22, 2011 at 9:24 PM

    Very well. I do not mind at all your faith in the unknowable. Its all good.

    • vinaire  On October 22, 2011 at 10:02 PM

      Again you are putting your attention on “self”. If you disagree with the idea of “unknowable” then simply say so, and give your unbiased reason. It should have nothing to do with what I think.


  • R  On October 23, 2011 at 2:52 PM

    if you are looking for the best term to call “it”, that would be “unknown” because it does not imply it cannot be known, it simply states it is not (yet?) known. however, when saying “unknowable” you are stating that because you weren’t (yet?) able to know it, it is impossible to know, either for you or anyone, and that you cannot (yet?) affirm with absolute certainty.

    the unknown still opens possibilities. the unknowable seems to not.

    • vinaire  On October 23, 2011 at 3:20 PM

      Maybe I should call it the BIG CARROT that gets you to speculate and consider and to dig for past considerations.

      Or, I should call it the ETERNAL TEASER that gets you to pull your metaphysical hair in addition to what I said earlier.

      Or, I should call it a RABBIT HOLE WITH NO BOTTOM in Matrix style.

      Please let me have some more suggestions.


      • vinaire  On October 23, 2011 at 3:24 PM

        For me the challenge is:

        Can somebody transform the Unknowable into a Knowable?

        That will be worth more than many millions of Nobel Prizes.

        OK, come on, make my day.


    • vinaire  On February 23, 2014 at 10:38 AM

      Unknowable simply means, “It is impossible to know all of it. You may be able to know some of it.”


  • R  On October 23, 2011 at 3:29 PM

    since you like to name things with precision, i shared my idea of what could be more precise than “unknowable” but i accept and understand if you don’t like it. it’s just my viewpoint and it’s as valuable and relative as that. take it as you will.
    i don’t have any more suggestions for the moment.

    • vinaire  On October 23, 2011 at 3:42 PM

      Well, I don’t think UNKNOWN attracts as much attention as UNKNOWABLE.

      Now keep in mind that it is just my consideration, and I shall be more than happy if someone can make me wrong.


  • R  On October 23, 2011 at 3:35 PM

    unknowable is a concept like God. unknowable only shows one’s own momentarily incapacity to know it, it does not show necessarily it is indeed unknowable, hence my idea of preferably calling it unknown, as it seems much closer to be reached and thus known.

    your question of if anyone can transform the unknowable into knowable does not make sense to me. it’s not a matter if anyone or who can, it’s a matter of watching it happen.

    once again, this is just my viewpoint and not a pretense to create a new doctrine or establish a final conclusion about anything.

    anything is knowable because what it’s not, it simply isn’t. why even think about it, it’s impossible to(o)

    • vinaire  On October 23, 2011 at 4:35 PM

      If you watch it happen, you may come up with a consideration of your own and think that you have discovered the bottom of the rabbit hole. That’s how it has been all along, it seems.

      It is like guessing at the last digit of the irrational number “PI”.


      • R  On October 23, 2011 at 5:13 PM

        how can that necessarily be? only if i add something to it 😉
        are you contradicting your own system? you shouldn’t, really! 🙂

    • vinaire  On February 23, 2014 at 11:22 AM

      One cannot claim that something is unknowable, because the concept of ‘something’ is knowable.

      Where ‘unknowable’ is concerned, one doesn’t even know what is unknowable.

  • R  On October 23, 2011 at 3:54 PM

    i know you are hungry so here is some more food:

    “unknowable” implies a self that can’t know it. it also sounds like a struggle, proper of a “self”. without a self, (and a struggle), is there any unknowable?
    is there any need to know anything at all or living simply becomes knowing itself, with no impossibilities because of the absence of desires, needs and craves?

    hope you are well fed now 🙂

    (and please keep the prize)

    • vinaire  On October 23, 2011 at 4:39 PM

      In my view, SELF comes later with the collapse of consciousness.

      “Unknowable” does not imply anything like what you are thinking. That’s the beauty of it. You will only come up with your own considerations when you contemplate on the unknowable.

      And that consideration is not unknowable. 🙂


      • R  On October 23, 2011 at 4:43 PM

        i never talked of unknowable more than answering your statements about it.
        i don’t have that question in my mind 🙂

      • R  On October 23, 2011 at 4:47 PM

        if you make statements about the unknowable that are certain for you, then that is not the unknowable. the tao we can talk about it not the tao 🙂

        going now, for real. good night, for real 🙂

      • R  On October 23, 2011 at 5:52 PM

        what later? what first? what sequence? you kidding me with your mathematics?

      • R  On October 23, 2011 at 5:57 PM

        “beauty”? the same beauty you very recently said one could get stuck into?
        so you were talking about you all the time; i knew it!

        good night, this time definitely (for today) 🙂

      • vinaire  On October 23, 2011 at 9:19 PM

        Good night… sleep tight!


  • R  On October 23, 2011 at 4:02 PM

    and for dessert:

    here and now is all there is to know and we sit on it.
    i know it’s not enough for you but maybe you should just accept it and live with it.
    looking too far away can be an obsession stemming from a compulsion of avoiding all there is, this here and now.

    i know it’s bittersweet but it ends the meal beautifully, whie aiding the digestion.

    let me know if you need something else, like a nice cup of tea.

    • vinaire  On October 23, 2011 at 4:44 PM

      Oh, yes, here and now is all your considerations in the present time. You can know them, of course. But none of them is the unknowable.

      I am not craving after the unknowable, my friend, because it is unknowable. It is the ultimate carrot.


      • R  On October 23, 2011 at 4:49 PM

        of course these are all considerations, it’s the only way of communicating with words.

        but how can you be so fixated on something that is unknowable, is something quite amazing.

      • Chris Thompson  On October 23, 2011 at 5:16 PM

        Vinay any statement about the unknowable is an oxymoron.

      • vinaire  On October 23, 2011 at 9:21 PM

        The “knowable unknowable”… of course!


  • R  On October 23, 2011 at 4:15 PM

    i am holding my cup of tea in my hands, here’s yours.

    we already know the necessary theories and inventing more is always possible but will only divert us from the essential, with so much we already and still have in store.

    let’s start on living. for real. unless you don’t want to. if that’s the case, you are free to choose otherwise. life can hurt but what can we do, that’s the life we have, that’s part of the meaning of being alive, with a bodymind system and its senses. beyond that there is pure speculation, that most tempting devil.

    and believe me when i say that all i said to you, i was saying it to me too.

    good night 🙂

  • R  On October 23, 2011 at 4:56 PM

    glad my teasing makes you smile. that is my joy. not to tease but to put smiles on others 🙂

    good night, really really good night!

    (you make me smile too, thank you)

  • vinaire  On October 23, 2011 at 5:17 PM

    “R” are you asleep yet?


    • R  On October 23, 2011 at 5:23 PM

      haha, you caught me still up 😀 i am not but will soon, soon, so soon you won’t even notice!

  • vinaire  On October 23, 2011 at 9:36 PM

    Unknowable is simply another way of saying that absolutes are unattainable.

    The last digit in the decimal representation of PI is “unknowable.”


    • A  On October 24, 2011 at 5:23 AM

      good morning 🙂

      if you reach the conclusion that it’s unknowable, you are attaining an absolute conclusion and according to that logic, it can’t be fully true.

      if the decimal representation of Pi is in fact infinite, then its last digit simply doesn’t exist, why even bother looking for it.

      last digit or not, it doesn’t make sense to isolate a component of a whole to study it, as everything in the phenomenical world is relative and part of something else.

      “absolutes are unattainable” is an absolute. with the mind one always finds an absolute paradox.

      if you let go of the mind you will find the absolute, and absolutely no need of wording it or relativizing it.

      i am the zero in your multiplication.
      don’t you just love me?

      got to work now.
      have a nice day 🙂

      • vinaire  On October 24, 2011 at 6:04 AM

        Good morning. 🙂
        No coffee… green tea would be just fine.

        Absolute conclusion can be reached only if one knows. I simply don’t know if anything is there to be known. So, I decided to call it unknowable.

        If the last digit of PI simply does not exist then this unknowable simply does not exist either. One can’t know what is not there in the first place. This is what I have been saying since the beginning. See Essay # 1, 2 and 3.

        I am not looking for this Unknowable. I leave that area of speculation alone.

        You are absolutely right about the relativity of the phenomenal world. It is like a circle or a sphere in terms of abstraction. It is a universe of consideration. That is all we can know. Nothing more. What is beyond the Universe of Consideration is unknowable because we may only speculate about it and know those speculations.

        Anything stated may be looked upon as absolute. That is the limitation of language. So, one may better stay silent about it because the concept here cannot be expressed through language.

        I think you have the right idea, and for that I love you.

        Have a wonderful day!


      • Chris Thompson  On October 24, 2011 at 8:42 AM

        heh-heh So why would you give such advice?

    • Chris Thompson  On October 24, 2011 at 8:57 AM

      The last digit in the decimal representation of PI is “unknowable.”

      Try out my “Law of No-Paradox.” It is very useful and satisfying especially for the weary mind. You may break this law if you desire, but why would you?

      I know where to find the last digit of Pi. The cognition is obvious but no less elegant because it is the last place you look. It is the last one that you write.

      This is consistent with your religion as well. You may pierce the veil to any degree or not as you so desire. If you are having fun with the level you are on then you may linger a while and play or rest. If you want to pioneer a bit more, there is always potential for that as well.

      • vinaire  On October 24, 2011 at 9:49 AM

        Your cognition leaves you with a consideration in this case. Of course, you can know your consideration, but not what is beyond consideration.


        • Chris Thompson  On October 24, 2011 at 9:59 AM

          Not really. Your evaluations of of my reality are inconsistent.

      • vinaire  On October 24, 2011 at 10:57 AM

        Your objection is noted.


    • Chris Thompson  On October 28, 2011 at 7:17 PM

      The last digit of Pi is the last digit which is written. Pi can go on. Pi can stop. What tells Pi to calculate? And what stops calculating? For me it represents a lesson in creation.

      • vinaire  On October 29, 2011 at 11:49 AM

        Then unknowable can be anything you imagine; but the search can go on…


      • Chris Thompson  On October 29, 2011 at 4:26 PM

        Yes, you are saying it but we aren’t quite connecting. I meant to convey that Pi can represent the infinite, but the infinite is, again by definition knowable. Pi shows that infinite is not beyond the bounds of finite but within the bounds.

