baudrunner's space: alternate theory

Showing posts with label alternate theory. Show all posts

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Strings are too confining

Okay, so we've been to Mars, say (we know enough) and yeah, the "gods" once walked the Earth - read the second paragraph in the account of The Flood And The Tower Of Babel in the King James version of the New English Bible, the one that goes "In those days, when the sons of the gods had intercourse with the daughters of men, there were giants upon the Earth. Those were the heroes of old.". Then a new paragraph begins to introduce those giants – Noah, Moses, Abraham and all those other long-lived "prophets". (Yeah, the gods have figured out the secret to near immortality, but that didn't necessarily prevent them from being stung to death by scorpions or by succumbing to some other other 'act of God'. That's how Toth died. His crew couldn't get to him soon enough to save him).

There are real archeologically ancient skeletal finds the world over, including America, of a race of humans that averaged twelve feet tall. Some were up to eighteen feet tall. They were normally proportioned for their centre of mass, given gravity. Anyway, if you're interested in learning more, all I can say is look it up. We are all Googlers.

But right now I want to discuss very briefly a new analysis of Dark Matter and Cosmic Background Theory. Scattered elsewhere in this blog are various articles in which I touched on the photon background, and also virtual particles, as in the article about the Casimir effect for example. Apparently virtual particles are always popping in and out of existence out of the cosmic background. To my mind, if superstrings exist, then they must exist there, not in the present reality where material existence is more or less stabilized. But then, I never thought that string theory was viable in any event. In fact, I think that in reality the cosmic background is a matrix of sorts, with an organization of closely packed nodes much like a complex three dimensional weave. So – not strings, but nodes.

When you zoom in to see the smallest sub-atomic particles, we encounter a lot of space between them. In fact, if you scaled the nucleus of an atom up to the size of a golf ball, the outermost electrons would occupy a zone about twelve kilometres away. Similarly, space as a contiguous matrix has a pattern, and the fact that it has a pattern implies that there can, at the highest levels of zoom, be internodal interference which leaks energy that can stabilize and precipitate as cosmic dust, from 'between' those nodes. Not so much space between nodes, but boundaries defining each. Space dust are trapped 'virtual particles', really just energy which has manifest as matter in the only stable dimension in which it is possible to actually exist and be aware of it - ie. this one. That dimension is called reality. Obviously then the cosmic background is not perfect, but that is because of the dynamics of gravitational interactions in our constantly expanding 'firmament'. As virtual particles are constantly being produced, so do nodes continually reproduce, probably of course making that happen. It's all part of the program of continuity for perpetuity. It's a beautiful self-perpetuating cycle.

So, I think that Dark Matter is fresh space dust, not yet accreted into dense volumes by way of gravitic interaction. If we find that our observations suggest that this is happening alarmingly more and more, then one might want to assume that the Universe has stretched as far as it's going to go. Don't. The farther you look out, the more that dust gets in the way, that's all. No need to worry, it's all going to be around for perpetuity.

Time enough for time

On October 15–16, 2007, a conference was held at the New York Academy of Sciences, bringing together some of the world's foremost scientific thinkers. The topic under discussion was Time. Although the contributions to the world of theoretical physics have grown substantially since the revelations of Einstein et al. we are apparently still no closer to understanding the nature of time. I can only conclude that the basic premises which are accepted by the status quo on which lie the foundations for the analysis of time — ie. big bang theory; string theory; second law of thermodynamics — are either being misinterpreted or downright flawed or even imaginary as in the case of string theory.

If we are to accept Big Bang theory then the very creation of the Universe is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, which states that the total amount of energy in the Universe is constant. That the Universe was created from nothing and contains an infinite amount of mass is a generally accepted contradiction of that first law. I can logically conclude that the first law and that particular presumption do not apply and that while creation did indeed occur from a hypothetical point source of nothing — which is represented by infinite density — it must be constantly creating at its periphery and therefore conforms to an amended form of the first law in that the Universe will forever continue toward the realization of that infinite amount of mass. In its constantly expanding three dimensions the overall surface area of that periphery is always increasing therefore the total mass of the Universe can never be quantified. But for any state change of a system the final analysis of the entropy — its maximum value — occurs for a moment of stopped time. Likewise, the entropy in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics stops time at that moment when the state change of a system is in equilibrium. These are essentially sound applications but amount to a deliberate attempt to see the small picture.

In the big picture I say that it is valid to apply these laws only if time were invariable and if existence were eternal and infinite in scope in both directions of the past and future time cones, which I cannot perceive it as being. I stated in my last post that existence passes in time for an observer at a particular place in space. Ultimately everything sentient and insentient will pass in time for any particular place in the Universe. A state of constancy exists but it moves outward in the direction of the Universe's periphery. Insomuch as time is a function of motion and velocity this constancy's rate is inversely proportional to the rate of existential decay for any given static point. Even though this sounds like a contradiction, a constant time frame has a rate of propagation. Ergo — the continuum of time, which is limiting by its stasis and which can be quantified in a dynamic Universe.

An attempt to explain why existence has a propensity toward order in violation of the second law of thermodynamics which states in a nutshell that there is a universal tendency toward chaos has given rise to a not so tongue-in-cheek fifth law of thermodynamics by Philip Carr which states:

5th Law: "An open system containing a large mixture of similar automatons, placed in contact with a non-equilibriated environment, has a finite probability of supporting the spontaneous generation and growth of self constructing machines of unlimited complexity."

In other words, the Universe has made order out of chaos. That is apparent through observation and is in accordance with the fractal expression that creation represents. After all, the dynamics of two disimilar systems is such that the entropy increases until a state of equilibrium between the two is reached. Equilibrium can be interpreted as order.

I have elsewhere posted my interpretation of gravity, a subject which must be discussed when writing about time. The conventional illustration of the bowling ball warping the mesh of space-time is a good introduction to my own interpretation of gravity — only the way I see it, the distortion of the fabric of space-time is caused not by stretching but by compression due to the displacement of space by the presence of a mass which disrupts the tendency for space to have a 'uniform density', better described as a 'uniform permeability'. Therefore for a given volumetric unit of space which can be seen to be smaller close to the surface of a mass than it is in the vast reaches between galaxies for example the time required to traverse a linear distance across one as measured by an observer travelling at a constant velocity is the same. In other words, for a given time frame and constant velocity the distance travelled through space is longer or shorter depending on the proximity to a mass.

It's all relative.

Anthropocentrism — unravelling existence

Considering the depth which theoretical scientists must often explore in their efforts to gain that deeper understanding of the fundamental nature of reality it is refreshing to note that discussion of the anthropic principle is yet ongoing. Lisa Zyga writes in her article What Anthropic Reasoning Can Really Tell Us that anthropic reasoning is losing credibility as a viable explanation for the existence of our Universe because anthropic conclusions reflect mostly our biases rather than our knowledge. I don't share her point of view. Insomuch that it is possible to bury our heads in too much mathematics (Einstein did it to support his static universe theory — he was wrong) it is also possible to demand too much of empiricism to explain what cannot be tested. Sometimes we really do need a leap of faith.

The conventional description of the anthropic principle states that the Universe is the way it is because we are here to observe it. The notion that if it were any other way than that is the way that it would be and we would still be here to observe it is as much a contradiction of the anthropic principle as supportive of it. That amended description does not sit well with physicists studying it. In essence, anthropocentrism holds that the Universe could only exist as it does to support life. To most theorists this is all just a little too pretty and fortuitous to merit title to viable theory. And therein lies the problem with it. Even if things were so, it is just too difficult to fit it into the context of Big Bang Theory. Life can not be determined to exist so it must be purely coincidental. But the anthropic principle is still too attractive and tempting to dismiss entirely. It is still the only scientific reasoning for the emergence and evolution of life. What is missing in the debate is the perception of a coherent framework to support anthropic reasoning.

