the perfect vacuum upanishad

What needs do mythology and religion serve in today's world and in ancient times? Here we discuss the relationship between mythology, religion and science from mythological, religious and philosophical viewpoints.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Aireal
Associate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Mayfield, Ky.

Post by Aireal »

Evinnra

Stephen Hawkins book "The universe in a nutshell"

A very good book, written for the layman, that looks at a number of Big Bang theories. Of course it is mainly about Hawking's own theory, "The No Boundary" version of the Big Bang, but he address some of the other versions well enough and honestly.

I am a big fan of his work, even though I do not agree with most of it. His personal web page is also informative.

"Einsteins Universe" by Nigel Calder is also a good book for explaining the concept of curved space/time.

Hope those are of help to you. If I think of any more, I will let you know.

Little Feather

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Thank you Little Feather,

I will try to locate these books in my library. Though I am a bit skeptical about the possiblity of Physicists being able to write for the general public. It seems to me that Physicists are in the same trouble as Philosophers and Theologians, when attempting to communicate their observations or theories to lay-people. Each field of science accumulates such amount of data that the coherence of it is only clear to those who actually have an undergraduate training in that particular field. Moreover, within each scientific field there is at least two if not more sensible explanations of how things really are and these explanations compete with each other. But there are so many people out there who would LOVE to understand what is going on! I think people are not as dumb as the media would have us believe. There is hope however, I do know that some scientists actually take a couple of classes in philosophy, ethics, religion etc. and there are some experts in the humanitarian subjects who also take a serious interest in science.

Tat,

I think you hit the nail right on the head with your observation that one of the fundamental questions is whether there is an end to infinity. To think that something can come from nothing, say God would appear from nowhere is a logical conondrum. Yet, if we imagine that everything is going on infinitely without beginning or end we seem not to have any certainty about our senses relating truth to us. That is a complicated argument which I am not sure I could explain here on the run. Stoics held that we can imagine existence (including past present and future with all matter in it) as a whole, simply because if something could come from nothing then it could just appear arbitrarily without cause. If things could appear without cause, then there is no way of knowing that we actually know anything at all. But we do know some things. Aristotle held that existence goes on infinitely like numbers we can imagine growing in either direction. So, the BB theory had a long past in the sense that all thinkers we have ever heard about contemplated whether there is a possiblity of actualising the infinite or not. What I would really like to know is how physicists tacle this question and what are their reasons in lay man terms. Thank you so much for your contributions so far.

Evinnra

Aireal
Associate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Mayfield, Ky.

Post by Aireal »

Evinnra

I have not read many of your posts, but just from the last one I can tell you are both perceptive and well read.

What you said about physicists writing for the public is so true. My opinion of the books mentioned may be affected by my level of physics knowledge, I had not thought about that when I recommend them, but I think they are a good place to start at least.

There are always competing theories in science. Most books are about just the top contenders. Less popular mainstream theories don't get much press. Then their are those just on the fringe of mainstream science, like the one Tat and I talk about, sound math, but many do not like the implications so acceptance into the mainstream is rough. Lastly you have those that are out in left field and have a small chance of being right, and then there are those that are, well, crackpots.

It can be hard to get a clear picture at times. You can't see forest for the trees. Or was that the universe for the theories.

Tat and I both believe that a knowledge of philosophy, ethics, logic, religion, etc. are helpful in sorting this mess out. Thus we explore concepts like infinity.

Most physicists do not like to think about the infinite, it messes up the equations when you put infinities in them. This is why the math breaks down in BB theory. It is known as the 'singularity problem'. If it can't be solved, then the BB is creation from nothing, and this bothers physicists.

In conventional physics, you have 4 dimensions, The 3 dimensions of space plus one for time. Some theories can get around the 'singularity problem' by inventing extra dimensions, from 7 to 12 total dimensions for most contenders. This allows them to still do math in the other dimensions, and avoid the singularity in the first 3 of them, until they arrive at a point before it exists in the 4th dimension of time. So that is the current mainstream approach in a nutshell.

Tat, myself and others think this is the wrong approach to the problem. As we can not perceive these other dimensions, there is no way to directly verify these theories by observation. They could be no more than a mathematical construct with no base in reality. We have no way to know for sure.

