Listen! Its Friday night; I'm trying to stick to my diet but I'm telling myself that that little glass of wine I'm having is OK; last night I reckon I O-deed on the celery and haven’t we strayed just a little off topic here. I'm just sayen.
Listen! Its Friday night; I'm trying to stick to my diet but I'm telling myself that that little glass of wine I'm having is OK; last night I reckon I O-deed on the celery and haven’t we strayed just a little off topic here. I'm just sayen.
Let's try a thought experiment here....now, without just dismissing it out of hand (because it doesn't fit what we constitute as being "possible"), let's say that UFO's are actually what they say they are...extraterrestrial spacecraft. Now, what does this say about our knowledge of what constitutes as being "possible". What it says is that we have not only a lot to still yet learn, there is something faulty with our understanding of physics. It may not mean that SR/GR is at fault, but it may also mean that there is. There maybe some solution of SR (such as the Alcubierre Spacetime Metric) which might allow us to achieve the same ability to travel FTL as the aliens do. Whilst we can't see how it may work at present and come up with various reasons as to why it doesn't work, it doesn't mean that the negative conjectures have any basis in reality. In all likelihood we don't really understand the physics of it yet. There maybe some other aspect of physics which has been conjectured which may work, or something we are not aware of as yet that maybe the answer.
In order to put the matter to rest, what needs to happen is a concerted effort into experimentation and rigorous testing of all hypotheses into the physical possibility of FTL travel must be carried out. It may take many years to figure out, but what doesn't need to happen is the present disinterest shown by the majority of the scientific community to do those experiments and continue with looking at the idea as nothing more than fantasy. That's nothing more than hubris based on academic and intellectual conceit.
If we had've all thought like that in the past, we'd never have gotten off the ground and probably still thought that travel into space was an impossibility (even flying, for that matter!!!).
In order to put the matter to rest, what needs to happen is a concerted effort into experimentation and rigorous testing of all hypotheses into the physical possibility of FTL travel must be carried out. It may take many years to figure out, but what doesn't need to happen is the present disinterest shown by the majority of the scientific community to do those experiments and continue with looking at the idea as nothing more than fantasy. That's nothing more than hubris based on academic and intellectual conceit.
The work has already been done with particle accelerators. If you plot the energy required to accelerate a particle to a given velocity u, you find the line u=c is an asymptote to the curve. In other words it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate the particle to c (and surpass it).
It's no coincidence that the LHC is able to accelerate protons up to "only" 0.999c.
Steven
Last edited by sjastro; 31-10-2009 at 01:07 PM.
Reason: grammar
Steve, You're still looking through that narrow prism. Now do what uncle Carl says and think of a way!!!. OK, heres the deal. We know you reckon it cant be done but why dont you put together a hypothosis along the lines of "I dont think it can be done BUT if I was going to try, this is how I would approach it ...." and then you fill in the blanks. Whata you say? I know I for one would really be interested in what you come up with.
The following are my opinions through my own observations and understanding, but for clarity I will talk in absolutes. This does relate to the thread.
I feel that there are phenomena which are absolute, there are phenomena which can be circumvented, and everything else comes down to how industrious the universe is and how we affect that plasticity.
The “absolute” phenomena seem to relate directly to providing some type of stability to the universe, such as conservation of charge and energy within a system, say; electron voltage, angular momentum, the inability to accelerate mass to LS and the quantization of energy and matter. I feel these may relate to a single physical mechanism or series of dynamically connected mechanisms which fed into each other: just like different stages in a jet engine (N1, N2, N3); they are not physically connected, they are Thermodynamically Coupled in that they share the same system energy, so one will affect the other in different ways.
The phenomena which may be “circumvented” seem to relate to interaction trends, such as conversion of energy to matter and back again, virtual particles and the flexibility of space and time. These seem to bend to the whim of the “absolute” phenomena, in that the rigidity of the “absolute” phenomena means that something has to give, something which does not directly affect the stability of reality.
The “everything else” is the plasticity and higher structures within the universe, such as formation of molecules, life etc. But these somehow feed directly into the “absolute” phenomena buy giving it direction on what reality is supposed to be.
What I have found is that freedom of choice, that is free-will, is not part of the universe which can be “circumvented” or “everything else” part. It belongs squarely as “absolute” phenomena. Remember when I quoted a passage about “obstructions” (pasted in at the bottom to refresh your memory), well I feel that the obstructions in geometry (mathematical), the obstructions in spacetime (geometrical Tidal Forces) are no more important than the obstructions of freedom of choice in a deterministic universe (particle/causal). These type of obstructions force the evolution of energy/matter/force into becoming our other phenomena, our “circumvented” and “everything else” stuff...the formation of diversity in our observable universe. It is built a certain way because the dynamism of energy is forced to work around these obstructions, and to do so in accordance with all of the “absolute” phenomena.