Quantum theory can help. If we were to reduce the temperature of the entire Universe and everything in it to absolute zero than everything would condense into a single colossal atom. Thermal dynamics prevents this from happening. But, philosophical as it may sound, we are still essentially all one. Imagining the entire history of the Universe compressed to the time frame of a split second helps us to appreciate the role that time plays in differentiating existence. Nevertheless, everything could be perceived as happening at the same time. Same place, same time. Temporarily harboring those radical ideas will allow us to perhaps see the entire process of creation from that first quantum fluctuation when space, time and matter were first realized to the present to be a singular expression. In fractal terms this expression is not so random. Life is not such a fortuitous event after all. Life is essential to the whole, because the expression has made life manifest and purposeful. Determination of life is essential to the complete anthropocentric nature of the expression. It is not really so unscientific to say that the Universe could not have turned out any other way because any other direction would not have supported life because it's true. In its pure originality the evolution of the Universe is determined to follow the course that it takes because the only influences that might make it different imply directions that do not conform to the reason for this expression in the first place. That would have produced a flawed equation — a mutant fractal expression, if you will. But the point is that we are not co-incidental to the nature of existence.

Like any idea, which is what this grand expression represents, this one too passes in time for the observer. The lifetime of his context — ie. his part of the Universe, is as corporeal and as finite as is his life. Thermal dynamics has given us the frame of reference which allows us to position ourselves in our relative time and place and from which we can see the time cones of the past and the future. I like to think that I can see the big picture so I am comfortable with the idea that creation continues at the periphery of the Universe in the perpetual process of new beginning. We are where we are, not where it has been, and not where it is. It shall pass on.

This implies that the WMAP cold spot represents the earliest period — the beginning of creation's history — notwithstanding that there can be no place in nothing for the Universe to have begun, therefore no center of the Universe, it is here nonetheless and this fact must ascribe to at least that much logical reasoning.

On consciousness

In the Scientific American article of October, 2007 titled How Does Consciousness Happen? neuroscientists Christof Koch and Susan Greenfield discuss independent theories on the nature of consciousness. The synopsis introducing the article on the content pages of that month's issue amounts to a compelling definition of consciousness -- "..brain activity leading to subjective experience." In my opinion, both explanations are correct but Greenfield's more so than Koch's, which ventures at times dangerously into phrenology. Greenfield does not neglect to remember, without actually mentioning it, that consciousness amounts to maintenance over time.

I have written a number of articles on this blog expressing my generally opinionated views on various aspects of neuroscience and to some extent I feel more qualified than most to express them having also read to date some eleven books on the subject of the brain. In the sense that I am not limiting my viewpoint by being bogged down by details of experimentation, on which Koch's views are highly dependent, I feel that I am able to give some insight into the origins of consciousness. While I agree with Koch that not much conclusive insight can be arrived at by analysing consciousness from a philosophical standpoint I think that it is yet paramount to consider the historical process that has allowed life's evolution from the simplest forms of single-celled life with a few nucleotides in them and from the archeae to endow them with consciousness necessitating from, or to, mobility and by the quest for sustenance, and how that evolution grew into the ability of the earliest life forms to feed selectively. This can clearly be seen from microscopic studies of the eukaryotes and especially the higher forms of these such as amoeba and paramecia. Experimentation leads to conclusions of how the brain responds to stimuli but does not explain the fundamental nature of consciousness. It may be that humans are simply too complicated to explain themselves.

In fact, all thought and action are explained by bio-chemical reactions. The concept of sentient awareness and cognizance are the evolved product of mobility and selective nurture. The earliest life forms maintained their existence by replenishment and regeneration, no less than the highest life forms do now. Thought and action require expenditures of energy and energy is derived from the processes following ingestion and digestion. It is not in the least inappropriate to compare human beings then with the earliest forms of single-celled life and therefore we can conclude that even those early life forms had enough sentient awareness to allow the maintenance of their beings over time.

It is, however, inappropriate to consider that which cannot be experimentally proven to be philosophical in nature. By way of example I point to the Anthropocentric Universe theory. In effect, consciousness is determined to arise through the evolutionary process as a function of time to meet the conditions for its requirement to provide that singular idea -- premonition if you will, which has no dependency on pre-existence -- which begat the creation process. No other explanation for what begat everything has been forthcoming and this one satisfies me and my logical model for creation.

We can say that consciousness and time are mutually inclusive. Either one is a function of the other. It is easy to be overwhelmed by the concept of cognizant sentience but on the other hand it is a practical solution for that which necessitates its predisposition -- creation itself. It does not surprise me then that the highest forms of cognizant, sentient beings have the power to create.

Photon entanglement explained — maybe

On the subject of photon entanglement, physicists engaged in this experimental research admit that while the proof of this phenomenon exists in tangible experimental results, the explanation of why it happens has not been forthcoming. No-one can explain how and why this process occurs -- it just does. Well, I believe that I may have a plausible explanation.

If we could construct a pencil of a light year in length, then tapping the pencil at one end would result in corresponding scribbles at the other end. These scribbles -- representing information -- are received at the same time as they are being written. If we suppose that the same effect occurs with the entanglement of photons -- ie. that an entanglement of photons all along the straight line vector drawn between the cue and object photons creates an analogous pencil of nanoscopic proportions, then we have a rationalisation of what is actually happening. This is the most logical explanation to my mind and this can be tested experimentally by detecting the entanglement of any arbitrary photon that lies on the vector path between cue and object and which photon comprises a part of the 'nano-pencil'.

In any event, the most important application of photon entanglement is the engineering of a quantum communication system which would allow instantaneous communication between a ground-based station and an extra-planetary station such as might exist on the moon, and later Mars.

..not so far fetched, really.

Induced nano-space curvature and the Aharonov-Bohm effect

The Aharonov-Bohm effect has long been an accepted theory demonstrated easily in a classical double slit experiment using a shielded solenoid through which an electric current is passed. (As any first year electronics student knows, when an alternating current is passed through a coil of wire wound around a ferrite core, a voltage is induced, as is an electromagnetic field. The student is also aware that there is a 90° phase difference between voltage and current (voltage leads current). Furthermore, a bunching of electrons occurs in the coil.) Observations of the AB effect include shaping of the trajectory of a finely controlled beam of charged particles when it is passed outside of an induced magnetic field. The particles are said to be excluded from the magnetic field regions, yet a phase change of their photonic wavelength occurs when a current is passed through the solenoid. In effect, no forces are acting on the electron beam even though it is obvious that it is still affected by the presence of the shielded solenoid.

In an experiment to demonstrate the absence of forces in the Aharonov-Bohm effect, Herman Batelaan, Adam Caprez and Brett Barwick of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln appear to be the first to have actually provided demonstrable proof that no forces are involved in the slight bending of the electrons' trajectory. Batelaan, the scientist who oversaw the experiment, explains that the result represents an important example of the interplay between quantum mechanics, electromagnetism and relativity and stresses the importance that this will have on our understanding of the interplay between quantum mechanics and electromagnetic fields.

In my post of November 20 I pointed out that "we are undeniably macroscopic representations, manifestations if you will, of quantum structures". I feel that we should not be too wary of relating phenomena which occur at all three of the cosms that comprise reality -- the colossal, the macro, and the quantum. I think that what is actually happening in the Nebraska-Lincoln experiment is that space is being curved at the nanoscopic scale, and this effects a phase change of the electron stream to an observer at the macroscopic scale, in effect altering the electrons' vector properties. No physical force is acting on the electron.