        I call out the name of Static and you use the word Unknowable. We both use these words to point to that area outside the circle of finite. You’ve said you want to attract attention by using the word unknowable and I enjoy the more precise definition of static. No matter because we both need a placeholder for that potential area for which no word is adequate.

        Infinite is for me at once both beautiful and a trap. It is a quagmire of mental machinations and diverts attention from looking directly at what is. Regardless, infinite is both finite and knowable.

        I think I will begin defining infinite as the “long version” of finite, the 15 minute version of the rock & roll which only gets a 2:59 radio version. It is the same song, just so much more of it.

      • vinaire  On October 29, 2011 at 8:35 PM

        Pi doesn’t represent the infinite. Pi has a finite value.
        Infinite is not completely knowable.
        Static is unknowable.


      • Chris Thompson  On October 29, 2011 at 8:58 PM

        and vice versa.

      • vinaire  On October 29, 2011 at 9:09 PM

        I don’t know anything about what is unknowable… not even whether it is static or not.

        There is simply no point of reference from which to judge. The closest I can come is to say, “It is beyond consideration.”


      • Chris Thompson  On October 29, 2011 at 11:10 PM

        Furthermore, in honesty you could say that you don’t know if there is something beyond consideration.

      • vinaire  On October 30, 2011 at 7:13 PM

        Well, there seems to be some sort of a background, otherwise one wouldn’t be able to recognize considerations. This is a consideration itself.

        I just don’t know the nature of that background. And this too is a consideration.


      • Chris Thompson  On October 30, 2011 at 8:24 PM

        Yes, there is this consideration of unknowable. You have convincingly proved to me that nothing may be stated about it with accuracy or even relevance. You have clearly and cogently defined it. I understand you.

        When you say that there may be some type of background, something with a nature which can recognize the physical world, I do not have any discord reviewing that thought. It seems plausible and I don’t have a better explanation. Your comment indicates there is something unexplained about our world view and that we are trying to come up with explanations.

        Imagining and holding tightly to an idea that there is “something there” or “nothing there” about which “nothing may be known” is self-defeating and closed minded.

        The paradoxical nature of these thoughts is an indicator to me that there is something inconsistent in them to be rooted out.

      • vinaire  On October 31, 2011 at 5:24 AM

        We believe that there is something unexplained about our world view and so we are trying to come up with explanations. And that creates the world view in the first place. Our world view is made up of circular logic.


  • vinaire  On October 23, 2011 at 9:40 PM

    Where in Europe are you “R”? Just curious.


  • R  On October 24, 2011 at 6:21 AM

    thank you my friend.

    (would you still love me if you thought i had the wrong idea…?
    you don’t need to answer)

    receive this big tight (virtual) hug from me (the only one that is possible now which i still hope you can feel)

    • vinaire  On October 24, 2011 at 6:31 AM

      My lips are sealed like your icon’s. 🙂


      • R  On October 24, 2011 at 6:34 AM

        i can feel that 🙂

        thank you again

  • Lorraine  On October 27, 2011 at 1:41 PM

    Hello Vinaire,
    I’ve collected these short videos for you. I look forward to sharing with you your thoughts about these subjects. They contain some of my beliefs and realities about life.

    Look forward to hearing from you,

    • vinaire  On October 27, 2011 at 3:49 PM

      Hello Lorraine,

      I shall look at these videos when I am back home from work. For, now, let me just say that I like your icon.


  • Lorraine  On October 27, 2011 at 3:06 PM

    Sorry about the first two links (suggestions from youtube) trying to fix them.
    will get back with you soon.

  • Lorraine  On October 28, 2011 at 2:00 PM

    Hello Vinaire,
    First of all Vinaire I am very sorry that links two and three need to come off your blog .I am not tech savvy enough to take off links 2 and 3. youtube suggestions on the side are very inappropriate, although the two videos are very informative. I hope you can remove them from your blog. Look forward to sharing with you more.

    • vinaire  On October 28, 2011 at 3:52 PM


      I have removed those two links after trying to fix them. If one googles “Science and Buddhism Video,” I believe, one can find those videos with a non-offensive background. I shall leave this note for those who are interested. I still have to find time to watch and then comment on those videos.

      Thanks for your effort.


  • Chris Thompson  On October 29, 2011 at 11:39 PM

    Because Pi is irrational and because this irrationality resides within a finite system, I can declare consistently that Pi can be stated accurately to whatever depth of accuracy that one wishes to run the calculation. The last digit of Pi is simply the final degree of understanding that one wishes to achieve. No more or less.

    Because the calculation runs on infinitely and yet resides within the finite system then it follows that the definition of infinite falls within the finite.

    Thus understandings that place the infinite outside the finite need to be looked at again.

    If one did, they might come up with another look at existence being conditional upon a certain and defined frame of reference within the finite system.

    There is no reason that I know of to believe that consciousness must reside within any certain size or frame of reference, is there?

    If you wish to state that “The last digit in the decimal representation of PI is ‘unknowable.’ https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/wave-function-collapse/#comment-816,” This is a false statement.

    Unknowable is a belief, no more and no less.

    • vinaire  On October 30, 2011 at 7:18 PM

      Please elaborate on “this irrationality resides within a finite system.”
      I don’t quite get it.


      • vinaire  On October 31, 2011 at 5:38 AM

        Yes, Pi has a finite value. But that value cannot be expressed using a digital system, no matter how fine you make it. That is the definition of irrationality.

        Irrationality proves that there is no precisely delineated unit no matter how small you may imagine. This may be extended to the idea that nothing can be defined exactly.

        This goes along with the idea of as-isness, which says that a precise defintion of an idea leads to the disappearance of the idea itself. This means that the exact definition of everything is essentially nothing.

        And that means that everything has been brought into existence through visualization. Everything is an additive to nothing.

        And nothing cannot be defined because there is nothing to define.


        • vinaire  On March 1, 2014 at 9:31 AM

          Irrationality occurs where a precise ratio (or comparison) has not been made. Thus, there is an inconsistency.

        • Chris Thompson  On March 1, 2014 at 6:08 PM

          No, for me that is an inconsistent look at the notion of inconsistency. The idea of whole numbers and even ratios for me is more mental than the irratio, for it is the irrationality which seems prevalent and the more basic standard of this universe.

      • Chris Thompson  On October 31, 2011 at 5:13 AM

        Begin with finite using the ratio of Pi is > 3.14 and < 3.142. Then begin to look the infinite quality of the unending and non-repeating decimal expression.

        It is irrational to have a circle whose diameter or whose circumference we may not know.

        It is irrational to have a right triangle with sides of "1" and a hypotenuse whose length we may not know and yet the triangle is finitely "there."

        The Mandelbrot fractal lies within finite bounds and yet is unbounded.

        The "irrationality" of these examples points to apparent paradox of how can infinite qualities lie within finite systems?

        Since I don't believe in paradoxes, I am leaning toward a different major premise: Infinity lies within the bounds of finite.

        The transcendental lesson is that understanding has depth, and that we can understand as deeply as we are willing to look.

  • vinaire  On October 31, 2011 at 5:39 AM

    Infinity doesn’t mean “abundance of quantity.”

    Infinity simply means “without boundary or limit.”


  • Chris Thompson  On October 31, 2011 at 5:52 AM

    Our minds meet. To understand that the rabbit hole is as deep as you want to look is transcendental.

  • vinaire  On November 7, 2011 at 5:20 PM

    Here is a better explanation of wave function collapse from Wikipedia:

    “Even if the source intensity is turned down so that only one particle (e.g. photon or electron) is passing through the apparatus at a time, the same interference pattern develops over time. The quantum particle acts as a wave when passing through the double slits, but as a particle when it is detected. This is a typical feature of quantum complementarity: a quantum particle will act as a wave when we do an experiment to measure its wave-like properties, and like a particle when we do an experiment to measure its particle-like properties. Where on the detector screen any individual particle shows up will be the result of an entirely random process.”


    • Chris Thompson  On November 7, 2011 at 5:51 PM

      Yes, a lot of my thinking turns on this quality.

    • 2ndxmr  On January 21, 2012 at 7:03 PM

      The key to the double slit experiment is that the slit width is less than the wavelength of the light passing through it.

      If a photon is “spring-like” instead of “wave-like” (just a matter of another dimension to describe it as I described here: https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/guilt/#comment-1475) then all observations of the single and double slit experiments are explainable by the same theory: the reason for diffraction is the interaction of the spring-like character of the photon with an electron in the matter compositing the edge of the slit. More interaction (coupling of the “springs” – photon spring and electron spring) on one side of the slit than the other will cause the photon to be redirected in the direction of coupling.

      The same applies if you are shooting electrons instead of photons. The electron will be oscillating between a potential wave (spring) condition and a potential matter condition as it passes the slits. It will interact with the slit if it is wavelike (spring-like). I will sail through if it is particle-like. It is probabilistic, not influenced by consciousness.

      • Chris Thompson  On January 21, 2012 at 9:35 PM


      • 2ndxmr  On January 22, 2012 at 3:24 AM

        Not sure which item is source of the request for source. For the double slit experiment, it works best when thinner than a wavelength simply because all photons then interact with edges. A wider slit will work but only photons interacting with the edge will be diffracted. Photons passing through the open area of the slit and more than a wavelength from the edge will pass straight on to the target. All that means is that the diffraction pattern will be weaker with a wider slit.

        Source references showing the wavefront as planar before the slit and circular after the slit can give an incorrect view of the action of light. Light is packet based (photons) not planar waves like in a liquid wave pool. The diffraction caused by photons coupling with the slit edges is what gives the apparency of a circular or spherical wavefront.

      • vinaire  On January 22, 2012 at 8:35 AM

        I wonder what the “edges” are made up of… electrons? electro-magnetic field?


      • 2ndxmr  On January 22, 2012 at 5:27 PM

        V., “I wonder what the “edges” are made up of… electrons? electro-magnetic field?”

        The perimeter of any neutral surface would be an electron field. Assuming the edge of the slit to not be additionally charged by an external potential, the field should be uniform. If the slit edge was knife-like and honed to an atom thickness at the edge, the purest display of simple refraction (by light coupling with the electron field) would occur. If the slit edge has thickness there will be a tendency for the photon to go caroming around. This would cause some blurring of the diffraction pattern.