The passage at the bottom is a definition of curvature, a definition of general relativity and what I believe to be a definition of freedom of choice/free-will. All three - as well as others - are fundamental in the formation of OUR reality which we observe. When we dissect the universe, we fragment it also. This then creates (As David Bohm suggested) a broken wholeness. What is needed is a paralleling understanding, one which dissects and one which keeps track of the wholeness. Observable behavior then need to be explained both in terms of the physics and the wholeness…without both, it is incomplete. Which one is missing from science at the moment do you think??
Mathematics is merely what it is, a tool of language which allows us to convey information from one party to another. There does seem to be an underlying synergy between mathematics and the universe itself, but this DOES NOT mean that everything within the universe runs entirely on mathematical operators. The math helps us understand the universe, not the other way around. That’s something people really need to get into their heads.
I also find it funny that many people ridicule ideas and concepts about consciousness within physics, yet those same people, as with everyone else, use conscious awareness and consciousness to form their opinions and understanding in the first place…that’s a contradiction. I won’t even delve into the development of the human species and what part consciousness had to play in developing intelligence. I feel conscious awareness and consciousness is as fundamental to the universe as conservation of energy.
To me, there is an imbalance in science, it needs to be less left-brained and at the end of the day experimentation will verify what is real or not. We need only identify what is “absolute”, “circumvented”, and what is an industrious product of “everything else”.
Repeated passage: In geometry, curvature may be defined as the mathematical obstruction within a curvilinear coordinate system, so that it cannot be transformed into a flat coordinate system. In the general theory of relativity, gravitation may be defined as the obstruction of tidal forces within a gravitational field, so that it cannot be transformed into a field of flat spacetime. Therefore, might our own destiny, as well as all others’, be defined as the obstruction of freedom of choice within a causal particle universe (the observer influence), so that it cannot be transformed into a purely deterministic reality? If true, then instigating these features, facilitating the diversity of all realities, is the central node. Astonishingly, it may well underpin the structure of mathematics itself.
Steve, You're still looking through that narrow prism. Now do what uncle Carl says and think of a way!!!. OK, heres the deal. We know you reckon it cant be done but why dont you put together a hypothosis along the lines of "I dont think it can be done BUT if I was going to try, this is how I would approach it ...." and then you fill in the blanks. Whata you say? I know I for one would really be interested in what you come up with.
Claude,
I have a much more expansive view of this issue than you give me credit for.
Instead of invoking Minkowski space diagrams ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram ) that show very clearly why exceeding the speed of light results in paradoxes, experimental particle physics gives a practical demonstration of why it is impossible to accelerate particles up to the speed of light and beyond.
My previous post would serve as a "hypothesis" which ultimately highlights the futility of using ever increasing amounts of energy in an attempt to accelerate particles up to c.
I will eventually respond to this as soon as I have gone through your manuscript.
Regards
Steven
No worries...hope that you are chipping away at it. Just completed contents and cover proofs, now back to the publisher. Goes to print in 2 weeks...I'll race you!
Sneak preview uploaded (modified the proof a little).
I found your post really interesting. Mind you I think I might need another re-read or two to totally get it but I think I follow the gist. I’m not sure exactly why or how your trying to fit “free will” into all this. I’m wondering whether what you really mean, or should mean is “chance”. That is (adapting your construct) that there are these “absolute” phenomena in the universe and one of them is “chance”. Whereas introducing the notion of “free will” into the equation suggests to me that there must always be a conscious player involved in the workings of the universe (since it is an absolute) and I’m not sure why that would be or why we would need it to be in order to explain the way the universe functions. The notion of “chance” does an equally good job of accounting for the diversity and dynamism we see in the universe and for non-determinism.
Not sure about the notion of “absolutes” myself. I’m tempted to say that there are always exceptions but of course that is an absolute. Be that as it may, if we accept your 3 pillars construct (“absolutes”, “circumvented” and “everything else”) the problem still remains; which category does notion X fit into. I hope you will forgive me for saying but you don’t really give us a great deal to work on as to what exactly falls into each category (and nor could you be expected to in the context of this casual discussion) but even if you had I don’t think that science at present is sufficiently developed to say with any degree of confidence that any notion or concept falls into the “absolute” category.
I admit I had some problems with the passage you quoted at the end. I don’t see how the first two statements (one about geometry and the other about general relativity) logically lead to the third statement; your definition of freedom of choice. And its somewhat surprising given what you suggests in the previous paragraphs about science being a little too dominated by mathematical constructs, which you then follow with a definition of free will based on the two preceding mathematical constructs.