As Batelaan stated, the experiment is indeed an important example of the interplay between quantum mechanics, electromagnetism and relativity. What we are witnessing is actually the phenomenon of gravity resulting from the dynamics of a system, and is not necessarily dependent on the presence of an electromagnetic field.

The brain encodes and decodes visual information

Just for the record, I would like to challenge anyone in the field of computer rendering/animation to reproduce the picture found in the link here, titled "Escher style Fractal - Connected Cubes" in three dimensions, and to make it viewable with the right eye glasses.

I have read eleven books about the brain -- some big, some little. The most useful and educational ones have plenty of redundant information in them but that just strengthens one's interpretations about what is read in the rest of those books, not to mention the articles and news items that contribute even more about the subject. I encourage anyone reading this to read as much about the brain as they can get their hands on to stimulate the myriad receptors in their own. There are some great articles on experimental data which should stimulate those regions of it which are intrigued in those who are naturally inclined to be curious.

For example, the cerebral cortex is a gray-hued sheet of brain cells measuring between a millimeter or two in thickness which covers the surface of the white matter which makes up the glial material which forms the scaffolding and structure which supports the neural networks which communicate with the central processing unit sitting on and surrounding the mid-brain. These constitute respectively the thinking and processing part of the brain. Most of the brain mass physically supports the network circuitry.

Scans which show activity when a subject is stimulated, such as the CAT (Computed Axial Tomography), MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging), PET (Positron Emission Tomography), SPECT (Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography), and DOT (Diffuse Optical Imaging) etc. tend to go a little deeper into the brain and display information when the neurons are activated, displaying the information transfer along the pathways and all the processes leading to where that information ends up. As to whether the actual information is stored or simply processed in the areas one speculates about is beyond the ability of scanning techniques to resolve or decipher.

This is where brain theory comes in. Not much is known for certain about the storage of information inside the brain but we do know the bio-electro-mechanics of information transfer via axons and dendrites and therefore we can draw some plausible conclusions. It may be that memory is an ongoing associative process whereby networks are reactivated on recall according to the original pattern of information processing when related information is received. An analogy to the brownian motion of atoms may be drawn. It is a motion that never ceases. Furthermore, the information pertaining to the visual imagery of the surface characteristics of objects that we see is modulated on all the particles which comprise the medium which transmits this information and we can draw an additional analogy from this fact, in that the information pertaining to imagery is retained as modulations reduced, or 'unrefined', to the molecular level and stored as patterns rather than as bits and bytes as in computer memory. In this way, the physical components of the brain can detach from the memory portions while still very much associated with them. Insomuch as it has been established to the satisfaction of many experts that an infinite amount of information can be stored on an electron the brain probably has infinite capacity for storage and different information can probably be stored within the same essential circuitry. As the association of experience recalls a memory the engram 'enlarges' into the unique pattern representing specific information.

In essence, while largely speculative, this idea limits the depth of the involvement at the quantum level of the process of memory and recall and which yet links that realm to the reality that we perceive at the macroscopic level. Nevertheless, a very definite analogy to quantum computing can be made, in that a qubit, or quantum bit, can assume all possible states at the same time. We are undeniably macroscopic representations, manifestations if you will, of quantum structures.

Are there methanogens inside Mars?

In some of my previous posts I suggested that there is a distinct possibility that there may be oil in Mars. While the jury is still out for most readers on the true natural origins of oil in our own planet's crust there is supporting evidence that oil is continuing to be produced through the digestion of portions of the ferrite substrata by a kind of anaerobic bacterial fungal mold which produces oil and methane as the waste by-product in a process that has been ongoing in this planet's geological history since before the atmosphere contained oxygen. I can now ascribe a name to that peculiar form of life. They are methanogens, previously known as the archaea and which were previously categorised with the prokaryotes which include bacteria. Now they have been given their very own classification.

This is not news, actually. It is just that this month marks the thirtieth anniversary of the discovery that led to the reclassification of these 'non-bacteria' by microbiologist Carl Woese at the University of Illinois based on his analysis of ribosomal RNA. He discovered that the evolution of other prokaryotes and eukaryotes shared common features not found in the methanogens, which in parts were very different, apparently evolving according to a differing subset of rules. This lends some credence to the idea that they arrived here from elsewhere, and that they do not have their origins on this Earth.

As space-based early life forms they probably arrived here after precipitating from the trails left behind by comets, or as aggregate dust clouds wherein they were confined and which drifted through this solar system depositing the methanogens on all the worlds and their moons, wherein they might have continued evolving and producing oil and methane gases in those worlds which have a high ferrite concentration in their crust.

The idea seems not so far-fetched. It turns out that the methanoarchaea are neither bacterial nor fungal, but in a class all by themselves. They are certainly prehistoric, predating oxygen-dependent life.

Unusual methanogens have been isolated from oil-producing wells. In an article found on The Journal of the Society for General Microbiology web site the authors state that "Methanocalculus halotolerans might be indigenous to the oilfield ecosystem". Other studies show that "a mixed group of microorganisms is more effective at biodegrading organic compounds than any of the component strains acting alone". Thus far it has been established with some certainty that a "microbial consortium" converts oil, oil bearing shale and coal into methane. The discovery of life in deep oil wells is fairly recent. It was previously thought that life could not exist in that environment. It was also discovered that introducing oxygen into that environment suppresses methane production.

It may be that the term "fossil fuels" will shortly become obsolete.

Proving the beginning

M. Bendio of Orem, Utah asked the experts at Scientific American Magazine the following question:

"According to the big bang theory, all the matter in the universe erupted from a singularity. Why didn't all this matter--cheek by jowl as it was--immediately collapse into a black hole?"

Surprisingly, he is answered by a pool of experts who each state their version of the explanation. They are Scientific American astronomy editor George Musser; Robert J. Nemiroff, assistant professor of physics at Michigan Technological University; Christ Ftaclas, associate professor of physics, also at Michigan Tech; and Edward L. Wright, vice chair for astronomy at the University of California at Los Angeles who closes his response by saying...

"..the advanced reader could look at the technical solution to the question. Solving the field equations will show that the space metric in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe expands from infinite density without forming a black hole."

The four respondents more or less agreed as to why the Universe did not immediately collapse into a black hole. In short, black holes are relative singularities in that they can only occur in non-homogeneous environments. In the beginning, every region in the expanding Universe in creation had equally probable outcomes. No relative non-homogeneity existed until after the process of formation of stars and galaxies.

Wright's response is a fascinating confirmation of my own simple model in which there was a beginning before which nothing existed and at which space/time and matter evolved. I interpret nothing as having an infinite density with therefore an infinite potential so I am able to accept that we are living in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe without doing the math, and I am relieved about that since I admit to a different species of advanced readership than that required to extrapolate that monster.

I doubt that mathematics will ever deliver the explanation for what started everything to begin with, so we will have to settle for speculative idealizations until such time as we can reproduce the process to prove them, itself an impossible feat for obvious reasons. We can as an exercise, however, draw some conculsions from the evidence that we exist at all in a Universe which for our purposes will be around for some time yet.

Let's not take consciousness and life for granted. Let's assume that they represent the true nature of the Universe, ie. -- that it is anthropocentric in nature. In other words, the Universe would not exist without the presence of life. Now, that's not like saying, if a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there to hear it would it make a noise? Of course it would. The point that I am making is that the initial moment of creation was produced by a stimulus precipitated by the precognition of the conscious, cognizant sentience which exists as the necessary predisposition which brought that quantum fluctuation about. Causal precognition is not dependent on a directional temporal framework. In this case it actually creates time after the fact of its impact. It is after that initial impetus that the infinite potential of nothing is realized and becomes manifest as the difference between nothing and existence thereby laying the groundwork for the establishment of the polarized physical concepts which contain the laws to which reality conforms. The paradoxes that abound throughout creation are the glue which maintains it.