You seem well read in philosophy, you might enjoy browsing the philosophy section of the W.S.M. site. Geoff has a large section devoted to it, and its connections to science and meta physics. Our forum will be closed till about the new year, but I think it can still be browsed.

Till we speak again.

Little Feather

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Aireal wrote:Evinnra

I have not read many of your posts, but just from the last one I can tell you are both perceptive and well read.

It can be hard to get a clear picture at times. You can't see forest for the trees. Or was that the universe for the theories.

Most physicists do not like to think about the infinite, it messes up the equations when you put infinities in them. This is why the math breaks down in BB theory. It is known as the 'singularity problem'. If it can't be solved, then the BB is creation from nothing, and this bothers physicists.
Thank you for the compliment Little Feather, though as a budding philosopher I am required to contemplate some information about other sciences, so really I do not deserve much applause. :oops:

Indeed, it seems we can not see the Universe from the conflicting theories available... :roll:
Aireal wrote:In conventional physics, you have 4 dimensions, The 3 dimensions of space plus one for time. Some theories can get around the 'singularity problem' by inventing extra dimensions, from 7 to 12 total dimensions for most contenders. This allows them to still do math in the other dimensions, and avoid the singularity in the first 3 of them, until they arrive at a point before it exists in the 4th dimension of time. So that is the current mainstream approach in a nutshell.


That last stance sounds promising, for it allows for time being the only real dimension in which changes can take place and reduces the opportunity for error. Though there are philosophers who claim that since time is involved there is propositional thought involved meaning that room for error still remains, never the less there are other philosophers who would argue otherwise.

Cheers,
Evinnra

Aireal
Associate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Mayfield, Ky.

Post by Aireal »

Evinnra

I find myself complimenting a number of people on this forum, I guess I am not used to intelligent people on forums.

Topics and posts that draw howls of outrage on other forums have been discussed intelligently here, I am not used to that.

So I am sorry if I embarrassed you, but I meant well.

I was a straight A student in philosophy courses in college, but Tat and others make me look like a newbie.

You hit upon one very important point in your post. The current approach of working around the singularity through imaginary time is a valid approach, mathematical speaking.

The problem lies with verifying the theories. How do we know which one is correct? M-bran, String, Tunneling, are all versions of BB theory that use this approach. As we can not observe these other dimensions, we have no easy way to determine which is correct, all are mathematical sound. So, in its current state, cosmology is more like philosophy than the other hard sciences.

I like that old saying, KISS "Keep it simple stupid" used by AA groups. Also known as Occam's Razor, which states that all things being equal, the simple answer is probably the right one.

The one thing that makes the whole affair complicated is the concept of "curved space/time" Replace curved space/time with curved scalar waves and the whole mess becomes much simpler. Problem is that "curved space/time is the "Holy Grail" of modern cosmology, getting scientists to look at any viewpoint that excludes it is next to impossible.

It is this curved space time that is the heart of the topic of this thread, the perfect vacuum.

If space and time is curved, then nothing exists beyond the edge of our universe, not even time. Everything revolves around us, space and time begins and ends with our universe. Even finding one atom that exists beyond our universe would discredit the whole thing, it must be a perfect vacuum. But we are nowhere close to observing even the edge of our universe, much less past it. Many physicists claim that it is impossible to see past the edge of our universe because of curved space/time, so don't even try.

Sounds a lot like when we thought the earth was the center of the universe, and everything revolved around us, just updated to a larger scale. Kind of Ego Centric in my opinion.

But I begin to rant, and can think of nothing to add to this topic of "The perfect vacuum"

Till we speak again.

Little Feather

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Aireal wrote:

The problem lies with verifying the theories. How do we know which one is correct? M-bran, String, Tunneling, are all versions of BB theory that use this approach. As we can not observe these other dimensions, we have no easy way to determine which is correct, all are mathematical sound. So, in its current state, cosmology is more like philosophy than the other hard sciences.

I like that old saying, KISS "Keep it simple stupid" used by AA groups. Also known as Occam's Razor, which states that all things being equal, the simple answer is probably the right one.

The one thing that makes the whole affair complicated is the concept of "curved space/time" Replace curved space/time with curved scalar waves and the whole mess becomes much simpler. Problem is that "curved space/time is the "Holy Grail" of modern cosmology, getting scientists to look at any viewpoint that excludes it is next to impossible.