    • vinaire  On March 1, 2014 at 9:43 AM

      The double-slit experiment exists primarily as a thought experiment. It has not been carried out in its entirety as an actual experiment. So, the “results” broadcasted are conjectures.

      A photon is like a long snake. An electron is a much shorter snake. Neither of them are like “golf ball,” or spherical, as particles are generally assumed to be.

      When detected, even a snake makes a point like imprint. It is incorrectly assumed that a “snake like” particle need not interact with the edges of the slit.

      • Chris Thompson  On March 1, 2014 at 6:10 PM

        Yes. There seems to be a fundamental waveform which belies simplistic categorisation as a particle or a wave.

  • vinaire  On January 25, 2012 at 8:37 PM

    It seems that it is the electromagnetic field that condenses into electrons, protons and neutrons.This condensation seems to be in the form of standing waves that double, triple, multiple on themselves as in a fractal.

    The electromagnetic wave seems to be a characteristic of space. See



  • vinaire  On January 26, 2012 at 1:26 PM

    Chris wrote: “it came to me that “anything at all at any time at all” may be collapsed out of the infinite potential of the field of wave function. What “governs” is not “what is possible” because everything is possible. What governs is what has been agreed upon which agreements together create the consensus reality. “

    Two waves of same wave-length travelling in opposite directions form a standing wave when their phases happen to match.

    Similarly, two datum that are equal and opposite to each other, may lock together and form an enduring “standing wave” of consideration.

    So, this physical phenomenon of “standing wave” may extend to the mental sphere.


  • vinaire  On January 26, 2012 at 1:41 PM

    Any fixed idea or belief may be enduring because of this locking property of “standing wave.”

    So, what about this belief in a benevolent God? We have two waves here:

    (1) The wave of suffering.
    (2) The wave of hope that one can escape this suffering.

    The second wave is opposite of the first beacuse “hope for escape” will never make the suffering disappear. The two seem to have the same “wave-length” but in opposite directions.

    So, they lock up as “eternal hope versus eternal fear.” This seems to give birth to the belief in God. God would be of no use if there were no suffering.


  • vinaire  On January 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

    Collapse = free waves transforming into standing waves.


  • Fred Pickhardt  On May 1, 2012 at 5:48 PM


    I love this video from What the Bleep movie. I still wonder how can we measure which slit the electron goes through without interacting with it? Is it the detector or the observer collapsing the wave? I wrote to Dr. Fred Wolf and ne sent me a reply but I didn’t really understand it. 😦

    • vinaire  On May 1, 2012 at 6:01 PM

      Could you please post the link to the video, and also the reply from Dr. Fred Wolf!


      • Fred Pickhardt  On May 1, 2012 at 7:44 PM

        I emailed the reply but will also post it here after I clean out all the extra stuff.

        • vinaire  On May 1, 2012 at 8:11 PM

          Yes, I got the email, but it does need cleaning up as you said.


        • Fred Pickhardt  On May 1, 2012 at 9:10 PM

          Here is the email chain I had with Dr. Fred Alan Wolf a few years back:

          Email 1

          Subject: Observing the electron in the double slit experiment

          Dr. Wolf,   I just read your book “Dr. Quantum Presents: “User’s Guide to Your Universe”. 

          Just how does one observe an electron anyway?  How do we know which slit the electron went through and wouldn’t that mean that we interfered with that electron by observing it with some device?    Thanks   

          Answer:  Good questions!  Electrons are measured by electronic counting devices such as cathode ray tubes or Geiger counters and I would imagine today by any number of new devices.  These particles are known by their electric charge and mass> and spin or magnetic moments.  Hence there are a number of different ways to make these measurements.  By putting a magnetic field behind one of the slits we will change the pattern of electronic hits on a sensitive screen.  If we don’t know which slit, we see an interference pattern.  If we can determine which slit, we don’t.  For more read my book Taking the Quantum Leap and go to my web site for more information about quantum physics.

          Email 2
          Subject: Re: Observing the electron in the double slit experiment

          Thank you for your earlier correspondence and I hope you are doing well.
          I was speaking to someone recently that does not see how there is a need for a conscious observer to collapse the QWF. He says that the detector (the magnetic field used to detect the electron) causes the collapse without the need for any consciousness.   So do we need consciousness at all here?
          Thanks again


          Actually he is incorrect here.  This is often confused by laypersons who think machines obey laws different from quantum physics.  They don’t. All matter obeys the laws of quantum physics.   I am happy to clarify this for you and him.  Read this description carefully. It will explain the differences.

          Here is the complete double slit explanation with some simply math concepts but no actual math calculations.  If you understand this it will clear up the observer effect in quantum physics.   Why not look at the animation on the 2-slit experiment.  See http://www.whatthebleep.com/trailer/DS_sm2.wmv
          for the animation. Most explanations of the 2-slit experiment fail to go into the interaction of a measuring device with the particle before it arrives at the screen. 

          Let me try to explain this according to quantum physics. Although it appears to not make sense, it is not the camera that makes the big change–it is the observer that does it.  Let me use a shorthand to describe this. 

          Let E be the electron, (so E1 means electron at slit 1, and so on), S1 slit 1, S2 slit 2, and C the camera.  Now when the camera is off or not interacting with the slits we have the following situation.

          The quantum physics state of the whole system S is (E1×S1 + E2×S2)×C.  The two possibilities E1×S1 and E2×S2 interfere with each other–they add up their states. This is known as the superposition principle of quantum physics. The camera C does not affect each possibility separately even though it multiplies their sum.  This is just like classical physics where you compute the probability of throwing a dice to get a six and flipping a coin to get heads.  You simply multiply the probabilities 1/6 x 1/2 = 1/12.

          When the observer comes into the picture he sees the whole quantum physics (E1×S1 + E2×S2)×C state and hence sees the interference pattern after many electrons hit the screen.  Since C didn’t interact with either slit that pattern is the same as if the camera were not there at all. Now turn the camera on.  If the camera captures a picture, its state will change according to either possibility C1 or C2 where C1 means it went through slit-1 and C2 means it went through slit-2.  The whole system is now (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2). 

          Now there are two possibilities (I) and (II):  

          (I) The observer doesn’t look at the picture in the camera. The interference has been affected by the camera being in place and the camera’s state has changed.  If the observer were to observe this whole state (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2), and not look to see what the camera recorded, he still wouldn’t know which slit the electron went through and yet the whole  pattern on the screen would change due to the presence of the active camera. He would only know that something changed in the experiment.      

          According to quantum physics the probability for having the camera on and the observer not looking at its result is (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2) x (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2)*  [* means complex-conjugate]. This gives the probability to be   |(E1×S1×C1)|^2 + |(E2×S2×C2)|^2 + rapid interference terms.  The interference terms are nearly zero due to the complexity of having many particles in the film of the camera and the result seems just about random. This would appear on the screen as a jiggle of overlapping single slit possibilities with little interference.

          (II)  The observer does look at the picture in the camera. Since he looks at the camera he will see either E1×S1×C1 or E2×S2×C2 and depending on which camera state he observes, he will “see” a slightly different result on the screen for where the electron went.  If he would see C1, it went through slit-1, if he would see C2 it went through slit-2 and there is no interference any more.  The observed pattern, either E1×S1×C1 or E2×S2×C2, would be slightly different than the whole state (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2) although this would be very hard to detect. 

          Here is the reason it is hard to detect. In (II) while the camera is recording the result yielding (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2)  over and over again and he looks at the camera each time and then waits for a lot of looked at electrons to arrive on the screen, he would find an overlap of probabilities for each result.  It’s like asking for the total
          probability of finding a single die with either the number 2 or the number 3  showing.  You add the separate probabilities of 1/6 + 1/6.= 1/3. So if you were to look at each camera after the camera took its picture each time you would get the probability to be   |(E1×S1×C1)|^2 + |(E2×S2×C2)|^2 without the interference terms.  This is very much like the result in (I) where the result is the same except for the rapid interference terms that are there from not looking at the camera. Since they are rapid they average out to a fuzzy result.

          So ultimately the observer causes the change in the pattern although in this case the human observer plays a small role. This doesn’t necessarily mean that putting the camera in place and turning it on doesn’t change things–it does.  This state (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2×C2) (camera on) is not the same as (E1×S1 + E2×S2)×C (camera off). 

          It makes little difference to do it this way or use two cameras or even just one camera.  If the single camera is on behind slit 1, e.g.,  and nothing is recorded, the electron did not go through that slit and the observation that it did not also destroys the interference pattern because we then know it went through slit 2 since we don’t see it go through slit 1.   That is (E1×S1×C1 + E2×S2) becomes either E1×S1×C1 or E2×S2 thus also destroying the pattern. 

          For more you might enjoy reading about quantum physics in several books listed on my website such as Taking the Quantum Leap, Parallel Universes, The Yoga of Time Travel, and 0thers.  I would also suggest you read the Feynman lectures vol. 3.

          In summary the observer destroys the interference between the possibilities.  The camera doesn’t.  Note in particular even the observation that an electron did not go through a slit produces the same result as observing that it did. 

          For more on this See for examples:    

          Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D.

          Email 3 To: fred alan wolf
          Thanks Dr. Wolf

          When you mentioned “complex-conjugate” I suspect you are speaking of vector math with complex numbers. This is where I get lost having very little background in that area.

          Anyway, What I think you said was that the electron acts as a wave function and can go through both slits and thus interfere with itself and create the interference pattern when it reaches the back screen. Even with the camera off I would think you would get the same result?

          What I don’t understand is that when the camera or detector is on but nobody is looking I would expect to see the non-interference pattern of 2 bands on the back screen since the camera was collapsing the electron wave. Has the 2 slit experiment been done with the camera on but nobody looking vs. camera on and looking? 

          This was not clear in the “Down the Rabbit Hole” animation.

          Thanks again for you patience 


          That was the whole point of what I sent you.  The off camera does nothing to the interference pattern.   The on camera with no observer doesn’t collapse the quantum wave function. All it does is mess up the interference pattern.  The on camera with an observer does collapse the quantum wave function so there is no interference pattern.  Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D.

          My final email to Dr Wolf
          Thanks for the guide down the rabbit hole.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 1, 2012 at 10:15 PM

          Kickass post Fred. Thanks for saving and sharing that. Ditto to Vin.