The Universe can only be observed from within. I think that creation continues at the periphery. What this Universe represents is a very heavy idea, that anything existing at all is so staggeringly awesome and profound that it alone provides the fuel for that precognition: the premonition. We are present to make existence rational. It only makes sense, at least to me, when seen in this light.

Dark energy = dark understanding

Quite often we encounter the declaration by some distinguished space scientist that an upcoming space mission will have the potential to "fundamentally alter our understanding of the universe." NASA's Beyond Einstein program is the latest to earn this accolade by Charles F. Kennel, distinguished professor and director of the Environment and Sustainability Initiative at the University of California, San Diego and co-chair of a committee on the National Research Council reporting on the NASA program. He states, "All of the mission areas in the Beyond Einstein program have the potential to fundamentally alter our understanding of the universe". The study was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and NASA and The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council. There are five Beyond Einstein missions currently in the planning stage with the potential for any of these to evolve into more elaborate missions in their own right. As at this time, the Joint Dark Energy Mission is gathering the most momentum in moving toward the development phase because the underlying technologies are already in place. Dark Energy has been labelled the culprit in the accelerating expansion of the Universe. This expansion is assumed to be accelerating because the light from distant sources is red-shifted, or stretched, into the infra-red region of the optical spectrum and the cause of this red-shift has not yet been established with definite certainty, hence "Dark Energy".

I have a different idea on the nature of the red-shift. Red-shift analysis leading to Dark Energy interpretation is based on the presumption that there are no losses incurred in the transmission of electromagnetic waves, and that their propagation occurs consistently at a velocity that has been coined the 'speed of light'. However, scientists have understood for a long time that there is a "property of systems" called "Hysteresis", which can best be described as a form of delay, or lag, in the response to a stimulus of the system. Understand it as the result of a form of time-induced friction. By the logic of application to the transmission of light from distant sources, there is therefore a reduction in energy of the EM wave over time which translates into reduced frequency and wavelength. Our observation of the physical evidence of this can lead to exotic misinterpretations of the facts. What has been termed Dark Energy may be no more than hysteresis. What complicates the issue is the attribution to Dark Energy of the effects of gravity fields around very dense galactic clusters obscured by the massive dust clouds created by colliding stars and galaxies. These have recently been identified. I have already pointed out in my post Paradigm and stubborn will that our observation of the expansion of the Universe can lead to misinterpretation, and that the expansion is not accelerating at all but actually constant as can be illustrated with the rubber band demonstration described in that post. I am of the opinion that when the jury is finally in on what is going on out there we will accept that what we observe is the same illusion of acceleration coupled with the effects of hysteresis and that there is no such thing as Dark Energy. I predict that nothing new will be revealed by the Joint Dark Energy mission unless it is that we allow ourselves to accept this subtle change in the way in which we interpret our reality.

I am tempted to submit a request for proposal to NASA for a mission that will eclipse in importance and its contributions to our knowledge that of all of the space missions ever put together by all the nations of this earth over our entire history of space exploration. The total cost would not exceed $100 billion. What I propose is to construct a Very Large Array of 27 James Webb Space Telescopes optimally positioned for maximum field of view so that we can get a truly close look at our more immediate neighbours. It seems like a much more practical project. The total cost would still be much less than the entire America in Iraq mission by a factor of six.

That place in nothing

Notwithstanding that there can be no place in nothing for the Universe to have begun -- ergo no center of the Universe -- logic dictates that this is intrinsically impossible; that there must be a reference point from which the Universe first began and from which it began expanding. Perhaps a conclusion can be drawn out of theory as to the evolutionary process wherein matter and space are first created to that inevitable end where we are left only with a void and all matter and energy within that void has disappeared, unravelled and expired. If our theory is correct then the beginnings of that process must lie somewhere; must be observable.

Perhaps that very region has been found. NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotopy Probe (WMAP) satellite produced a map of the Cosmic Microwave Background which appears to be disrupted by the presence of a large hole seemingly devoid of the presence of matter. It is being called the "WMAP Cold Spot". The spot is huge, about a billion light years across and is located between six and ten billion light years from Earth.

When viewing a computer generated cross section of the Universe we are presented with an image which shows strings of galaxies occupying filaments of matter like some dense web in the darkness of space. We are reminded of our theory that there is an end to existence, that even as the creation process continues for perpetuity at the periphery of the Universe, all things must pass in time and the energies that make up particles of matter and force must have a "shelf-life", eventually also passing in time in a process already begun at that place which we should now be able to identify and where creation began. Those galactic filaments can almost be seen to shrink and atrophy even as the gaps between them grow larger, and this is perhaps what we are witnessing when we observe everything to be moving away from us no matter where we stand in this Universe. We are all trapped in the cycle of life and death and the Universe that was and is and will be are no exceptions. Those events are all a part of this reality. It is all happening at the same time.

It is most logical to me that there is this dynamic to the life-cycle of creation. The Universe is not static. Things do not remain the same.

If quantum reality can be strange then so can I

Quantum entanglement has me thinking on the nature of "quantum unreality" -- specifically, the phenomenon whereby distance between objects (in physics, remember that the terms object and particle are interchangeable) becomes arbitrary, and the fact that time is not a factor in the adoption of same-states by particles any distance apart in the process known as entanglement.

Here is my idea. In confirming the premise that an infinite amount of information can be stored on an electron, Philip Bucksbaum has unwittingly revealed an interesting side note as a logical extrapolation from his experiments and that is that there are an infinite number of possible states in terms of the position, orientation, and momentum etc. of a particle. Furthermore there is a probability, the degree of which is indeterminable, that any two particles can assume the same state regardless of their respective place in the Universe in a random event but that this probability is also very low so as to be negligible considering the potential of the infinite. This must be so in order for the structural integrity of the Universe to be maintained, as will be discussed shortly. That this entangled state can be coerced by experimentation is already established. What concerns us is how this is effected instantaneously over potentially vast distances.

Think of a long wooden beam. Nudging the beam forward moves the leading edge forward at the same time. Think of a beam a four light years' distance long. All practicalities notwithstanding, nudging the beam forward will move the leading edge of the beam forward at the same time. If we had such a device we could communicate instantaneously to the inhabitants of a world around Alpha Centauri, if there is one, by repeatedly moving the beam back and forth -- sending one's and zero's in this way. Now, dismiss the idea of the beam from your mind, it has only served as an introduction to the idea that there must be a kind of quantum rule based structural scaffolding of sorts keeping the integrity of the Universe intact. The dynamics of this structure is such that makes its definition indeterminate, in accordance with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. However, given the ability to engage two objects in a quantum entanglement scenario we can create the effect of locking the structural component, that is - to temporarily reveal and maintain the definition of a dimension of the structure temporarily such that the beam analogy holds true so that what happens to an object here happens at exactly the same time to an object potentially light years away. This suggests that we are able to exert a modicum of control over the structural definition of space, in effect fixing a one-dimensional vector of its three-dimensional "matrix" positionally, even if only temporarily.