Little Feather,

Wish I was a straight A student of philosophy ( though I get pretty good marks sometimes) yet the 'treasure hunt' is just as thrilling. :D

Could you please elaborate on what causes the problem if curved space/time is replaced by curved scalar waves?

Evinnra

Aireal
Associate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Mayfield, Ky.

Post by Aireal »

Evinnra

For me the problem is with curved space/time. I do not believe space and time is curved. Curved space and time is what makes the math so hard, and why the math breaks down at the very start of the BB.

Replacing it with curved scalar waves simplifies the math and removes the singularity problem, no fancy math tricks or extra dimensions needed.

The hard part is explaining why curved space/time should be replaced with curved scalar waves.

The concept of curved space/time comes from the work of Einstein, and was "confirmed" when the bending of light from a distant star was recorded. The amount of bending of the light matched his equations.

Scalar waves and the dual nature of particles and waves was not discovered till long after Einstein's famous work by the new field of Quantum Mechanics. Thus Einstein could not have known about them nor include them is his famous work. This also ties in with one of the great puzzles of mathematics, Mach's Principle.

Mach's Principle is mathematically sound, yet mathematicians are at a loss to explain how it works. In short it shows that everything in the universe is connected to everything else, using math. Angular momentum is formally described as an object spinning around its own axis, its speed determined by its mass. Picture a girl doing flips on a balance beam. Her internal sense of balance is at work. Mach's principle can be used to describe the same thing, only the audience or a distant star is used to measure the speed of the flip. It also implies that if the mass of the universe was changed somehow, it would change the speed of her flip also, just like a change in earths gravity would.

Mach was Einsteins boyhood hero. He believed that Mach's equations held a great secret about the universe, and spent most of his life trying to fit it into his theories. The problem was, until scalar waves was discovered, there was no way for him to do so. After they were discovered, no one has went back and look at his work in light of this new information. "Thou shall not mess with Einstein". The result is that moderen science treats all particles as a solid particle or a wave, but never both at the same time.

Scalar waves are the waves emitted by all particles. The base of Quantum Mechanics states that all particles have a wave frequency that is linked to their mass. They travel in an expanding sphere out from the particles, thus they are curved.

Milo Wolff discovered an equation by which the electron and other particles can be described as both a wave and a particle at the same time. His work has passed what is known as the peer review process. Meaning other physicists have looked at it, and can find no fault in the math or its logic. Problem is, his equations imply that space/time is not curved, so his work has been ignored as a result by mainstream science. Also Milo used Mach's equations in his work.

Einstein was a genius no doubt. But he could not be expected to include discoveries that had not yet been made in his work. Also the concept of curved space/time was not his. A friend and math professor convinced him to include it in his work. We have been stuck with it ever since.

By discarding curved space/time and replacing it with curved scalar waves, Einstein's Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can be united into a single theory. The so called "Theory of Everything" that science has been looking for some 50 years or more now.

I think that covers your question, if not, let me know. I am not the best at explaining things.

Little Feather

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Little Feather,

Can these curved scalar waves move in a single dimension which is time? (i.e. can absolutely all other dimensions be discarded so data is reduced to a single stream of 'suchness' [for lack of better words] ) Could Mach's principle be used to express physical things in relation to their context, say an electron being both particle and wave but never both at the same location of instance?Can the difference in the wave or particle 'suchness' of a subatomic particle be measured by the time difference? Alternatively, the curved scalar wave solution requires that particles are both waves and particles simultaneously. But this explanation requires that both of these qualities are actualized simultaneously (or measurably) in relation to something else, to have relation to at least two different other 'thing', and if it is the case then the only unity between the two different qualities of these particles is a time distance. Right?

These are just intuitive questions as you already know, I have not been trained in physics. The method to my madness in relating this intuition is that you are being well aware of the theories so you could tell me whether my idea is completely insane or not ( that we are working with far too many dimensions in physics). But I am painfully aware of my lack of knowing the answers to the 'why' in physics. :oops: :)

Evinnra

Aireal
Associate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Mayfield, Ky.

Post by Aireal »

Evinnra

For someone not trained in physics, you ask very good questions.

Yes scalar waves move through time, and their position in space at any given time can be described by the first 3 dimensions of space.