        • vinaire  On May 1, 2012 at 9:25 PM

          Wow! That’s a lot of work you did in cleaning it up. I shall be going over it thoroughly. I don’t know how much I’ll understand though.


      • Fred Pickhardt  On May 2, 2012 at 6:49 AM

        I hope you two can make sense out of the example because I am still scratching my head about it.

  • vinaire  On May 2, 2012 at 7:59 AM

    Let me start out with the observation that, in my opinion, the wave function collapse has something to do with the fractal of BEING.


    Now the fun starts! 🙂


  • vinaire  On May 2, 2012 at 3:42 PM

    Fred, about the double-slit experiment, your key question appears to be:

    “Is it the detector or the observer collapsing the wave?”

    Did that question really get answered?


    • fredwx  On May 2, 2012 at 7:21 PM

      In my opinion no, but I got lost in the math.

    • fredwx  On May 2, 2012 at 7:29 PM

      I would think that any detector would interact with the QWF and collapes the wave into a particle whether I was looking or not.

      • vinaire  On May 2, 2012 at 7:52 PM

        Another friend of mine (Ivan) thinks the same way.


        • fredwx  On May 2, 2012 at 8:14 PM

          If it is the observer then we decide the outcome by either looking or not looking.

        • vinaire  On May 2, 2012 at 8:38 PM

          But you are measuring in either case and that amounts to looking. See



  • fredwx  On May 2, 2012 at 7:23 PM

    I got lost in the math but Dr. Wolf says it;s the obserrver.

    • fredwx  On May 2, 2012 at 8:28 PM

      What I think he is saying is that the electron goes through slit 1 and slit 2 and both slits and neither at the same time and when observes the state then the QWF collapes into one possibility but this is too far down the rabbit hole for me.

  • vinaire  On May 3, 2012 at 2:11 PM

    Fred, I finally got around to reading the explanations from Dr. Wolf. These explanations are simply asserting what you are questioning. His explanations are not answering the question. His video is designed simply to get a reaction. How does one know what it is when one is not looking? One knows what is there only when one looks.

    According to Wikipedia, wave function collapse is “the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer.” In my opinion, any observation is just that. I never see two different possible processes simultaneously at any moment. I just see one process or the other.

    Per Wikipedia, “When the measurement is made – it yields an outcome, only one will occur, even though more than one could, so when it happens no measurement of the other states can subsequently be made.” This is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle.

    So, what is there when one is not looking is simply postulated mathematically. It is not something that is actually there.


    • fredwx  On May 3, 2012 at 4:37 PM

      If I flip a coin and don’t look there are possibilities, heads or tails. Common sense says that whether I am looking or not the result is either heads or tails but not both. The 2-slit experiment seems to suggest that when I don’t look, the electron can go through both slits which defies common sense since it seems like we have both heads and tails at the same time.

      • vinaire  On May 3, 2012 at 4:47 PM

        The assumption seems to be that electron is like a solid particle. I don’t think so. A drop of water can go through both the slits.Electron is simply a mathematical particle. I don’t think that an electron has a sharply defined surface that separates “charged space” from normal space.


        • fredwx  On May 3, 2012 at 6:37 PM

          If a water drop spits it is now 2 separate particles of half the mass each but I don’t think the resulting splash pattern will show an interference pattern. What seems to be happening with an electron is that its mathematical probability wave passes through both slits and then interferes with itself to somehow create the interference pattern on the screen, even when done one electron at a time. When we observe it we find it acts like a particle and only goes through 1 slit because we know know it is a particle?

        • vinaire  On May 3, 2012 at 8:40 PM

          From Wikipedia:

          “The double-slit apparatus can be modified by adding particle detectors positioned at the slits. This enables the experimenter to find the position of a particle not when it impacts the screen, but rather, when it passes through the double-slit — did it go through only one of the slits, as a particle would be expected to do, or through both, as a wave would be expected to do?

          Numerous experiments have shown, however, that any modification of the apparatus that can determine which slit a particle passes through reduces the visibility of interference at the screen, thereby illustrating the complementarity principle: that light (and electrons, etc.) can behave as either particles or waves, but not both at the same time. An experiment performed in 1987 produced results that demonstrated that information could be obtained regarding which path a particle had taken, without destroying the interference altogether. This showed the effect of measurements that disturbed the particles in transit to a lesser degree and thereby influenced the interference pattern only to a comparable extent.

          There are many methods to determine whether a photon passed through a slit, for instance by placing an atom at the position of each slit. Interesting experiments of this latter kind have been performed with photons and with neutrons.”

        • vinaire  On March 4, 2014 at 4:33 PM

          It becomes easier to explain when we look at electron as a “snakelike” object and not as a “golfball like” particle. As a snake, electron has a wavelike shape and it seems that an interference pattern will be generated even when the electrons are going through one of the slits, one at a time.

      • Chris Thompson  On May 5, 2012 at 11:15 AM

        Fred, Keep digging around in here… your hard work is condensing the paradox and maybe if you can clearly state the paradox, the counterintuitive answer may pop out at you.

  • fredwx  On May 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM

    Then those waves of possibility can interefere with each other and create the interference patten seen in the double-slit experiment. If a tree falls in forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

    • vinaire  On May 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM

      Please see Double-slit experiment in Wikipedia.

      An electron is not a sharply defined particle. It has both particle and wave properties.

      Any answer to that tree falling in the forest would be a conjecture, which can then be verified or falsified by actually witnessing a tree falling in the forest.



    • vinaire  On March 4, 2014 at 4:35 PM

      Fred said, “If a tree falls in forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”

      Well, you will have to ask the tree or the forest.

    • vinaire  On March 4, 2014 at 6:52 PM

      I don’t see mathematical probabilities to be determining the reality. Probabilities come in when electron is assumed to be a golfball like particle. But is that assumption true? Why can’t one assume an electron to be a snakelike object?

  • vinaire  On May 3, 2012 at 9:51 PM

    I need to fully understand what a wave function is. The math seems to be a bit difficult here.


  • vinaire  On May 4, 2012 at 4:59 AM

    Here is another reference. I have yet to read it.



  • vinaire  On May 4, 2012 at 5:18 PM

    I would like those who want to discuss wave function collapse to fully understand what a wave function is in the first place. It is defined mathematically. So, one has to understand the mathematics involved. There is no other way.

    I shall be doing the same. I shall be starting here:

    Wave function

    Good hunting!


  • fredwx  On May 5, 2012 at 7:50 AM

    I am about 40 min into the lecture and the person does cover the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle during the first half. As I understand it the more precise you know the position of something the less certain you are of its momentum. In the lecture he says that that the more certain you are of the frequency of a wave the more time you need to observe it, thus less certain of where in space it is. To know the exact frequency requires infinate time.

    • fredwx  On May 5, 2012 at 10:51 AM

      Here is another one from India, a lecture on Heisenberg Uncertainty by Prof.V.Balakrishnan, Department of Physics, IIT Madras. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcmGYe39XG0

    • vinaire  On May 5, 2012 at 11:16 AM

      The underlying assumption seems to be that of use of the Fourier Series in describing perception. In other words, it is the superposition of simple sine and cosine waves that creates perception.

      This is a quick look. I may be wrong. I need to study the Fourier series at this point.


  • fredwx  On May 8, 2012 at 11:36 AM

    What the 2-slit experiment seems to be saying is that all matter exists in some fundamental state of possibility until observed. Then I wonder if that means that all the matter in the universe only came into existence when there was a conscious observer?

    Would that suggest that God would be to ultimate consciousness?

    • Chris Thompson  On May 8, 2012 at 1:44 PM

      Maybe! Why not?!

      • fredwx  On May 8, 2012 at 3:13 PM

        I would think that if a conscious observer can pop the QWF then might not the Big Bang be the ultimate pop?

        • Chris Thompson  On May 8, 2012 at 8:26 PM

          Fred, these are good conjectures. When I look at a mathematical placeholder like the “wave-function” I feel that I am looking at potential MEST. I am not sure what the wave function actually represents in terms of energy or space-time, but MEST seems to condense from something so we call it the wave-function.

          Another possibility is that it represents every possibility uncondensed.

          Another possibility is that there is nothing there but that the wave-function is the point of creation of something where there before there was nothing, not even “before.”

          Godel’s Theorem has been taken to imply that you’ll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself. This presents a paradox leading to the inductive argument that points to an understanding required and thus existing from an additional dimension(s) beyond the four usual dimensions. Vinaire is calling this unknowable and I don’t but who cares? Godel shows us with elegant clarity that there is logically at least another dimension beyond what we “know” as in “make manifest.” I don’t call this unknowable because I don’t like to but you may call it whatever seems consistent to you.

        • vinaire  On May 8, 2012 at 8:33 PM

          Fred, please note that MEST is an acronym from Scientology, which stands for “Matter, Energy, Space & Time.”

        • fredwx  On May 9, 2012 at 8:04 AM

          Chris, The QWF appears to have real effects within our space-time universe as seen by the interference patterns in the 2-slit experiment. Perhaps it exists within our universe but in a yet unknown dimension?

        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 8:18 AM

          Another dimension? Yes, this seems like safe, consistent, and workable logic. This agrees with my understanding of Godel. To be fair to Vinaire, agreeing to another dimension “of the universe” might possibly only be an expanded way of looking at the universe and does not require a leap out into the unknowable.

          There is plenty-plenty of room left in the usual universe for infinite variations. It is statistically probable that we are understanding such a small sliver of the “known” universe that our understanding nearly doesn’t exist.

        • fredwx  On May 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM

          Chris, Re another dimension: A 3-D object would be seen in a different form in a 2-D world. A cylinder for example might appear as a circle or rectangle in from a 2-D perspective. How would a multi-dimensional object appear in our 3-D world? Perhaps as a ghost or an interference pattern?
          Just speculating

        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 8:19 PM

          Right. I also have had that idea about the interference pattern. I am confident that without leaving physics, we still have almost ALL of the extant universe waiting for our observation.*

          Another way I look at this is that there is physically this enormously overbalanced portion of “what-is” that we cannot perceive. Your example of how additional dimensions might appear to 4-dimensional beings is pertinent.

          Unlike “the unknowable,” it is reasonable to extrapolate that matter energy and space-time exist, and exist in quantity but not within our perception. The universe within our own frame of reference is FULL of unperceived space-time, and therefore more kinds of unperceived energy is reasonable.