The Universe is not made up of a matrix of two-by-fours of course but scientists agree that space is indeed as much a creation as the matter which occupies it and therefore it must be made of something. Perhaps the dynamics of all those virtual particles popping into and out of existence is not random at all since they must serve to define the volumetrics of the space wherein our reality exists. Also perhaps, the structural rigidity of the quantum realm bears no resemblance to our perceptual concept of what constitutes a rigid structure. One thing is for sure, we do not see the same thing looking up at an electron from the surface of an atom's nucleus as we do looking down at it from our perspective within this macrocosm. And if we were big enough to hold the Universe in the palm of our hand, the creation of a star would be as a spark whereas from our point of view that Hubble photograph of the Horsehead Nebula will look pretty much the same to us a couple of hundred years from now. These are the things to consider when analysing what goes on at the quantum scale. That is the sub-ordinate cosm of all existence.

An attempt to establish a frame of reference at the level of the quantum scale with respect to our macro reality might therefore prove to be futile but that should not prevent the application of those possibilities realized from experimentation and investigation of that quantum unreality. Who cares how it works so long as it does? Well, Physicist Anton Zeilinger does, sort of. He admits he's "just having fun", but coming up with the answer to the riddle of quantum unreality would represent a welcome epipheny to be sure. Zeilinger's work represents the cutting edge of quantum entanglement experimentation and no doubt his work will some day lead to a practical method of instantaneous communication between ground control and the future Mars colony. Information first, then people.

"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein

Big Bang Theory is to my mind the greatest paradigm of them all. It is virtually ingrained and chiseled into the cosmic conscious as surely as death and taxes are to life. And yet, among the more rational and sensible refutations of popular schools of thought is an idea so much more elegant and practical one wonders when the scientific community will finally admit its greatest blunder, change its mind and accept it for its logical simplicity. It would put so many deviant research spin offs to rest and save so much time and money from being spent needlessly. I am talking about the creation of the Universe, of course.

The currently held assumptions that the Universe began with a colossal explosion and that all the matter that now exists within it was created out of that moment in time are essentially flawed. I attribute that idea's popularity to man's inherent enthusiasm for blowing things up and for man's inability to appreciate or understand the full scope of infinite potential as a matter of fact. We accept that what we observe must deliver a logical conclusion, but haven't we learned from experience that things are not always as they seem? And are we not more likely to encounter that fact in fields of research which are and will likely be for all time largely speculation?

I just sent off an email to Australian astronomer Brian Schmidt, who has just won the prestigious 'Gruber Prize for Cosmology' along with half a million dollars (in it, I briefly outlined what I am stating in this blog). He led two international research teams back in the 1990's which, after confirming Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that the Universe was expanding, discovered that the expansion was accelerating!

I should qualify that by saying that they observed that the expansion was accelerating. In effect, they studied cosmological bodies which are receding from us and recorded their positions over time. The conclusion they came to was that the farther a celestial object is away from the point of reference that is our Earth, the faster it is moving away from us. This is considered to be a great discovery and it is actually an addendum to Big Bang Theory. The idea that gravity should start pulling things closer into the center of the Universe -- that is, after first slowing the expansion of the original big bang down -- is now superseded by this discovery. Therefore it is to be presumed that the Universe will continue to expand forever and expand faster and faster while it is doing so. So much for 'Big Crunch' theory.

Here are some basic premises which should aid the reader in understanding what is actually going on in this cosmos. I believe that they represent the truth, and I urge your serious consideration:

1. Space is as much a creation as the matter which occupies it.
2. The Universe continues this process of creation at the periphery -- creating space and matter.
3. The Universe can only be observed from within.

The observation that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating is an illusion and this illusion can be demonstrated very simply. I have described the following experiment before but it bears repetition for the purpose of this discussion:

1. Snip a fat elastic band and clip it to a length of six inches.
2. Place it beside a ruler and mark off three points on it with a ballpoint pen at the following marks: 1"; 2"; and 5". Draw a circle around the 2" point to designate it as old sol, our observational frame of reference. The other two points are near and far stars.
3. Stretch the band to double its length -- 12". Observe that the far star has moved away three times as fast in the same time as the near star -- it has moved three times farther away.

This is exactly what is happening when we observe the positions of receding stars in the heavens. The Universe's expansion is not really accelerating, that is just an illusion! The farther a star is away the faster it will appear to be moving away and because the Universe is dynamic it will appear to be accelerating away from us, but I maintain that it is not. The rate of expansion/creation is constant!

The Big Bang Theory implies that there is a central point of origin in the void which we can call 'ground' zero, and that the expansion is outward from this point of origin. But that's not possible. Before there was anything there was nothing, and nothing is not something you can walk around in, or wave your hand through, or poke with a stick. It is nothing! There can be no center of the Universe because that would imply that there was a place in nothing for creation to begin and there can be no place in nothing. Space is as much a creation as the matter which occupies it. Ergo, no center. They have never found one and never will. The jury is in on that one. Furthermore, it is already established that no matter where one stands in this Universe one will experience the same observation, which is that everything is moving away from us.

The justification for the acceleration of the expanding Universe is now deemed to be 'Dark Energy', and once the paradigm has shifted toward my way of thinking dark matter will cease to exist but much time and money will have been wasted trying to discover it. Time I have plenty of, but I could sure use some of that money.

Brian Schmidt responded the next day:

This is the analogy I usually use to explain that the Universe is expanding... This is simply saying the further away you are the faster you move...this is analogous to the Hubble constant. Now as you might guess the, Universe isn't just rubber bands, and if one believes General Relativity (which given that it has never made a falsified prediction - seems reasonable) - then one can predict the expansion (your analogy above) and deceleration/etc, taking into account the dynamic nature of curved space-time. So, from my point of view, there is a vast array of things you got to get to work, bending of light around the sun, formation of gravitational waves around pulsars, the Cosmic Microwave Background, etc. And that is what the field of Cosmology has more or less been able to do over the past 80 years. But it is very complicated, and it has Dark Matter and Dark Energy in it, which we do not understand...so, could it be wrong...yep. But it does at least predict just about everything we can measure.

Brian

The dynamics of memory

The mind's ability to recall memories has traditionally been one of the most puzzling of its features. Scientists are still in the process of completing their theories regarding the process by which memory engrams are stored and retrieved by the brain. Complex experiments have been conducted which conclude only that inhibitory and excitatory neural activity plays a major role in pattern recognition and that this therefore constitutes an important component in the process whereby memory engrams are constructed.

It has been determined that neurons in culture are dedicated to the task of inhibition or excitation and that their ratio is about 80% excitatory to 20% inhibitory. (Even though the experiment described in the Oxford Journal seems to suggest that single neurons can display both inhibitory and excitatory behaviour, it is difficult to obtain a reading from a single neuron by using electrodes and making those kinds of determinations from graphs of electrical responses to stimulus. Such determination is best achieved by analysing neural activity in vitro)

Recent experiments by researchers at Tel Aviv University in Israel shed some light on the complex task of pattern generation and memorization. They isolated neurons in cultures and treated the inhibitory neurons with gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), which was used to suppress the inhibitory mechanism. When stimulated, the excitatory neurons established a firing pattern which was maintained without intervention for an entire day. This pattern "coexisted with the electrical pattern that was spontaneously generated when the neural culture was initially linked." Furthermore, establishing another new pattern did not restrict the original firing sequences and the three patterns coexisted without interruption.

This experiment is important in that it demonstrates the parallel processing which the brain is capable of performing. Additionally, it may very well lead to the development of neural memory modules for computing applications. But its real value lies in the contribution toward developing a more comprehensive theory on just how the brain functions with respect to memory.

Simply imprinting a pattern does not guarantee long term memory (LTM). If disruption of the brain's attention occurs then retention fails. LTM requires at least five to ten minutes and up to one hour of associative neural activity and engram construction for retention or consolidation of new information to take place. There is every reason to believe that once established, the engram is permanent. Memory loss is the result of a break in the associative process whereby the brain attempts to retrieve the engram, usually caused by trauma or some type of degenerative brain condition.