Good stuff though, I found your ideas very interesting indeed.
Is the library going to shelve your book under science or fiction or both ?
I don't know what a library would classify it as, however, I am approaching the market as, non-fiction/new-age.
Firstly, I think it's important to be very clear that this forum is not an outlet, so don't expect me to sell or promote it here...I'm happy to discuss the concepts here, or how to publish economically, but that's all.
The book is being self-published however, ownership of the physical books belong to a shareholder publishing company: one which I created and sold shares. This circumvents monetary, control and ownership dramas associated with publishing companies and gives me full control of intellectual property, the physical product, shares and distribution of monies. It also allowed me to fund the entire process on other people's money. If anyone on the forum is planning on publishing one day, and wants to know the ins and outs of how to keep control, I am happy to tell you how it can be done...cheap.
I have asked 3 people from the forum to be so kind as to read it and offer me some feedback. If they choose, they are free to discuss the concepts with others. The three I asked are very different from each other in the way they look at things; a deliberate measure.
Although the word 'Theory' may crop up in quotes, this is not one. It is a hypothesis without a testable procedure (yet) for any particular part, therefore it is merely a 'suggestion', nothing more.
I found your post really interesting. Mind you I think I might need another re-read or two to totally get it but I think I follow the gist. I’m not sure exactly why or how your trying to fit “free will” into all this. I’m wondering whether what you really mean, or should mean is “chance”. That is (adapting your construct) that there are these “absolute” phenomena in the universe and one of them is “chance”. Whereas introducing the notion of “free will” into the equation suggests to me that there must always be a conscious player involved in the workings of the universe (since it is an absolute) and I’m not sure why that would be or why we would need it to be in order to explain the way the universe functions. The notion of “chance” does an equally good job of accounting for the diversity and dynamism we see in the universe and for non-determinism.
Not sure about the notion of “absolutes” myself. I’m tempted to say that there are always exceptions but of course that is an absolute. Be that as it may, if we accept your 3 pillars construct (“absolutes”, “circumvented” and “everything else”) the problem still remains; which category does notion X fit into. I hope you will forgive me for saying but you don’t really give us a great deal to work on as to what exactly falls into each category (and nor could you be expected to in the context of this casual discussion) but even if you had I don’t think that science at present is sufficiently developed to say with any degree of confidence that any notion or concept falls into the “absolute” category.
I admit I had some problems with the passage you quoted at the end. I don’t see how the first two statements (one about geometry and the other about general relativity) logically lead to the third statement; your definition of freedom of choice. And its somewhat surprising given what you suggests in the previous paragraphs about science being a little too dominated by mathematical constructs, which you then follow with a definition of free will based on the two preceding mathematical constructs.
Good stuff though, I found your ideas very interesting indeed.
Yeah, difficult to explain in a single post. Or even reply without generating a multitude of questions...and it will. You must understand that it's taken 3 years to compress it down to 300 pages, originally it was 1200 pages. At the end of the day, I had to be brutal.
'Free will' and 'freedom of choice' are nothing like 'chance' or 'probability' if we're talking quantum. It's difficult to explain, without understanding the full picture (which is why I discuss it at the very end), but probability can be removed from particle interactions. Now I know that's going to upset some people, but in what I suggest, it can do just that.
Imagine this; that probability was attributed to outcomes which we cannot understand because we are not able to observe the mechanism with which chooses one event outcome over the next. Also, that this mechanism is able to connect everything in the past (past light cone), with a pseudo-future of particle states and values (future light cone), in order to construct reality - deciding upon a particle event outcome against another - based upon present and future variables. It builds the present reality on op of the hyper-surface of the present, and it can do it instantly (don't ask how yet).
So, basically, a mechanism which is connected to the past, has pieces of information of the future, and builds today according to the past, present and a floating deterministic evolution of tomorrow.
In this way, we would see particle events which SEEM to contain probability based outcomes, but they in fact do not.
Now, freedom of choice is an interference to deterministic evolution, it forces the construction of the present reality to best-fit the upcoming future. This is why the past is concrete, but the future cannot be fully know, only partially known...it is an evolving picture (snap-shot), I call it a pseudo-future!
That's about the best I can explain it without lots of dialog and illustrations.
'Free will' and 'freedom of choice' are nothing like 'chance' or 'probability' if we're talking quantum.
I could not agree with you more. But why introduce the notion of free will/freedom of choice as opposed to chance when chance achieves exactly the same thing only it does not require a conscious entity. Otherwise you would need to show that every event in the universe is some how influenced by the will of a conscious entity and unless you want to argue for the existence of god I dont know how you can do that.