          *So I wonder, whether the enormous potential of the universe is waiting for our observation to coalesce, or whether there is a RWOT waiting for our perception to increase until we can perceive it.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 8:27 PM

          *Fred, what if the wave-function collapse was not a quality of the universe but of our perception alone?

        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 8:42 PM

          *If the universe awaits our observation in order to coalesce, then I wonder if under the category of “wave-function” there exists that part of the universe (wave-function) as a percentage of the whole.

    • vinaire  On May 8, 2012 at 2:21 PM

      I think that consciousness and what to be conscious of, comes about at the same time. In other words, it seems that God appeared at the same time that matter appeared.

      I doubt if there is any consciousness without nothing to be conscious of. See



      • Chris Thompson  On May 8, 2012 at 4:59 PM

        Round and round. Up and down. If you want free will you will have to decide to have it. Or decide to shuffle from one foot to the other. Decide to be mest or decide to step away from the mest. These are all possibilities.

        This is consistent with Godel”s.

  • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 5:55 AM

    Godel’s incompleteness theorem is:

    No consistent system of axioms … is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic).

    Does that apply to the universe and Free will?


    • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 8:03 AM

      What do you think?

      • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 8:47 AM

        I think that it doesn’t because Godel’s incompleteness theorem applies to formal systems that are representable by symbols and its operators.

        I do not think that the universe, of which “free will” is one of the characteristics, can be represented as a formal system.


  • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 6:20 AM

    Godel’s incompleteness theorem applies to formal systems that are representable by symbols and its operators. Can this theorem be extended to systems that cannot be totally represented by symbols and operators?

    Chris is referring to Godel here to make certain conclusions about life. To me that seems unjustified.


    • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 7:54 AM

      My logic would be unjustified if life is a closed system. Both Godel and Heisenberg help us understand that life is not a closed system. The more consistent your world view becomes, the more open you must conclude that the system of the world is. Please exploit my inconsistencies.

      Heisenberg’s uncertainty is the foundation of my understanding that world is discrete.

      • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM

        My understanding of irrational numbers tells me that the world is neither discrete nor non-discrete. One may attempt to represent the world as discrete or non-discrete. Please see

        Going Beyond Counting

        How does Heisenberg’s uncertainty lead you to the conclusion that the world is discrete? Please explain.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 9:16 AM

          Irrational numbers speak to the discreteness of the universe and to the apparent continuousness of the universe.

          see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Disc

        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 11:35 AM

          Decimal is only one type of representation of irrational numbers, which cannot represent the irrational number to absolute accuracy. A form, such as, square root of 2, is another type of representation of the irrational number.

          I do not see how the link, provided by you above, proves the absolute discreteness of the physical universe.


        • Anonymous  On May 9, 2012 at 2:20 PM

          Perhaps just ask a question about these things I am stating so I know where to begin.

        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 4:25 PM

          I have no questions. I simply disagree that the universe is ultimately discrete. I don’t see any evidence for it.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 8:53 PM

          Or which of the evidences for it being discrete do you disagree? How do you feel that they lack merit?

        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 9:24 PM

          Basically I am looking at the conjecture, “In the final analysis this universe is discrete.” Now put this conjecture through the scientific method.


          Is this conjecture falsifiable?


        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 9:27 PM

          Of course.

        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 9:47 PM

          Then we need to go back to step (2) to form a more educated conjecture. 🙂


        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 9:29 PM

          Do you feel that electron states are falsifiable?

        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 9:48 PM

          Yes, I would say so. But this is just a hunch.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 9:51 PM

          Well then maybe in the final analysis, all we have left are our considerations and our conjectures about our considerations.

        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 10:01 PM

          You can say that again. 🙂


  • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 6:47 AM

    Deciding doesn’t ensure if one is moving in the right direction. So, one can decide… what does that prove? How dependent or independent is that decision? How does one know it is independent?


    • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 8:08 AM

      You have decided that looking will take you in the “right direction.” Please consider this judgement in a new light. You described very well the moving forward and the moving backward within a fractal and recursive construct…

      • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 8:40 AM

        Watch your assumptions. 🙂


        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 9:20 AM

          You don’t remember your post?

        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 11:47 AM

          What makes you say. “You have decided that looking will take you in the ‘right direction’. ” Have I?


    • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 8:09 AM

      “How does one know that it is independent?” Fixating on the self of independence blocks thinking from considering other possibilities. Can you see where I am going?

      • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 8:41 AM

        Please explain with an example.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 9:19 AM

          Independence is self.

        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 11:45 AM

          I am sorry. it is still not clear. What does “Fixating on the self of independence” mean?


        • Anonymous  On May 9, 2012 at 3:05 PM

          The consideration of an independent self is a consideration of self.

      • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 5:31 PM

        To, me decision, free will, etc. is part of the universal system, just like self is.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 8:59 PM

          Ok, I got you.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 9:31 PM

          What is it about the self that you desire to dissolve?

        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 9:52 PM

          It is my educated speculation that self is an inconsistency and it will dissolve during the course of looking. I am not aiming at it. What will happen will happen.


    • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 9:18 AM

      Vinaire, within the context of this universe, deciding may be the only direction, nevermind right or wrong.

      • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 11:40 AM

        In KHTK looking there is no deciding. There is unwinding of the mind where inconsistencies realign themselves.

        On the other hand, there is creative visualizing. Again there is no deciding. The creativity simply unfolds itself.

        Deciding is part of a discrete logic system, which is a created system. The logic system is not inherent to the universe. This is my opinion, of course.


        • Anonymous  On May 9, 2012 at 2:25 PM

          Of course in KHTK there is deciding. There is deciding to look.

        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 5:25 PM

          The looking through mind’s eye is always there further augmented by other sense channels. Looking is the natural state.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 9:09 PM

          I rather think that looking is a state of awareness and not the only one — natural or not.

        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 5:34 PM

          Decision is a system manifestation that may inhibit looking.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 9:00 PM

          No more so than looking inhibits decision making.

        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 9:12 PM

          Possibly decision making is collapsing the wave so that then is there something to look at.

        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 9:40 PM

          In my opinion, decision making is part of thinking, and looking is more basic than thinking. Even the “Know to Mystery Scale” of Scientology positions Looking that way.


        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 9:31 PM

          Decision making involves thinking (making associations to generate new considerations). There is no thinking involved in looking. There is simply the natural leveling of inconsistencies in looking that does not involve self.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 9:43 PM

          Not the only kind of decision making. There is also your “effortless art” to name one other example.

        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 9:55 PM

          I don’t want to call leveling of inconsistencies, which do not involve any effort from self, to be ‘decision making’ because, by definition, it is not.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 11:17 PM

          Effortless Art is the smooth expression of self.

        • vinaire  On May 10, 2012 at 5:06 AM

          . 🙂 .

        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 9:37 PM

          I have tried to express Looking as best as I can in KHTK issues.


  • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 6:49 AM

    The positive direction seems to be the removal or leveling of inconsistencies.


    • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 8:00 AM

      Positive is merely your judgement. Your personal goal to reach nirvana makes a comment like this consistent. If my personal goal is to have a more complete life, then I may need to expect more inconsistencies.

      But the circular logic of reaching nirvana from the self viewpoint of physics ignores Godel.

  • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM

    Vinaire, did you remove the “waiting for moderation?” My posts seem to go right up on the board. Thank you.

  • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 8:52 PM

    I think that the validity of Godel’s incompleteness theorem is limited to well-defined mathematical systems only. I do not think that the universe is a well-defined mathematical system.

    Mathematics is looking at a limited set of data compared to the universe. It can at best point to some possibilities. So, Godel’s theorem can only make some predictions about this universe. But these predictions would have to be verified by actual looking before accepting those “predictions” as true.

    It is too early to base arguments about the nature of the universe on Godel’s theorem.


    • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 9:01 PM

      Where is your cutoff point?

      • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 9:18 PM

        I don’t know. I am looking. I don’t want to speculate too much.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 9:26 PM

          Ok. I don’t have too much discipline when it comes to speculating!

          I’m not trying to “prove” the nature of the universe using Godel. Proving from inside the system would be impossible. I am using Godel to point to “something” where you say “unknowable.”

        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 9:43 PM

          I think that logic, which includes mathematics, falls short where attempts to define unknowable are concerned.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 9:50 PM

          You are misrepresenting my point which is that you leap to unknowable while there is a vast expanse and unexplored field of actual MEST or potential MEST laying before you.

          Asserting that definitions of unknowable fall short is a consistent but redundant thing to say since there is not a definition of unknowable. No not even the Hymn of Rig Veda defines it.

        • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 9:59 PM

          You are right. There is no definition possible for unknowable.


  • vinaire  On May 9, 2012 at 9:57 PM

    Thanks for the discussion. It has been quite stimulating. I think it is time for me to go to bed.

    Good night!


    • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 11:18 PM

      Have a good and restful sleep… I am three hours earlier so I get involved and forget what time it is there.

      • vinaire  On May 10, 2012 at 5:08 AM

        And I get up all fresh in the morning, while you are still asleep. 🙂


  • Chris Thompson  On May 9, 2012 at 11:20 PM

    . 🙂 .

    • vinaire  On May 10, 2012 at 5:10 AM

      + 🙂 +

      • Chris Thompson  On May 10, 2012 at 8:15 AM

        The wordpress disallows us to repeat comments… hehe. We need a fractal generator that can make infinite smiley faces that are similar but not identical.

        Maybe that’s how this whole big thing got started.

  • vinaire  On May 19, 2012 at 1:29 PM

    What is it that is oscillating in an electromagnetic wave, and which is measured as frequency? What makes it oscillate in that fashion?

    • Chris Thompson  On May 19, 2012 at 3:40 PM

      The frequency as I understand is rotation. It is spinning. What is spinning? I don’t know what is spinning.

    • vinaire  On May 19, 2012 at 4:16 PM

      What I get is that there is oscillation between electric and magnetic fields. Frequency shows how fast this oscillation is taking place. I am trying to understand the nature of this oscillation.


    • 2ndxmr  On May 19, 2012 at 5:04 PM

      This is my own conjecture, but one workable model that would create an AC generator effect would be a zero-point black hole that is twisting its local space into a vortex.