It is association which restores the pattern of neural firing and allows memory recall to occur. This association may be in the form of visual cues or contextual cues that reassemble the pattern from thought. In my opinion, imagination results from the ready assembly of abstractions resulting from a conscious effort to establish an original firing pattern, and will always have its roots in established engram structure and recall through the associative process.

None of this actually explains just how the patterns are stored and how that storage is reinforced during the process. It isn't entirely inconceivable that neural firing patterns and firing pattern potential - a form of pattern compression in the amygdala and hippocampal areas - continues so long as we are alive. The Tel Aviv experiments lay the groundwork for that theory. We are no doubt consciously allocating priorities to certain memories which we are more likely to retain in long term storage. What is perhaps even more puzzling than remembering is what it is that generates the interest to do so in the first place.

Prepare for a paradigm shift in our thinking on human evolution

The established school of thought on the evolution of humans is pretty much ingrained into the conscious of most students - that is, humans evolved from apes, or ape-like creatures, who began their evolution into intelligent beings by climbing around in trees. Scientists making observations of orangutans standing upright on branches in the forests of Borneo so as to be better able to reach ripe fruit have linked their human-like behaviour to evolutionary theory. An article in today's Toronto Star stays on the topic: "Scientists who spent a year photographing orangutans in the rain forest say the trait probably evolved in ancient apes navigating the treetops long before ancestors of humans climbed to the ground..." Any deviation from the idea that we learned to walk only long after we were well practiced in the art of climbing trees teeters dangerously on the brink of crank science. The following excerpt from a page buried in the News in Science web site daren't suggest otherwise: "Humans were born to run and evolved from ape-like creatures into the way they look today probably because of the need to cover long distances and compete for food, U.S. scientists say."

I am not averse to taking risks. After all, I have no scientific reputation to uphold. If my car had a bumper sticker it would read "I'd rather be a crank - I can say anything I want."

I actually doubt strongly that humans actually evolved from ape-like creatures, and while I won't state outright that at some point in evolutionary development a regression of sorts might even have taken place which saw some species of human-like creatures taking to the trees because they couldn't run fast enough to escape their predators, I wouldn't dismiss that theory altogether either.

We must accept that evolution is very much a function of environmental adaptation and that the Earth's environment is very diverse across the globe. We should also note that humans represent the peak of evolutionary development and as such have probably been evolving for the longest time of any creature that hasn't yet become extinct. I think it a flawed exercise to compare a chicken leg to a dinosaur's leg. Too many millions of years separate the two. I believe that lizards and reptiles alive today are more closely related to early dinosaurs than birds are because of their obvious similarities. I also think it improbable that any ape, whether Orangutan or Bonobo chimp, who also routinely walk upright for short distances, will ever develop the skill to maintain that posture let alone become fast bipedal runners. I think that they are a different creature altogether. It is above all most apparent that creatures tend to settle into the niche that circumstance has led them to fall into and that apes for example are merely evolving into better apes.

I strongly believe that humans are direct descendants of an omnivorous dinosaur whose staple diet was the eggs of other dinosaurs and that they evolved their longer arms to more easily clutch their booty to their chests to be better able to run away from angry mother dinosaurs on the two strong legs that evolved specifically for that purpose. Not many creatures eat eggs as a staple food of their diet. It is precisely this fact that has enabled the growth of our brains to its much larger size, since a very large part of the brain is cholesterol. About 25% of the total amount of the cholesterol present in humans is found in the brain. Our current physical form owes its appearance to the steady state of affairs which allowed this slow process to occur over the immense time frame that is required for the development of a larger brain. Eggs are extremely rich in essential nutrients, and when combined with fruits and roots, makes for a very healthy animal. This varied diet only contributes all the more to the potential for the development of intelligence. Insomuch as teamwork for food procurement lies at the root of the development of society the clever planning of strategy to distract a fierce mother dinosaur from its nest so that others may steal from it only compounds the factors contributing to the continued evolution toward human beings. Constantly having to evade predators who would have evolved the instinct to be wary of the threat to their continued survival presented by these proto-humans leads to nomadic traits, increasing the potential for variation in diet and for acquiring new knowledge as the result of adaptations to changing environments.

The argument will no doubt be made for the fact that it appears that 98% of our genome is similar to the chimpanzee's, therefore we must have evolved from apes. I can counter that in any number of ways. For one thing, it is quite obvious to me that we have closer physical similarities to orangutans than to chimpanzees. Also, when one compares the completely shorn bodies of the great apes the greatest similarity to the human form is in the gibbon, curiously enough because the gibbon is a simian still very much preoccupied with swinging from branch to branch. Furthermore, from the Discover Magazine article (04.04.06) titled The 2% Difference:

"In genomes involving billions of nucleotides, a tiny 2 percent difference translates into tens of millions of ACGT differences. And that 2 percent difference can be very broadly distributed. Humans and chimps each have somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 genes, so there are likely to be nucleotide differences in every single gene."

Dinosaurs aren't extinct at all. Dinosaurs are our ancestors. We are now human. In fact, considering the impact perpetrated upon our existence as demonstrated by the nature of humanity today, it doesn't disturb me in the least to accept the fact that we have most likely evolved from a sneaky egg-stealing coward.

The futile search for extraterrestrial radio signals

Let it not go unsaid that I firmly believe that life in the Universe is the rule rather than the exception. I propose the not so arbitrary ratio of one habitable world on which life is evolving for every one hundred suns in the galaxy. That means that there is the potential for life around a billion suns in this galaxy alone. This is in accordance with my theory of the anthropocentric Universe.

Then why is it that after all these years of SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Life), we have yet to detect even the faintest radio signal barely hinting at intelligent life from one of these worlds? I am clearly of the opinion that the idea that we are the only habitable world in the Universe is a wholly untenable one. There is no reason at all to assume that we are alone. It is a selfish and self-aggrandizing notion, completely unacceptable.

Gliese 581C holds the greatest promise for life close to our world. And yet, SETI researchers have twice pointed their radio telescopes at that sun in the hope of detecting some kind of sign that there is intelligent life there with advanced communication technology. And they have come up empty.

I'm not concerned. Around the solar system wherein we dwell there is a region where exists a "dust" cloud known as the Oort cloud. The following is extracted from this web page describing the Oort cloud.

Typical noontime temperatures are four degrees Celsius above absolute zero. As temperatures move toward absolute zero, the kinetic energy of the molecules approach a finite value. Absolute zero should not be considered a state of zero energy without motion. There still remains some molecular energy, although it is at a minimum, at absolute zero.

Elsewhere in my blog I have discussed the nature of EM wave propagation. In light of the above information alone, one can only be skeptical as to whether a radio transmission from so far away with a limited source of energy to begin with can even penetrate this region outside our solar system. The presence of all that distributed mass will most certainly subject intelligent radio signals to attenuating influences. The effect that all those objects and particles would have on the quality of coherent radio transmissions can be compared to the ghosting of our broadcast TV images bouncing around tall buildings in our immediate environment when we are using simple rabbit ears to pick them up, only their effects would be exponentially more severe. Not only that, but even from the planet Pluto the sun is barely distinguishable from other stars and the sun is a source of great energy. Radio signals which we are expecting to receive from intelligent sources by comparison are extremely weak signals. We might be able to separate intelligent information from the mumbo jumbo that we would otherwise regard as chaotic EM wave activity, but we would have to know precisely the nature of the information that we are trying to extract and thus far we haven't communicated with any ET's who might be able to tell us anything about that.

