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:
WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE = MANIFESTING
What is there before manifesting may only be speculated upon. Speculation then manifests.
So all manifesting may simply be preceded by speculation or visualization.
See AXIOM ZERO
.
Addition (12/31/18)
The assumption in the following video is that electrons are like little balls. This assumption is incorrect. Electrons are waves that are simply quite substantial. As far as “observer” goes, they have an instrument there, whose electric field interferes with the experiment. Please see,
Einstein’s Light Quanta
.
Comments
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?
Maybe! Why not?!
I would think that if a conscious observer can pop the QWF then might not the Big Bang be the ultimate pop?
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.
Fred, please note that MEST is an acronym from Scientology, which stands for “Matter, Energy, Space & Time.”
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?
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.
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
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.
*Fred, what if the wave-function collapse was not a quality of the universe but of our perception alone?
*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.
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
THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE
.
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.
Is there free will?
Or, does it simply appears to be that way?
.
Decide.
“Free will” is an axiom (a defining property) for the domain of this universe. It is a self-evident truth. It is postulated. It is assumed. Please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
.
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?
.
What do you think?
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.
.
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.
.
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.
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.
.
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
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.
.
Perhaps just ask a question about these things I am stating so I know where to begin.
I have no questions. I simply disagree that the universe is ultimately discrete. I don’t see any evidence for it.
.
Or which of the evidences for it being discrete do you disagree? How do you feel that they lack merit?
Basically I am looking at the conjecture, “In the final analysis this universe is discrete.” Now put this conjecture through the scientific method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Is this conjecture falsifiable?
.
Of course.
Then we need to go back to step (2) to form a more educated conjecture. 🙂
.
Do you feel that electron states are falsifiable?
Yes, I would say so. But this is just a hunch.
.
Well then maybe in the final analysis, all we have left are our considerations and our conjectures about our considerations.
You can say that again. 🙂
.
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?
.
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…
Watch your assumptions. 🙂
.
You don’t remember your post?
What makes you say. “You have decided that looking will take you in the ‘right direction’. ” Have I?
.
“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?
Please explain with an example.
.
Independence is self.
I am sorry. it is still not clear. What does “Fixating on the self of independence” mean?
.
The consideration of an independent self is a consideration of self.
To, me decision, free will, etc. is part of the universal system, just like self is.
.
Ok, I got you.
What is it about the self that you desire to dissolve?
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.
.
Vinaire, within the context of this universe, deciding may be the only direction, nevermind right or wrong.
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.
.
Of course in KHTK there is deciding. There is deciding to look.
The looking through mind’s eye is always there further augmented by other sense channels. Looking is the natural state.
.
I rather think that looking is a state of awareness and not the only one — natural or not.
Decision is a system manifestation that may inhibit looking.
.
No more so than looking inhibits decision making.
Possibly decision making is collapsing the wave so that then is there something to look at.
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.
.
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.
.
Not the only kind of decision making. There is also your “effortless art” to name one other example.
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.
.
Effortless Art is the smooth expression of self.
. 🙂 .
I have tried to express Looking as best as I can in KHTK issues.
.
The positive direction seems to be the removal or leveling of inconsistencies.
.
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.
Watch your assumptions!
Vinaire, did you remove the “waiting for moderation?” My posts seem to go right up on the board. Thank you.
Yes, I did. I am glad you noticed. I am discovering the various settings possible.
.
It is much smoother. Makes me want to be a more responsible poster.
Yes i like this setting too.
.
🙂
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.
.
Where is your cutoff point?
I don’t know. I am looking. I don’t want to speculate too much.
.
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.”
I think that logic, which includes mathematics, falls short where attempts to define unknowable are concerned.
.
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.
You are right. There is no definition possible for unknowable.
.
Thanks for the discussion. It has been quite stimulating. I think it is time for me to go to bed.
Good night!
.
Have a good and restful sleep… I am three hours earlier so I get involved and forget what time it is there.
And I get up all fresh in the morning, while you are still asleep. 🙂
.
. 🙂 .
+ 🙂 +
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.
Maybe…
What is it that is oscillating in an electromagnetic wave, and which is measured as frequency? What makes it oscillate in that fashion?
The frequency as I understand is rotation. It is spinning. What is spinning? I don’t know what is spinning.
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.
.
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) 🙂
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.
.
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!
.
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.
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.
.
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.
I am lost with your explanation. Could you please explain what zero-point is!
By zero-point do you mean Zero-point energy?
.
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:
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module6_Planck.htm
“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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy9gXKwRpXc&feature=endscreen&NR=1
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.
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.
.
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.
I watched the following video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy9gXKwRpXc&feature=endscreen&NR=1
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.
.
By the way, how did you construct the link for this video?
.
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.
.
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.
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.)
(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!
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.
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.
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.
.
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 ?”
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.
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.
.
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?
.
“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.
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.
.
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?
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.
Standing wave is more accurately described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave
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.”
.
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?)
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)
Wow! That was a mouthful! . . . and profound. I think I will save that in my notes as it is an interesting extrapolation.
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
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.
.
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.
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.
.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
.