      This would be an incredibly small black hole with an event horizon diameter on the order of a Planck length.

      The action of the twisting vortex would be to instill a ripple into the local space-time. This ripple would be the source of any oscillation, such as electromagnetic waves.

      In this model, the vortex may be twisted into multiple dimensions, possibly like the Calabi-Yau manifold.

      The idea of dimension that I prefer is to consider something like a Rubic’s cube: what you see when looking at the cube depends on how the cube orients itself to you, or on how you are able to orient yourself to it. You may see a single color (or attribute such as mass), or you may see another color (or attribute such as oscillation) if you are oriented along a different dimension.

      In the zero-point black-hole model the dimensions are stable for length of time it takes the vortex to complete some portion of a rotation.

      This stability period would be akin to the idea of wave-particle duality: a facet of the cube is only available for a period of time if the cube is spinning, but just like a spinning cube, the aspects that you see rotation after rotation will be the same until some outside force causes a reorientation of the spinning cube.

      This “quantum inertia” could explain why an electron (in a double slit experiment) starts off as a particle when emitted from the electron gun and transits the distance from the gun to the slit as a particle (with the possibility each Planck interval of being a wave) but not reorienting to a wave dimension until it interracts with the slit measurement.

      Possibly more later… (depending on momentum and position) 🙂

  • vinaire  On May 19, 2012 at 5:12 PM

    The difference between a wave and particle seem to be one of identity.

    wave + identity = particle

    Now I have to understand what identity means here.


    • vinaire  On May 19, 2012 at 10:09 PM

      Identity (or self) adds mass and volume.

      Identity (or self) reduces the space occupied.

      This process makes the wave double up on itself, and go around in circle, with the circle shrinking to end up in a particle.

      Well, that’s my crazy speculation!


      • 2ndxmr  On May 20, 2012 at 5:43 AM

        I believe the difference between the apparency of wave and particle is one of orientation.

        Consider attempting to walk through a crowd of people while holding your arms outstretched:

        If you attempt passage with your arms perpendicular to the direction of passage you will be heavily impeded by the other people as your outstretched arms will be pushing against them. This is the equivalent of the creation of particle mass.

        If you moved with your arms in-line with the direction of passage you would experience the least resistance from contact with others. You would be relatively massless compared to the other (perpendicular) orientation.

        With this idea of “orientation” determining the viewed characteristic, the same quantum bit-of-stuff could be “particley” or “wavey” depending on its orientation to other bits of stuff.

        These orientations are simply dimensions – just different dimensions from 3-space.

        A first-order approximation to the task of defining a quantum bit-of-stuff would be to approach it from a linear algebraic model of dimensions and coefficients. Take a neutrino, for instance. Its “arms-perpendicular” coefficient would be 0 (zero) while its “arms in-line” coefficient would be 1. This would make it massless.

        With other particles, like an electron, there would be some coefficient of both the “arms-perpendicular” dimension and the “arms in-line” dimension. This would be like walking through the crowd with your arms at a slight angle to your direction of motion: some degree of resistance (mass) would be noted.

      • vinaire  On May 20, 2012 at 6:26 AM

        Your explanation gives rise to the following questions in my mind:

        (1) Orientation of what? What is that element, which is common to both wave and particle?

        (2) What is that, which the wave/particle seems to be pushing against?

        At the moment my model is: “An electromagnetic wave is something like a ripple in the fabric of space.” Here I am viewing space as a field. The “field of space” is a harmonic of something more fundamental. The physical space may just be one of the harmonics. Somewhere in those harmonics rests awareness.

        I know this is very sketchy, but I believe we need to visualize a new model and then develop the required mathematics for it.

        The current mathematics has reached a point of exhaustion in my view. A new kind of Science seems to refer to a new direction.


        • 2ndxmr  On May 20, 2012 at 2:15 PM

          The element that is common to both the particle and the wave would be the “generator”: the vortex of space-time twisted by the zero-point – a singularity of sorts.

          The action of the zero-point would be the same as the action of a collapsed star forming a black hole in space, only on an incredibly small scale – the Planck length.

          For the orientation aspect, again consider the Rubic’s cube – 6 sided, 3 dimensioned. Depending on orientation of the cube we see different “colors”. If those colors were re-labeled as waveyness, massiness, spinniness, gravityness, weak-forciness, strong-forciness, then depending on the orientation of the cube we would have a vector sum of the components that would interfere with (or impinge upon) our 3-space.

          The idea here is that there is a multi-dimensional aspect to a quantum bit-of-stuff that presents an elementary particle as a vector sum of the coefficients of the dimensions. This makes current math useable.

          The “field of space” is currently proposed to be the Higgs field, and it is proposed to be continuous, with each zero-point capable of generating a Higgs boson. This boson could be the initial product of every zero-point with the possibility of re-orientation of the zero-point to an orientation that would present any one of the other particle vectors. I believe it is superstring theory that positsthat there needs to be 26 dimensions necessary to describe a boson. That’s more than enough to describe the fermions and gauge bosons that make up the current model of elementary particles.

          What this would mean is that any point in space could become any one of the elementary particles at any time, given some outside force to cause the re-orientation.

          The harmonic oscillation could be due to a precession of the vortex around the zero-point. When that precession is viewed from different angles it would certainly have different amplitudes and different harmonic contents. Just consider a point rotating in a circle which then turns off-axis to you and appears as an ellipse. To “create” that ellipse mathematically a phase shift has to be added into the sin cos relationship. Again, this shows the effect of visual orientation, which is what makes me lean towards the same effects being modelable at the quantum level.

        • vinaire  On May 20, 2012 at 4:12 PM

          I am lost with your explanation. Could you please explain what zero-point is!

          By zero-point do you mean Zero-point energy?


        • 2ndxmr  On May 20, 2012 at 6:45 PM

          My apologies for a poor explanation. The discussion really needs a couple six-packs and steaks to chew on. (At least for those of us who are not pure-at-heart vegans.)

          Re: zero points

          This is from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

          In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles. Zero-point field is sometimes used as a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field.
          According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is “by no means a simple empty space”,[1] and again: “it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void.”[2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

          Another interesting ref:


          “Now both Newton’s and Einstein’s gravity predict that enough mass in a small enough space can produce a black hole: a region with a gravitational field so strong that its escape velocity is c. When we put the two ideas together, we find that there is a scale small enough for virtual black holes to exist. This is the Planck scale. ”

          The production in this link is from Nova and is also quite good, just long:

          The Nova production gets a bit into the Higgs field. Enough to show how it could be the source of the phenomenon of mass, more or less as I described earlier.

          I have recently read several articles on the scientific observation of light spontaneously appearing in a vacuum – observational confirmation of the ideas of vacuum state energy. This is the basic concept I wanted to get across with what I was calling “zero points”. Perhaps a better choice of term would be Planck-zeros.

  • vinaire  On May 20, 2012 at 7:29 PM

    All right, so you are referring to ‘Zero-point field’, which is a synonym for the vacuum state of an individual quantized field. And this is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. A related concept is being talked about here: Zero-point energy

    “Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible explanation for the cosmological constant. A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a particular field.”

    So, as I understand, the vacuum between galaxies may be free of matter but it is not free of field. Actually, I think of space itself as a type of field.


    • 2ndxmr  On May 20, 2012 at 9:50 PM

      It is interesting that this vacuum state is termed the “quantum state with the lowest possible energy”. I say that because one of the problems with finding the Higgs boson was the creation of a super-collider with enough energy to either create or release the Higgs. This would seem contrary to calling it the lowest energy state. Perhaps calling it the “most stable energy state” would be more appropriate as then one could understand why it is so hard to cause that state to change.

      One intriguing aspect of the Higgs is that it permeates all space. Whether it also permeates all matter is another question of importance. Certainly atoms are vacuuous enough that the bosonic field should be able to permeate them, so that should not be a consideration. The primary consideration may be whether or not the Higgs field may actually be necessary for electrons to orbit a nucleus – sort of being the swimming pool that the electrons and other particles are floating in.

      Here are some other points to consider:

      1) If particles can randomly pop out of the vacuum state, and the only component of the vacuum state is the Higgs, does that not indicate that the Higgs can spontaneously change into any elementary particle? (It should be noted that while this spontaneous creation has been observed, the particles generated are most often short-lived – except for photons of light.)

      2) If the Higgs can spontaneously change to any elementary particle, does that not conflict with calling it the “lowest quantum energy state”? In order to “decay” into other particles it should have an energy level minimally equal to the sum of the energies released on decay.

      Supposition: the Higgs represents the most stable quantum state oriented towards 3-space.

      Supposition: the Higgs is a presentation (a facet; a dimensional view) of the single bit-of-stuff (absolutely no other different bit-of-stuff required) that is also the same bit-of-stuff that every other elementary particle is made of (is simply a different presentation of). That is to say, if you had a polyhedron with enough opposing surfaces to give you the effect of 26 dimensions, particular orientations of the polyhedron would correspond to a particular elementary particle.

      Supposition: for a particle to be stable in 3-space, the “facet” representing the particle must have some critical alignment to 3-space, that is to say it must have a strong enough component in the dimensions we refer to as x,y&z to remain “visible” to 3-space. Any particle without enough stability (alignment strength) would decay and disappear from 3-space.

      I’ll stop here for now to keep this from getting too long. Some important points remain, including how the model supports particle-wave duality and why only one “size” of virtual black hole is needed to make the model work.

  • vinaire  On May 20, 2012 at 9:33 PM

    I watched the following video.

    The main ideas seem to be:

    (1) Space is not nothing. It is something. Space is a real physical thing.

    (2) Space is not static. It is dynamic. At atomic scale, particles seems to be popping out of space and then disappearing back.

    (3) Neither space nor time is absolute. Space and time seems to be two aspects of some constant unity represented by the speed of light.

    (4) Space has a flexible geometry which can explain gravity. Mass seems to twist the space.

    (5) Mass is generated when motion occurs in space (Higg’s field) – this is mathematical only at this moment.

    (6) Space has intrinsic properties.

    (7) There is some property of space that is pushing galaxies apart (dark energy).

    My main criticism is that the source of most of the above is mathematics, and only a small portion of it has been confirmed experimentally. I would like to know what is beyond the boundary of the universe. I don’t think that the universe is a spherical or an oblong object with an outside surface, as currently assumed to be. That model is wrong. What separates universe from what is beyond it?