When we attain that stage of space exploration which sees us sending probes to explore neighbouring stars, we will no doubt require strategically placed transponders discretely placed en route which serve no other purpose than to boost the signal strength of transmitted data from those probes as they travel ever farther away from us. About three quarters of the way to Toronto from London I am no longer able to pick up The Hawk on the FM dial, which transmits from Woodstock.

I think it naive of us to assume that we can tap into the broadcasts enjoyed by the inhabitants of a world around a star twenty light years away. All this distance between us serves but to isolate us, and no amount of searching for extraterrestrial life in the way that SETI is doing it will meet with any kind of success, in my opinion. Prove me wrong.

I'm an evolutionist - there! I've said it

Evolutionists need not go far to find imperfection in "God's creation". There is evidence for the less than perfect nature of this three dimensional reality beyond the fact that anomalous accommodations in its physical laws must exist to maintain it. Progressive elemental assembly does not guarantee stability. Metallic elements readily release outer orbital electrons. Ions and isotopes of common elements exist which do not conform to the ideal configuration of the atom in which there is a balance of charges in the nucleus with the electron charges outside the nucleus. The heavier and more complex the atom the more unstable it becomes to the point that the heaviest elements can only be created in the laboratory and exist only for a very short time. Phosphorus, atomic number 15, is mildly radioactive and only exists in a combined state with other elements and incidentally happens to be essential for life. It is found in bones, teeth, muscle and nerves as well as in the nucleus of cells in the form of nucleoproteins and is important in the metabolism of sugar. Out of imperfection, life.

During creation, the initial production of the elements after the establishment of stable subatomic particles is not ordered as it is in the periodic table, but rather jumps around in it during the creation process. One wonders why all the energies do not assemble into hydrogen which is the simplest of the elements and the first to be produced during creation. This can be largely attributed to the presence of the neutron which ordinary hydrogen does not have, but the fact is that those energies almost do judging from the relative abundance of that element. In any event, the natural anthropocentric order could not be met with hydrogen alone.

It is probable that before the introduction of individual identities into the spiritual realm was made possible the evolution of life had been occurring for billions of years before the forthcoming of those initial forces that prepared our world for our presence upon it, for that kind of advanced technology represents the continuing process that manifests and evolves consciousness from that original premonition in the beginning. As we continue to evolve, we too will learn to evict from our natures those physical energies that limit our selves to this finite state but which made possible the development of the unique identity that we each represent. We are also of the spirit, for without it we would not be and there would be no existence.

The perpetuation of life becomes the mission to which we direct ourselves, and this occurs on more planes than the one we currently inhabit. We will have the same responsibilities where that is concerned in the spiritual realm as well but in a different form. We owe that to those who made us possible. They are God. We, the Universe, made Him too.

Evolution is ongoing. The determination that drives research and technological development will one day find itself on the threshold of the systematic deconstruction of this physical realm so that we may exist for the rest of time unconfined by it. The process that guides this is intuitive. We are leading ourselves there without realizing it. One way to measure our progress is through the understanding that a manifestation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle occurs in our study of existence using super colliders and particle accelerators to essentially destroy the object under study. As he said, we cannot know the atom with any certainty because we affect the object under study with the technique we use to observe it. We have a long way to go. Destruction is not deconstruction.

There is harmony in the intrinsic nature of reality, however imperfect this reality may be. Gravity and intelligence are symbiotic with relativity and order. Intelligence and relativity are integrated into the fabric of space-time and are subliminal components of the natural schema. Gravity and order permits the existence of nature in a closed ecological biosphere wherein the creation process can repeat itself within a concentrated time frame such that conscious intelligence can rationalize existence in a self-replicating process. In this way, the continuum of space-time is ever present and forever growing and expanding.

The anthropic principle, which states that the Universe is the way it is otherwise we would not be here to observe it would still apply if the Universe were any other way. The ordering of the Universe, any way that it turns out, is yet intelligently shaped to accommodate itself. The evolution of intelligent beings factors into the equation for creation.

The process of the development of atomic structures is analogous to that of the organization of the resulting elements into the component products that assemble to produce a sentient being. Sub-atomic particles yield atoms which yield molecules which yield logical assemblies of the basic constituents of what become the practical harbingers of cognizance. And this all happens in the sea of consciousness that is this coherency called the Universe; consciousness destined to be cornered and trapped by individual cognizant entities, not objects.

The entire Universe is a sea of interaction. There is no vacuum, only the relative spatial and particle density within which we appreciate it.

Inviting controversy - exceeding light speed

The noted Italian astronomer Paolo Maffei states in his excellent book "Beyond the Moon" that if our neighboring galaxy Andromeda (2.9 million light years away) were to explode, we would feel the initial shock wave within a couple of days of that event. Obviously then, shock waves originating from colossal events propagate faster than ordinary electromagnetic waves. We will acknowledge for the sake of argument, as suggested by Maffei, that the density of intergalactic space is in the order of one hydrogen atom per cubic centimeter. Given that the rate of atomic interaction determines the rate of propagation of EM waves, then the distance travelled by an EM wave front for a given time frame is proportional to the number of particles in the medium which effect their transmission for that distance. We can do a logical calculation with respect to the actual distance that a light wave would travel through intergalactic space for a given time frame using data compiled for the values we have collected from experimentation at one atmosphere of pressure at 1G, or, on the surface of the earth. The medium of the atmosphere is much denser than the medium of space. Experiments to determine the speed of light were performed in a breathable atmosphere. The statement that "the speed of light" in vacuum is 3x10^10 cm/sec is therefore an assumption.

As a matter of fact, we can use Avogadro's number and the gram atomic weight of hydrogen to find the number of atoms in one gram of hydrogen, and its density of 0.08987 g/L to calculate the total number of hydrogen atoms aligned along a one cm line at one atmosphere of pressure and 1G of force. This yields 37.728 x 10^5 atoms/cm which when multiplied by the rate of EM wave propagation in an atmosphere, which is 3x10^10 cm/sec, gives us the distance that light waves propagate in intergalactic space in one second. This is 1.132x10^12 km, at a rate which is measured as being 3x10^10 cm/sec at 1G and 1 atmosphere of pressure. That's 1.132 terakm!

To argue that light waves travel 300,000 km in one second in space or on the ground is ludicrous. All experiments with respect to EM wave behaviour show us that they travel slower in a denser medium. In fact, in diamond, the optically densest medium, the rate of light wave propagation is half the rate measured for air.

This leaves one to wonder just what exactly Einstein meant when he stated that nothing can exceed the speed of light wave propagation. Based on logic alone we can assume that since low frequency waves travel slower, eg. sound waves, that the higher the frequency, the faster the rate of propagation, so it follows that gamma waves travel faster than light waves. That is also logical with respect to the rate at which particles in the medium interact. They would respond much quicker to a faster rate of oscillation. It could be argued that sound waves are not EM waves but that doesn't remove the logic unless we argue that atomic interaction has no influence in the propagation of EM waves. We can counter that argument.