Scalar waves, sometimes called matter waves, move at the speed of light once emitted by a particle.

Are you familiar with music theory and standing waves centers? Milo's paper describes the electron as a standing wave formed from 2 scalar waves meeting in a region of high energy density. Thus the particle aspect of them comes from when we detect the total size of the standing wave at its border. The wave aspect comes from the point in the middle of it where the 2 waves converge to a single point. The electron standing wave center moves between these two states. As the scalar waves move at the speed of light, and the distance between the center and the border of the electron is very small, this happens very quickly as a result, too quick for us too measure.

This is why we can detect the electron as either a wave or a particle, but never both at the same time. Our equipment used to measure such things are not capable of detecting both at the same time. It is known as "The Uncertainty Principle" and a hallmark of modern Quantum Mechanics. So there is a time difference between these two states, we just can not detect it.

Mach's principle, that everything is interconnected, now comes into play. The scalar waves leaving the electron are called the Out Waves. When these waves encounter another electron, we call it an In Wave.

The electron lost some of its internal energy when it emitted an Out Wave. That lost energy is replaced by the In Wave from another electron, thus keeping everything in balance. This is why electrons do not degrade and disappear over time.

The waves from a single electron can be detected, just barely, due to interference. A famous group of experiments known as the Double Slit experiments has done this with a number of particles. When a large number of these waves overlap, like the waves from the earth do, the effects are clearly seen, we call it gravity.

I hope that was of some help, let me know if you have any more questions.

Little Feather

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Aireal wrote:Evinnra

For someone not trained in physics, you ask very good questions.
Little Feather,

To be honest, I'm glad you did not start laughing at my questions, as I was quite hesitant to put my self in a position where you could just 'slam dunk' my ego. Its not that easy to have ideas, put them forth while being fully aware of the fact that one is sorely lacking in 'background' information.

However, it seems that without having at least an undergraduate degree in physics, it is not possible to contemplate big questions. My main question was: whether it is possible at all to reduce observation of matter to a single dimension (or maximum two). If I try to wrap my mind around it, I can come up with a tentative solution that will not produce additional mysteries, but even in analytical thought it is rather difficult to express how it can be done. I was basically interested in how physics tacle this issue, or whether physics contemplate it at all.

Thank you for your patience, if I was just ten years younger I'd be sorely tempted to get into physics with all my energy right now. :)

Till we speak again,
Evinnra

Aireal
Associate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Mayfield, Ky.

Post by Aireal »

Evinnra

Never be afraid to ask questions, asking questions is the heart of science. Nor would I ever laugh at someones questions. When someone asks a question, it is a sign of someone who wants to understand and learn, that should never be squashed by laughter. Besides, you should see some of the question I must answer on our W.S.M. forum. The history of science is no more than people asking logical questions, and looking for a logical answer.

On observation of matter. Physics generally needs 3 dimensions plus time as the fourth, too accurately describe any observation. Height, Width, and Depth, or if you prefer the X, Y, Z, coordinates describes a objects location in space, and the space it occupies. The fourth dimension of Time is need to describe When it is at that location in space. When is very important because things move over time. Now when we move done to very small scales, the Uncertainty Principle limits the number of things we can detect at any given moment.

Let me explain. To know where a sub-atomic particle is, we must hit it with another particle. So if we learn where it is, we can't tell how fast, or in what direction it is going. If we try to determine its speed and direction this way, we can not be sure of its location. So often it takes many observations to get a complete picture in all 4 dimensions. A bit of a pain, but it is the best we can do with things a small as an electron.

Also, do not let your age bother you, I ain't no spring chicken myself. I did not get deep into physics till a few years ago. I also went back to college latter in life. When I made the Honor Role and was told I could join a club for honor students, I thought I would be the only old geezer there. To my surprise, most of the honor students were older people who had returned to college. I also found learning easier than when I went to college in my youth. You have a bright mind, don't worry about your age, it is more a benefit than a liability.

My best wishes till we speak again.

Little Feather

Vissi
Associate
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 3:16 pm
Location: Symbol City, Deep In the Heart of the Sonoran Desert
Contact:

Post by Vissi »

Hello Everyone,

Barnabas, belated welcome to these conversations. I enjoyed your quote from the Upanishads very much.