    Does the universe really have a boundary? I don’t think so.


    • vinaire  On May 20, 2012 at 9:38 PM

      By the way, how did you construct the link for this video?


    • vinaire  On May 20, 2012 at 9:53 PM

      The following is what I believe:

      (1) Space is not nothing. Space is something physical with intrinsic properties.

      (2) Space can best be represented as a field. This field is dynamic. Electromagnetic waves are one aspect of this field. they are part of space.

      (3) The physical space is a “surface” harmonic of more fundamental harmonics within. One of those harmonics can be a field of awareness.

      (4) It is this physical space that condenses as energy, which then condenses as mass.

      (5) Space is more than just the physical space. Other harmonics exists. Those harmonics have not been discovered yet.

      (6) Space has no boundary, Space seems to double on itself. Inside or outside, it is all space.

      (7) Thus, there is nothing beyond space.


      • 2ndxmr  On May 21, 2012 at 12:10 AM

        I’d fully agree with points 1 and 2.

        On 3 I’d have to say I expect awareness to be an externally arrived function. The reason for that is that awareness seems to be infinite valued whereas all other parts of the quantum universe seem to be discrete valued: there are a finite number of elementary particles and a finite number of combinations of them. Awareness-come-consciousness has no perceived limitation.

        On 4, I believe that mass is just a phenomenon that derives from a dimensional aspect that interferes with the Higgs field, giving the illusion of mass – via the property of interference – similar to the motion-resisting effect felt by moving a magnet past a piece of iron.

        With 5 and 6, I agree but I would say it’s not 3-space that’s doubling up.There could well be a 6-space folded up at every point of 3-space – since that has been shown to be possible mathematically – whereas major perturbations of 3-space are only expected around massive black holes.

        On 7 we get back to what constitutes space. If we define a boundary of expanding matter and photons from the big bang as the current universe, then yes, the real universe would have to extend beyond the material universe as the Higgs field must be larger than the expanding universe. However, if space is a dimensional property of the boson (3 of the 26 dimensions), then space already extends as far as the Higgs field extends.

    • 2ndxmr  On May 20, 2012 at 10:07 PM

      Thanks for compiling the important points of the video. To answer your question of the link construction, I just did a copy of the URL and pasted it in. I was suprised to see it embed the video, too.

      I was happy to see what they did with the space-flux lines as this is integral to some other thoughts I’ve had about photon propagation and the speed of light.

      A quick point – does the universe have a boundary? If the Higgs field is uniform in density and continuous (by definition of zero points it should be) then the “universe” must not be expanding (as otherwise there would be an expansion of distance between the zero points), only the products of the big bang are expanding within it (the universe of the continuous Higgs field).

      More later… (Thanks for putting up the thread.)

  • vinaire  On May 21, 2012 at 12:50 PM

    (1) When we are moving in space we measure our velocity with respect to some fix coordinates of space. We then measure the velocity of another body with respect to the same fixed coordinates of space. These two objects having the same velocity have a relative velocity of twice that value when they approach each other.

    (2) When we measure the velocity of light it is always at a constant rate, regardless of how fast we move towards or away from a source of light.

    (3) This means that light is not something that is moving with respect to some fixed coordinates of space. Light itself is a property of space, just as those fixed coordinates are. This starts to make sense when we consider light to be a ripple in the very fabric of space, and we are measuring the speed of that ripple.

    (4) Thus, electromagnetic energy seems to be a phenomenon of space. Looking at the wave/particle properties being demonstrated by most things, particles may then be considered to be a phenomenon of space as well. Particles popping out of space and then disappearing back would then make sense. Mass being formed out of space would also make sense.

    (5) In short, we are looking at a single phenomenon. Space-Energy-Mass are simply different aspects of this phenomenon. We may not know in detail how the transformations among space-energy-mass come about, but, at least, we know that these aspects are fundamentally interrelated. Time is simply an accounting of these transformations.

    (6) If space, energy, mass and time are different aspects of the same phenomenon, then we are basically observing a single phenomenon in different forms. The factor, which then becomes important, is the fact of observation itself. Is what we are observing is the real thing? What is the mechanism that underlies observation?

    This is where I am at!

    • Chris Thompson  On May 21, 2012 at 1:25 PM

      Beautiful piece of work! … You and I now seem to be in agreement that the propagation point of light is not “moving.” This is the reason for the c.

      There are so many pieces of this to nail down that I bog down. However, like electricity that you so kindly generate at your job, you do not make electrons and then send them to your customers and similarly, your customers do not buy the electrons. They purchase the EMF that your generators seesaw – first push and then pull from the powerhouse.

      So the “fabric of space” may not move but may propagate the “EMR.” There may be a buildup of some sort which triggers or quantum jumps at the “rate of light.” This may then be your EMR quantum jumping by the Planck second or some such.

    • 2ndxmr  On May 21, 2012 at 2:51 PM

      V. “(3) This means that light is not something that is moving with respect to some fixed coordinates of space. Light itself is a property of space, just as those fixed coordinates are. This starts to make sense when we consider light to be a ripple in the very fabric of space, and we are measuring the speed of that ripple.”

      This is precisely the conclusion I came to by doing a similar evaluation. If space is defined by an elastic medium (the Higgs field or any other elastic medium by any other name) then we can expect the propagation velocity of photons in the medium to be defined by properties of the medium.

      The photon need not then be an elementary particle but may be an impulse propagated through the elastic medium just as a rock falling into water causes a wave to propagate. I believe that one major difference between propagation through the Higgs field is that it does not have expanding ripples as water would but is more like pushing through carpet: the effect of the propagation is local, not expanding.

      This explains why the “photon” has a zero rest mass and can yet transfer momentum.

      Time should ultimately get tied to the Planck second which should be due to a cyclical action. The idea of the twisting vortex is an example of such a cyclical action.

  • vinaire  On May 21, 2012 at 12:54 PM

    Is there a larger phenomenon of which the observed and the observer are simply two different aspects?

    It seems like the observed and the observer are not independent of each other.


    • Chris Thompson  On May 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM

      I see where you are going and though it seems complicated without measure, this describes my own predilection.

      My arrogance to attempt to know these mysteries seems beyond beyond to me. Rather than ask “What is the universe?” I feel like asking “What am I ?”

    • Chris Thompson  On May 21, 2012 at 1:53 PM

      A larger phenomena? There may be an aspect to the “orders of magnitude” of things, an illusion only, built on fractal concepts that provide the apparent orders of magnitude around us. Maybe these orders of magnitude (the relative bigness and smallness of things) are obfuscating what is going on?

      So you ask correctly, “Is there a larger phenomenon of which the observed and the observer are simply two different aspects?” And I would say that the true answers must lie outside what we address as ego. ALL ego to me must be the wrong valence from which to view as observer. THE OBSERVER must be other than the self. I am just sitting here trying to digest any of this and to the degree that I look at it through human eyes, I fail and bog. To the degree that I look at it from a quieter and deeper place, I begin to see glimmers of things.

      Good post Vinaire.

  • vinaire  On May 21, 2012 at 7:20 PM

    A generalization of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem is:

    Absolutes are unattainable.

    There is your unknowable.

    NOTE: I wrote the above post on Geir’s blog 2 days ago on RANDOM THOUGHTS thread. It is still sitting there waiting to be moderated.


  • vinaire  On May 21, 2012 at 8:01 PM

    2ndxmr: The element that is common to both the particle and the wave would be the “generator”: the vortex of space-time twisted by the zero-point – a singularity of sorts.

    It seems that space is a field of some sort. When there is a ripple in that field it appears as an electromagnetic wave. I am wondering how did the very first ripple got generated? This must be the moment when God said, “Let there be light!” OK. So the answer is either unknowable, or circular (fractal of sort). In either case, I don’t know the answer.

    In the beginning there must not have been any particles. So how did the first particle got generated? Well, the only phenomenon I can think of is the interfernce among ripples. So, it is my conjecture that when there are interferences among electromagnetic waves, particle properties may be observed.

    Is there any such observation in existence?


    • Chris Thompson  On May 21, 2012 at 10:23 PM

      “So, it is my conjecture that when there are interferences among electromagnetic waves, particle properties may be observed,”

      Yes the double slit experiment is the observation. Your statement is inconsistent with the language of the double slit experiment. IF your conjecture is to be consistent, it will need different wording.

      • vinaire  On May 22, 2012 at 7:45 AM

        Actually, two ripples of same frequency, which are 180 degrees out of phase, shall generate a standing wave. Now that standing wave may be considered a particle because it has a form that is persisting at a location. When two waves of the same frequency that are partially out of phase, may exhibit a partially standing wave, and therefore, only partial particle properties.

        So, a substance that is behaving both like a wave and a particle, would consist of overlapping ripples of similar frequencies that are partially out of phase. This follows from my earlier conjecture. It also clarifies for me what a particle is.


        • 2ndxmr  On May 22, 2012 at 12:44 PM

          Two waves of the same frequency but 180 degrees out of phase will cancel. A standing wave occurs when a wave is reflected back onto itself in an in-phase manner, or when 2 waves meet and sum in-phase.

          Along with any conjecture about standing waves can you hypothesize any mechanism for generating them?

        • Chris Thompson  On May 22, 2012 at 9:13 PM

          Good point 2nd transformer, . . . the mechanism? At the human level there exists intention. I lift my hand up; I lay my hand down; I lift my hand up; I lay my hand down; etc.,. There is a triggering mechanism which must activate for my hand to move or else it doesn’t move.

          I like where you two are going with this. The idea that space exists as a field (of what?) seems plausible enough. So we need to disturb this field at its most basic. For me, there is something in this word intention that needs closer inspection. Observation is another similar word. Observation seems similar to having an intention to see.

          In my now famous TV Snow Experiments (joke) I was able to show to myself that my mind was ready willing and able to take raw random visual input and “find” shapes in that random field to observe thus collapsing the visual input into “meaningful” shapes for the mind to perceive. In this example I see no important difference between the observer and the observed. My mind seemed to be doing the work and feasting on the results.

        • vinaire  On May 22, 2012 at 12:58 PM

          Standing wave is more accurately described here:


          I believe that the nature of a particle has to be a standing wave.

          For the very first standing wave, or particle, I can’t think of any mechanism underlying it. It is, “The why is God.”