X rays are produced in the lab by the bombardment of an element with a high energy electron beam. The electrons of the target atoms are stripped from the nucleus in this violent process. Max von Laue's observations of the behaviour of X ray diffraction in crystals in 1912 proved that X rays are light waves of very short wavelengths. In 1914 the English physicist H.G.H. Mosely discovered something very intriguing when he studied the X rays produced by different metals. Each element produces several wavelengths of X rays, but for the sake of our discussion we are here concerned with the strongest emission for each element. He discovered when he graphed the atomic number of an element against the square root of the observed frequency of the X ray emission that there was a linear relationship. In fact, all the points in the X-Y graph lay on a straight line. In other words, there was a direct correlation between the square root of the frequency of the X rays of an element and the number of protons or electrons in one atom of that element. The frequency of an X ray is a function of the mass of the nucleus of the atom which emits it and its propagation is the result of the interactions of stable nuclei. If we scale the nucleus of an atom to the size of a golf ball, then the outermost electron is about 12 kilometers away. These are roughly the proportional characteristics represented by the difference in the dimensions of the nuclei and an atom's overall dimensions, and the frequencies of X rays and light waves.

We can conclude then that the rate of light wave propagation is only an arbitrary number resulting from the calculation of the rate of particle interactions over a measured distance within a time frame of the medium represented by the components of the atmosphere found on Earth at about 1G and 1 atmosphere of pressure, and that this is not the case for all EM wave propagation in any medium.

More insight on sight

Some evolutionists make a claim against creation because they maintain that the organisation of the photo receptors and neural apparatus of our retinas is less than perfect. In order for light to reach the photo receptors it must first pass through a network of neural fibres. They say that a perfectly designed eye would have the inverse arrangement, with light waves striking a layer of photo receptors which are then translated into the information compatible with transmission through the optic nerve to the occipital lobe. The "inverted" arrangement is typical among the vertebrates and in the invertebrates only occurs in some mollusks and spiders. In effect, our photo receptors are wired in reverse, with the nerves gathering into a bundle which passes through the opening of the optic nerve, from the outside in.

It turns out that what we have is actually the ideal arrangement for the very active metabolism of the ten layers which make up the retina. Studies showed that thermal damage related to light intensity occurred more readily in the retinas of dead animals than in the retinas of live animals. There is a very active heat sinking process which dissipates the thermal product produced by the combination of light stimulation and neural processing. In fact, this activity markedly increases with an increase in the incident rays striking the retina. The conclusion was that the arrangement of the retinal layers protects against thermal and erosion damage. Animals who have a "verted" arrangement generally live in dark environments and/or have a short lifespan.

The short and long of photons

Scientists are nowadays more inclined to refer to photon wavelengths than to light frequency. Photons are said to have a wavelength of so many meters or fractions thereof. The best example of this is seen in the interaction of photons with silicon in a CCD, or charge coupled device, in which the term spectral sensitivity refers to the absorption of photon energy in the potential energy well of the device. A paper on the subject will state that photons of wavelengths between 400 and 700 nanometers have the highest probability of generating an electron within the charge well. One would think that one might just as easily correctly state that light with a frequency of 750 to 430 Gigahertz is most effective in electron generation. However, scientists like accuracy and precision and are using the photon to help them establish these. Long live the photon after all! The equation relating wavelength to frequency, where frequency is equal to the velocity of light divided by the wavelength, is not always completely correct because waves of different wavelength can have the same frequency. What we are actually witnessing in light of this fact and others is a paradigm shift of sorts. While scientists are actually conducting experiments to "force photons" to exhibit particle behaviour, the jury is slowly but surely moving in on accepting the true nature of the photon. Eventually, they will agree that the speed of light is not truly constant.

Being Gliesian is a pain in the neck

Let's stop and think for a moment what unique characteristics life on 581C around the red dwarf sun Gliese 581 might possess. If we are looking for strangeness we needn't look past our own world to find it, so we may presume that even if the rules of life dictate that a certain pattern of progression in evolution is mandated no matter where we look for it, then we would necessarily find in it adaptations to those environments unlike our own which should make alien humans different from us and in some radical ways.

For one thing, humans evolving in the light of a red sun means that the cones and rods in the retinas of their eyes are tuned toward the infra-red end of the spectrum, and in all likelihood their brains interpret images from heat radiation as a portion of the range of frequencies which they deem to fall in the visible optical spectrum. In the entire optical spectrum, our range of visible frequencies would be somewhat shifted to the left in the direction of the ultraviolet with respect to what Gilesians would consider their visible range. All things being relative, that would not necessarily present a great obstacle to vision for them or us if we were to visit each other's worlds. It's a little brighter here for them and a little darker there for us but not so much that we would need to compensate, but they will require protection from our sun's intensity. Gliese 581 is much cooler and dimmer than Sol. But then again, they are so close to their sun that their year is not even two weeks long.

The image below displays the narrow spectrum which constitutes our range of visible frequencies. For life on Gliese 581C, that spectrum needs to be moved to the right so that the left margin falls somewhere in the light green range for those Gilesians with sensitive vision, and the right edge falls inside the broad band of infra-red. We can only speculate for now just how far into the infra-red they see.

I've already suggested that a world which is five times as massive as Earth would evolve much larger people. In fact, my weight of 185 lbs would translate to almost 300 lbs on Gliese 581C. Being a lean person one inch over six feet tall on earth would mean that proportionally I would need to be almost ten feet tall to feel normal there. Of course having said that, if I weighed 300 lbs on Gliese 581C and stood ten feet tall I would be very lean indeed. So add another 130 lbs or so and that would make me non-descript (provided that I was wearing a ten-gallon hat, given that they are fashionable there), and I would feel the same resistance due to gravity that I feel here now.

The image below is of an actual archaeological discovery in Peru and can be viewed at the Museo De National in Lima. There are many of these skulls on display. They do not show evidence of artificial elongation as would be caused by binding. Their shape suggests a much larger occipital lobe than ours, which follows if these are of people from Gliese 581C, since much more neural processing is required to discriminate near infra-red information into a clear image. The difference in processing requirements to produce the kind of clear image that we interpret from reality is equivalent to the difference between a normal high resolution digital camera image and the image produced by a night vision camera. It's no mystery as to why Gilesians need a larger occipital lobe.

alien artifact

Giant etchings on the slopes and plains of Peru in the region of Nazca date from between 900 BC to about 650 AD. They are obviously intended to be viewed from the air, since they can not be interpreted from the ground because of their sheer size. It is more than coincidental to me that they are also found in Peru and I believe that there is a relationship between the odd humans whose skulls reside in a Peruvian museum and these great etchings around Nazca, Peru.

giant etching in Nazca

The most important factor which would make Gliesians most like us is the range of temperatures which exist on Gliese 581C. They vary from between minus 4°C to plus 40°C. Our temperature ranges are more extreme but our mean temperature falls right in that range. This means that their dermal anatomy and metabolism are essentially the same as ours. I am quite convinced that there is life there. In support of that is the fact that astronomers know that red dwarf suns like Gliese 581 are extremely stable stars. That means that life has had the opportunity to evolve there for many more billions of years than here on Earth.

Solar eclipse on Uranus

in the blog...

search scientific sources

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Strings are too confining

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Time enough for time

Friday, February 8, 2008

Anthropocentrism — unravelling existence

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

On consciousness

Photon entanglement explained — maybe

Induced nano-space curvature and the Aharonov-Bohm effect

The brain encodes and decodes visual information

Are there methanogens inside Mars?

Proving the beginning

Dark energy = dark understanding

That place in nothing

If quantum reality can be strange then so can I

Paradigm and stubborn will

Monday, January 21, 2008

The dynamics of memory

Prepare for a paradigm shift in our thinking on human evolution

The futile search for extraterrestrial radio signals

I'm an evolutionist - there! I've said it

Inviting controversy - exceeding light speed

More insight on sight

Friday, January 18, 2008

Being Gliesian is a pain in the neck

Saturn eclipses the sun

one-stop knowledge base

About Me

Twitter Updates

Twitter Updates

Physics and Astronomy

NASA Mission Apollo 16

Found! On the Moon!