Evinnra, if you are at all interested in online materials written for the physics lay person, the American Public Television web site still offers the companion materials for Brian Greene's excellent book, The Elegant Universe, here:Elegant Universe, Amanda Peet Interview . I'm pointing you to a particular interview that I've enjoyed in hopes you may enjoy this alternate theory as well. Here's a quote:
Another possibility for the birth of the universe is what you might call the big bounce. The idea is that, previous to that cataclysmic event that we call the big bang, there might have been a universe that was bigger. So perhaps what happened is that the universe was bigger, and then it got smaller, and then it went through this sort of fiery intermediate stage, out of which came another expanding universe. So you have a contraction, and then a very quantum mechanical, nasty intermediate stage, and then out of that comes the big bang—that's another possibility. It would be more accurate to call it the big bounce, really.

NOVA: There are things called "branes"—or slices through the higher dimensional world—that give rise to alternate scenarios for the big bang. How?

Peet: Suppose we had the following situation: Our world is just a three-dimensional plane inside a bigger dimensional space. And what happened to create that cataclysmic event that made our universe blow up and expand in this scenario is that there was another brane that was somewhere else in the universe, and it came happily along, and then all of a sudden it crashed into our brane, and it dumped a whole lot of energy onto our brane. This provides a way of explaining where the cataclysm came from. It happened because of a collision of branes.
One of the reasons the theory of extra dimensions posited by string theory appeals to me is that there is a similar hint in both Buddhist philosophy and cosmology wherein it's postulated there are ten directions (the four cardinal points, four points between each of these, and above and below. If one adds another direction, a "within" for the person observing direction, we could postulate eleven directions in everyday existence. As sometimes the microcosm and macrocosm agree, perhaps the observability of ten directions might echo the realities of multi-dimensional existence. Who knows?

Love First, Save Our Earth, Peace Now,
Dixie

Aireal
Associate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Mayfield, Ky.

Post by Aireal »

Vissi

Thank you for joining our conversation.

The Big Bounce is a variation of an earlier theory made to fix one of the problems with the Big Bang. Scientists calculated the paths of galaxies backwards in time and found that they do not arrive at a single point. This is a big problem for the concept of a singularity. It was "solved" by assuming the collapse of an earlier universe into a hot ball of energy large enough to account for the trajectories of the observed galaxies. This solved the singularity problem, but gave rise to another. The Law of Conservation of Energy lies at the heart of its problem. If our universe started in this manner, then it is doomed to repeat the process. However it looks like the universe is continuing to expand. For this to be the case, a great deal of energy/matter must have been lost. This is a violation of the Law of Conservation. Under the concept of curved space/time, the universe is a closed system and must obey this law. Under the Scalar wave approach, space/time is not curved, space is infinite, our universe is not a closed system, so this would not be a problem.

M-brane theory is very similar to the scalar wave solution, while staying within the concept of curved space/time. Instead of infinite space, you have extra dimensions that solve the problem. The problem with it is that at any moment our universe could be destroyed by a Brane collision in the vicinity of our universe. Poof, we are gone. The odds of this are decent, indeed our universe has beat the odds just lasting this long, we are overdue to go poof. Other problems with it would require a level of detail I don't want to go into here. Personally I like the idea of there being other dimensions. Scalar wave theory allows for them also, it just does not require them for universe formation, it also allows for many universes to exist. A concept I like as it allows for parallel universes, which also fits into many ancient beliefs.

Every time they try to fix one problem with the BB model, at causes other problems. No current BB model is without it contradictions. For me this is an indication that something is fundamentally wrong with our current models. Thus I started my quest to reexamine the facts from the start, and find an answer that fit the observed facts. I stumbled upon the scalar wave solution by accident. At the time I was working on radiation shielding designs for space travel. I was referred to a scientist that was conducting experiments related to my work. He however had a different goal in mind, he was studying the effects of scalar wave theory. I had never heard of it, but he was quite helpful, so I took a look at his work, and was converted.

For the first time in my life, the spiritual and scientific sides of my personality were in harmony. Philosophy, mythology, religion, and science all fit together. The concept of scalar waves and infinite space may not be correct, only time will tell, but for me it has solved the internal conflict that has raged inside my being. BLISS at last.

It has been part of my path to bliss.

It may or may not help others, everyone must follow their own path to understanding.

Little Feather

Locked