I could not agree with you more. But why introduce the notion of free will/freedom of choice as opposed to chance when chance achieves exactly the same thing only it does not require a conscious entity. Otherwise you would need to show that every event in the universe is some how influenced by the will of a conscious entity and unless you want to argue for the existence of god I dont know how you can do that.
Okay, chance is a probability, right?! But what if what we call probability, is simply a hidden mechanism which is juggling particles into a stable reality...then there is no probability, true? No different in the situation of Chaos and Deterministic Chaos. The difference is that WE don't see or perhaps understand what's going on.
Freedom of choice is totally different. It doesn't kick-in when life evolves or beings become conscious, it starts when particles network and form associations (Oh God, here we go LOL). An association can be thought of as a sharing of energy through common frequencies (String Theory) even though the particles are spatial distant: [Spooky] Action at a Distance etc.
In the book I make a very, very clear distinction between conscious and consciousness. The latter is what we know, the former is something quite different and more fundamental. Conscious is an internal awareness of state and value, it goes no further. Consciousness is the application of those states and values and their evolution within extended numbers of interactions. So every interaction contains a piece of the history of all interactions that-that particle was involved in, as well as the others; a family tree of events, particles and states and values...a family tree of strings recording their previous interactions as overtones. The overtones provide a footprint, a map, a recording of that particle's history. This is where it is applied into the past and changing future. It's a harmonic overlay of what was, and what looks like it will be, which decides how to construct the now.
Okay, chance is a probability, right?! But what if what we call probability, is simply a hidden mechanism which is juggling particles into a stable reality...then there is no probability, true?
Why true? I dont understand. Why do we need some mysterious hidden mechanism that replaces probablility but seems to do exactly what probability does. Whats the evidence for this or is it just conjecture?
No different in the situation of Chaos and Deterministic Chaos. The difference is that WE don't see or perhaps understand what's going on.
Freedom of choice is totally different.
Please dont take this the wrong way but I really wish you wouldnt keep saying that. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that chance, probability and freedom of choice are totally different
It doesn't kick-in when life evolves or beings become conscious, it starts when particles network and form associations (Oh God, here we go LOL). An association can be thought of as a sharing of energy through common frequencies (String Theory) even though the particles are spatial distant: [Spooky] Action at a Distance etc.
Ohh. This ones very hard. You must be using the expression "freedom of choice" in a way thats very different to the way its normally used. Inanimate, unthinking, unconscious, objects don't choose. These particles that network. Are they consciously networking or are they just comming together like a magnet might bring metal shavings together. In this latter sense one would not say that the metal shavings are exercising a choice (though some might say they are networking)
In the book I make a very, very clear distinction between conscious and consciousness. The latter is what we know, the former is something quite different and more fundamental. Conscious is an internal awareness of state and value, it goes no further. Consciousness is the application of those states and values and their evolution within extended numbers of interactions. So every interaction contains a piece of the history of all interactions that-that particle was involved in, as well as the others; a family tree of events, particles and states and values...a family tree of strings recording their previous interactions as overtones. The overtones provide a footprint, a map, a recording of that particle's history. This is where it is applied into the past and changing future. It's a harmonic overlay of what was, and what looks like it will be, which decides how to construct the now.
Again I might need to wait for the book to get this distinction clear in my head
Sorry, I knew it would end up this way. Too many unknowns and too tittle background information.
We don't need to get rid of probability at all, but in what I'm suggesting we will need to so that it all makes sense.
No I don't take offense; I'm trying to be clear in my point. My standpoint of freedom of choice is related to quantum measurement which Aharanov discusses. In that freedom of choice seems to define the mismatch between states and values held at the commencement of an interaction and the states and values recorded after the event has taken place (destiny vector versus history vector). So I'm trying to show where the mismatch may come from, and to do that, we must first assume that probability is not what it seems and that we may view it as some hidden variable.
Conscious in an electron = [internal] innate knowledge of the particle, ie. its voltage, isospin, mass etc are all held internally. Particles are born with these values and they are common throughout each particle specie, therefore you could classify these properties as innate.
Consciousness in an electron = the innate knowledge of the particle (its states an values), but with reference to other states and values of other particles that it has had interactions with as some time within its life.
So if voltage, spin, mass etc are simply different vibrations in string particles, then the interactions with other string particles, that is, other frequencies (like and dislike) may produce overtones with non matching frequencies and amplification with matching frequencies.
If a particle is able to retain these frequencies, and strings can hold many, then in every particle may reside a history of its interactions.