        • Chris Thompson  On May 22, 2012 at 9:19 PM

          haha so ready to define infinite circular looking and then just as it is getting interesting throw in the towel and cry “god.” I know you are joking. (or ARE you?)

        • 2ndxmr  On May 23, 2012 at 2:30 AM

          Alright, Chris. Here’s a ping to pong:

          If space is defined by the a field and if that field is the Higgs field then:

          1) this field must be continuous through the portion of the universe that big-bang matter is expanding into.

          2) It must be continuous past the boundary of expanding matter to be the medium for light photons to travel into as light speed exceeds matter-expansion speed.

          3) By extension of 1 and 2, the Higgs field could be said to fill the entire universe – which extends past the expanding matter portion of the universe, possibly infinitely far.

          4) The Higgs field, being fully uniform is also possibly fully entangled – every Higgs boson could be in communication with every other Higgs boson, a factor which could lead to consciousness.

          5) If the Higgs boson (hypothesized as being the most massive elementary particle) has the capability of transforming into any other elementary particle,

          6) the material part of the universe could have been formed by Higgs transformation at the big bang and

          7) the Higgs could be considered God as it created the universe; is in contact with all parts of the universe; is in communication with all parts of the universe; is omniscient, omnipotent and ultimately

          8) knowable.

          (add emoticon for a wink and grin)

        • Chris Thompson  On May 23, 2012 at 7:21 AM

          Wow! That was a mouthful! . . . and profound. I think I will save that in my notes as it is an interesting extrapolation.

    • Chris Thompson  On May 22, 2012 at 1:08 AM

      Maybe “normal” space is not 4-dimensional at all but contains all possible dimensions….maybe space is not a cup to hold the wave-function, maybe it is the wave function. This is consistent with your conjecture

      • vinaire  On May 22, 2012 at 8:00 AM

        By definition “dimension” refers to “measureable-ness”. Therefore, any property that can be explained in terms of a scale, shall have that scale as its dimension. Thus, there are primary dimensions, such as, distance and time. And, there are also derived dimensions, such as, velocity, energy, force, temperature, etc. Are there primary dimensions other than distance along 3 different axes and time? I can’t think of any, but I can think of many derived dimensions.

        So, matter and energy may represent all kind of derived dimensions, whereas, space and time seem to represent the primary dimensions. Can space and time be broken down to more fundamental dimensions? Or, do these dimensions have a fractal nature within themselves? I don’t know at this moment.

        Space is the cup as well as what that cup holds.


        • Chris Thompson  On May 22, 2012 at 8:24 AM

          The easy cop out but accurate answer is that space-time has depth for which humans have no perception — and won’t. Again, as you said, THERE is your unknowable. But what is yet a wild card is the depth of our own minds.* That plus our own observation may grow — maybe HAS grown to see what we see now.

          Possibly the unknown depths of space-time only collapse as we are ready to observe. Example: The great minds all saw what no one else could see. Even after seeing and accurately describing what they saw, most of us still don’t see what they saw.

          *You earlier said that maybe the universe is “one big self.” Fractal doesn’t mean circular but it does mean infinitely branching. Research has infinitely many branches to research. Does this mean there are infinitely many dead ends or does it mean infinitely many opportunities for success? At moments like this a solo session is what I seem to need and want. — Ooof.

        • vinaire  On May 22, 2012 at 9:46 AM

          One thing that I am learning now is that nothing is linear. There is no ultimate root cause. There is no linear time track. Things ultimately loop back on to themselves. Call it circular or fractal, it is the same thing. There is no absolute answer at the end. You encounter the same configuration after delving deep into it. So one has to back out and take an overview now and then. One has to discard all the speculations and simply start once again with what is actually there.

          So, we have matter, energy, space and time. Everything that we know falls into these categories including what we visualize as a result of our considerations, speculations and theories. Thought is a type of matter to the degree it is fixed in its shape and form. It may even become fluid to a greater or lesser degree. Thinking involves a sort of energy. It can be felt. Just go close to a person who is in a continual figure-figure. You can feel a heavy energy. Or, go close to a person who is resolving problems one after another. You’ll feel a different type of energy. Looking may be a process that converts heavy type of energy into a lighter type of energy continually. So, there is a sort of mental space-time in the form of awareness, where looking resides.

          For me, it all boils down to looking. It boils down to analysis. It boils down to converting heavy energy into lighter energy.


        • 2ndxmr  On May 22, 2012 at 12:50 PM

          V. “Are there primary dimensions other than distance along 3 different axes and time? I can’t think of any, but I can think of many derived dimensions.”

          Gravity should be a dimension as gravity trumps space-time. Gravity can bend space-time.

          Likewise the strong and weak nuclear forces are likely dimensions as they influence structure that ultimately becomes 3-space.

        • vinaire  On May 22, 2012 at 1:04 PM

          Gravity is associated with mass, and space precedes mass. Besides gravitational force has the dimensions of force, which are derived dimensions.

          Similarly, strong and weak nuclear forces shall have derived dimensions.

        • 2ndxmr  On May 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

          V. “Gravity is associated with mass, and space precedes mass. Besides gravitational force has the dimensions of force, which are derived dimensions.

          Similarly, strong and weak nuclear forces shall have derived dimensions.”

          Unfortunately this is all incorrect. Mass is not a product of “space” as in 3-space. Black holes are the proof of that. The gravitational force of black holes bend and collapse space. Gravity trumps space.

          Gravity is given units of force but it is not a “derived” dimension like “distance travelled.” If it was it would have been possible to incorporate it into classical physics, let alone the difficulties trying to incorporate it into a unified theory.

          V.”Similarly, strong and weak nuclear forces shall have derived dimensions.”
          Derived from what? These forces are ELEMENTARY, meaning by definition that they do not derive from something else.

        • vinaire  On May 22, 2012 at 2:53 PM

          If black holes have an effect on space that does not mean that they are independent of space.

          How does a black hole come about? How does mass come about? How does gravity come about?

          I am sure that if you take a good look, you’ll find that space underlies these other phenomena.


    • 2ndxmr  On May 22, 2012 at 1:02 PM

      V. “So, it is my conjecture that when there are interferences among electromagnetic waves, particle properties may be observed.”

      When electromagnetic waves interfere with each other the result is a simple sum of the original waves. No particle will result from interfering EM waves.

      Quark dimensions will interract to create a particle.

  • vinaire  On May 22, 2012 at 11:53 AM

    Today we divide existence into the broad categories of Matter, Energy, Space and Time. The ancient texts of Buddhism categorize existence in terms of solidity, fluidity, heat and motion. How do these compare?

    Solidity and Fluidity may apply to different forms of Matter. Fluidity and Heat may apply to Energy. Motion may apply to both Space andTime.

    Motion seems to be the most basic element as it seems to underlie heat, fluidity and also solidity (frozen motion). Absence of motion would be ‘nothing’, as there won’t be any heat, fluidity and solidity. Motion has the four dimensions of space-time.

    So, what we consider ‘space’ should be full of motion. And that seems to be the case. Absolute vacuum does not exist. What we consider space seems to consist of electromagnetic radiation and dark energy. So, there is nothing static about space.

    Space is dynamic. Space is moving all the time. There is nothing digital about space, yet it is in motion.

    That seems to be an interesting way of looking at space.


  • vinaire  On May 22, 2012 at 5:34 PM

    I think that mass is a phenomenon of space. As mass moves through space, the space moves through the mass.

    If you look at space as a lattice of points, then mass in space would simply be these lattice points closely bunched together. Moving the mass would then be moving this “bunched up” pattern through the lattice points. The lattice points themselves won’t move forward but they will bunch and un-bunch as the bunched pattern (mass) moves through them. It is an idea similar to a ripple through space. Movement of mass may be thought of as the movement of a very “dense ripple” through space.

    Well, I don’t think that space can be represented by a lattice of points. The illustration above is used simply to forward the conjecture that as mass moves through space, the space moves through the mass. Mass is like a very dense volume of space within space.

    This model may explain the inertial property of mass. The acceleration of mass would require space condensing and de-condensing through that volume in space. When no force is applied, mass may appear at rest or as moving at a constant speed, depending on the frame of reference.


  • vinaire  On May 22, 2012 at 6:10 PM

    Let’s imagine some soapy water in a dish. There are bubbles on the surface of this soapy water. We notice that these bubbles affect the surface tension around them in such a way that they are attracted towards each other. Thus there is a tendency for these bubbles to bunch up or group.

    Now let’s conjecture a “space tension” analogous to surface tension in the case above, except that this “space tension” would be three dimensional. Think of masses in space analogous to the bubbles in the example above. The masses may then affect the “space tension” around them in a way to attract each other. This would certainly be possible only when these masses are a condensed form of space. This model may be another way to explain the gravitational attraction.


  • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 5:40 AM

    In response to Chris:


    Yes, the TV Snow Experiment is a good demonstration of how the desire shapes what one sees. Ordinary food may appear delicious. Ordinary woman may appear to be the most beautiful in the world.

    I believe that it is layers upon layers of appearances that this universe is made up of. Lot of these layers we share in common. Looking being done by science has been dissolving these layers for many of us.

    Looking and education are the two most important endeavors today, in my opinion.


  • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 5:47 AM

    In response to Chris:


    I know it is somehow circular or fractal, but I seem to be missing the connection.


  • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 7:53 AM

    What is a field?

    Here are some excerpts from Wikipedia:

    In physics, a field is a physical quantity associated with each point of space-time… a field can be either a classical field or a quantum field, depending on whether it is characterized by numbers or quantum operators respectively… The field creates a “condition in space” so that when we put a particle in it, it feels a force… “The fact that the electromagnetic field can possess momentum and energy makes it very real… a particle makes a field, and a field acts on another particle, and the field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have”.


  • vinaire  On May 23, 2012 at 9:07 AM

    What are quantum operators?

    To me, these operators allow one to look at a physical state from a different viewpoint.

    From Wikipedia:

    In physics, an operator is a function acting on the space of physical states. As a result of its application on a physical state, another physical state is obtained, very often along with some extra relevant information.

    The simplest example of the utility of operators is the study of symmetry. Because of this, they are a very useful tool in classical mechanics. In quantum mechanics, on the other hand, they are an intrinsic part of the formulation of the theory… The mathematical description of quantum mechanics is built upon the concept of an operator.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: