New Physics

radarmark

Quaker-in-the-Making
Messages
3,212
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
Yellow Springs Ohio USA
Okay, let's start a physics discussion forum. Start with Biocentric (Lanza), Transactional (Cramer), and Process (Cahill) physics. And one can always add Many Worlds, Many Minds, Cosistent Histories, Bohm... Of course things like Bell's Theorem, Copenhagen Interpretation, Afshar.etc will come up.

"
Lanza argues that the primacy of consciousness features in the work of Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Berkeley, Schopenhauer, and Bergson.[7] He sees this as supporting the central claim that what we call space and time are forms of animal sense perception, rather than external physical objects.[8] Lanza argues that biocentrism offers insight into several major puzzles of science, including Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, the double-slit experiment, and the fine tuning of the forces, constants, and laws that shape the universe as we perceive it.[2] According to a Discover magazine article adapted from Lanza's book, “biocentrism offers a more promising way to bring together all of physics, as scientists have been trying to do since Einstein’s unsuccessful unified field theories of eight decades ago.”[9]
Lanza's theory of biocentrism has seven principles:[10]
  1. What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An "external" reality, if it existed, would by definition have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.
  2. Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.
  3. The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.
  4. Without consciousness, "matter" dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.
  5. The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The "universe" is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.
  6. Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.
  7. Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life."
Ia a blatant rip-off of wiki "Biocentrism". Lets start there
 
  1. What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An "external" reality, if it existed, would by definition have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.
    Wouldn't 'perception' as a process also include the unconsciousness?
  2. Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.
    How would you define these external & internal perceptions?
  3. The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.
    There are philosophical views that the Subjective Self exists before the Objective Self, and the very reason for the OS to exist is the same reason stated here . . . to supply consciousness and the ability to be observed by other conscious beings.
  4. Without consciousness, "matter" dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.
    Conscious, physical form would also exist in a probability form, as seen from a Darwinian point of view? Wouldn't this be the idea behind Natural Selection?
  5. The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The "universe" is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.
    I need to hear more about this concept . . . interesting
  6. Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.
    I have read some scientists insisting Time does not really exist it is perceived, is that along these lines?
  7. Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life."
    That are known to us at this time. So, given this theory, where would you say the unconsciousness resides? The mind?
 
6. The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The "universe" is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.

Yet, the universe existed before life, did it not? How can life create the universe if life did not come before it? The chicken or the egg?

7. Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life."

So, if space does not have an independent reality, is the universe expanding or not? If we agree, like Hubble, that the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? Is space created by the universe expanding or does speace exist and the universe expands into it?

If all life dies in the universe, will the universe still be expanding? i.e. if a tree falls in the woods without someone to hear it, does it make a sound?
 
Ooooo! This will be fun!


Etu Malku:
  1. Quote:
    What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An "external" reality, if it existed, would by definition have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.
    Wouldn't 'perception' as a process also include the unconsciousness?
Yes, it would include all our experiences. For those of us that remember the sub- or un-conscious ones, of course. Now if you mean by "unconsciousness" "things you cannot know or remember while conscious", I do not think so.
  1. Quote:
    Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined. They are different sides of the same coin and cannot be divorced from one another.
    How would you define these external & internal perceptions?
External perceptions are those experienced via the five senses, internal are those due to anything else. This is MY main problem with materialists--I experience thinking or reflexion within myself (internally). I believe these are perceptions just as my hearing the tune of "Sweet Home CHicago" by Robert Johnson is a perception.
  1. Quote:
    The behavior of subatomic particles, indeed all particles and objects, is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer. Without the presence of a conscious observer, they at best exist in an undetermined state of probability waves.
    There are philosophical views that the Subjective Self exists before the Objective Self, and the very reason for the OS to exist is the same reason stated here . . . to supply consciousness and the ability to be observed by other conscious beings.
This is where I don't know. See, sometimes I think we need a consciousness (like Bohr, von Neumann, Stapp did). Sometimes I think a fully mechanical system (like Bohm's works). That is at the physicist level. At the philosopher-metaphysician level I am clear that neither materialism nor idealism work--only a combination, not as a duality, but by placing the emphasis back on becoming instead of being (I never really experience that, I abstract it) works. A Bergson-Peirce-Whitehead-Hartshorne kind of process philosophy. So, I think there are lots of subjective selves (corresponding to lots of subjective times), but do not really believe in the objective self or objective time. ASK FOR DISCUSSION OF THIS AS THE "OBJECTIVE VS SUBJECTIVE SELF".

  1. Quote:
    Without consciousness, "matter" dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.
    Conscious, physical form would also exist in a probability form, as seen from a Darwinian point of view? Wouldn't this be the idea behind Natural Selection?
Yep. I just think it is easier to think of it all as "kinds of experience". The consciousness exists whether we are there or not (which is why Whiteheadeans are sometimes called "panpsychics"). See, the tinniest quark has a prehension (a limited form of consciusness).
  1. Quote:
    The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The "universe" is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.
    I need to hear more about this concept . . . interesting
This is where I fall totally off the biocentric bandwagon. Reality exists. Period. That reality is admittedly a composite of many many experiences, most of which are not mine nor even those of conscious entities. This entire line of thought is a result of JA Wheeler's "consciousness causes the event" interpretation of physics. Could be true, but so could my Whiteheadean concept, an so could the Everettian "Many-Worlds" concept. But which one "fits the best"?
  1. Quote:
    Time does not have a real existence outside of animal-sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.
    I have read some scientists insisting Time does not really exist it is perceived, is that along these lines?
Time (in Hopi Liheeqwee) is really what I am really interested in. If you look up McTaggart and time on the web you will get what I mean. There are two uses, external and internal. The external sense is really just a measurement figment and in this case consistent with what "Eternalism" or "The Block Universe" (see both on web or wiki) say, time is just another dimension that exists all the time. That is precisely what Lanza and bio-centrism does (you got it right).

I am not a materialist, so I do not have to play that game (I do believe that is the only consistent way for a materialist to discuss time). I believe in the objective existence of an infinate amount of subjective times (which I think is more bio-centric than this). Times that change during your or my life, that differ from each other's time, extending down to those Cosmic Rays that don't decay right by my clock and thus proove relativity (they have their own clocks). The Universe is the sum of all these little local clocks in all these little local experiences.


Quote:
  1. Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life."
    That are known to us at this time. So, given this theory, where would you say the unconsciousness resides? The mind?
I also (because I am not a strict materialist or a stricy idealist) believe in the existence of space, it just happens to be an Einsteinian, not Newtonian space.

Unconsciousness, insofar as it is able to be made conscious (and thus experienced) exists, and it exists like anything else, as an experience. As an actual entity, a thing, like the sun or my memory of the first naked breat I ever saw. If it cannot be made conscious (thus experienced) does it exist? I dunno, it becomes something like "what was before the big bang" or "what is G!d" a metaphysical issue that can never be prooved. That, by the way is the big big objection to "biocentrism"--it is not falsifiable (like Freud's classic definition of the unconscious). Makes it "Pseudo-science" or "Meta-physics".


  1. Re: New Physics Quote:
    Originally Posted by radarmark
    6. The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism. The universe is fine-tuned for life, which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around. The "universe" is simply the complete spatio-temporal logic of the self.
Yet, the universe existed before life, did it not? How can life create the universe if life did not come before it? The chicken or the egg?

I agree with you. The ponit is that if you take the concepts of quantum mechanics to their extreme (like Goswami or Lanza has or like it looks like Stapp does) then consciousness becomes the "thing" that "collapses the wavefunction" and truns a potentiality into an actuality. Yep, the math can be read that way.

However, there are less drastic ways to get around the the measurement problem (this collapse of the wavefunction). Many-worlds theory, consistent history throeies, hidden variables theory (Bohm). Or like Stapp and mine: "consciousness" does not mean exclusively human (or some similar) consciousness. There may be a shared panpsychism or there may be primative prehesions (a kind of simple consciousness) inherent in all formas of matter-energy.

The two big lessons of quantum mechanics are: (1) there has to be something to collapse the wavefunction (even if it splits into many worlds or many minds so that every possibility happens--something Stapp and Finkelstein and I reject as a gross violation of Ockum's razor) so there is a roile for something "beyond the material" and (2) this action in non-local (a collapse in the wavefunction on Alpha Centurai now (by my clock) can have a "spooky action at a distance" in my brain (at "then", when "now" was). Other then those two there is only Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the actual probabilistic math. You now understand as much as most Physics Grad students.


Quote:
Originally Posted by radarmark
7. Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life."

So, if space does not have an independent reality, is the universe expanding or not? If we agree, like Hubble, that the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? Is space created by the universe expanding or does speace exist and the universe expands into it?


If all life dies in the universe, will the universe still be expanding? i.e. if a tree falls in the woods without someone to hear it, does it make a sound?
 
Okay, to continue (I timed out before I got to IG's last question:
Originally Posted by radarmark
7. Space, like time, is not an object or a thing. Space is another form of our animal understanding and does not have an independent reality. We carry space and time around with us like turtles with shells. Thus, there is no absolute self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life."

So, if space does not have an independent reality, is the universe expanding or not? If we agree, like Hubble, that the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? Is space created by the universe expanding or does speace exist and the universe expands into it?


If all life dies in the universe, will the universe still be expanding? i.e. if a tree falls in the woods without someone to hear it, does it make a sound?

That is the big problem with both Lanza'a Bio-Centric and Goswami's Idealist physics--they may not be falsifiable. In any event, they mistake human (or some analogous) "consciousness" for "consciousness". Stapp (as I read him) and I would say that a Whiteheadean panpsychism on the Cosmic level or a primative prehension on the quark level would suffice. Hence, while consciousness is needed to "collapse the wavefunction" it need not be human or living consciousness.

As far as universe expansion (take off quantum hat and put on relativity hat--both pointy and witchy) I believe (a) the universe is expanding (per Hubble) and (b) it is expanding at an accelerating rate (see "Metric expansion of space" on wiki, eap footnotes 13 and 14 for acceleration). The evidence is conclusive in the former (cosmic microwave background pretty much killed off steady state) and pretty dang convincing in the latter.

Take a yellow balloon and draw black dots in it with a permanent marker. Now blow up the balloon. The distance between the dots has increased but the topology of the surface has not. The metric (the icky math of relativity) is the topology. There is nothing outside of the metric (relativity is a vlosed theory), so there is nothing outside of the universe. Hubble proved the metric is expanding (like the balloon surface) and that is that. Relativity says nothing about anything "outside the universe", like quantum says nothing about the Big Bang once you get to a Chronon or a Plank's Distance (take your pick). As there is no "before" there is no "outside"--according to physics. Now we enter my area of fun, metaphysics. Is it possible for there to be something "outside" or "before"? Yep, but these are metaphysical claims (which logical positivists and Popper and all of the XXth century philosophers of science dismissed as "meaningless") beyond proof, beyond physics.

By the way, you should have caught on that the "philosophers of science" and the "materialist physicists" have done exactly the same thing by postulating there is "nothing" beyond. I just am skeptical of that.... I connot proove it, nor can they proove their point.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.
 
Not my words. And he (Lanza, the originator of Bio-centrism) uses it correctly, it means "the environment where something developds". Like "there is no external reality apart from living things".

But point well taken
 
"The New Physics . . . same as the Old Physics"
--The Who

BTW, Rock and Roll died long ago.

What we need now is New & Improved Rock and Roll.
Now that would revolutionise the world.

It's probably a conspiracy of the new World order ---dullardism of the new age.
 
I believe (a) the universe is expanding (per Hubble) and (b) it is expanding at an accelerating rate

Regarding an accelerating expansion of the universe, there has been lots of talk about it now with the announcement of the Nobel Prize in Physics.

One of the lead Nobel Prize scientists was on NPR today saying how their calculations basically backed up Einsteins "cosmological constant". Of course, Einstein's constant was developed with the view of a static universe, but still seems to hold some merit (although now analogous to "dark energy").

What could this energy source really be? Another universe exerting a gravitational force on ours? Some strange quality of gravity or matter that we don't understand?

So are we really no further along in understanding this mysterious "cosmological constant"/"dark energy" than Einstein was, other than we now know the universe is expanding and at an accelerating rate?

The lead scientist also said that there's not as much dark energy as what would be expected (per the quantum vacuum energy hypothesis), and if there were as much as would be expected, we would not be here to talk about it...

evidence_darke.jpg
 
I would like to know how much energy is involved, ball-park, due to this acceleration. Ignoring supposed dark matter or other causes: for a kilogram of normal visible matter how much kinetic energy is gained due to universal acceleration per unit time in our solar system?
 
Teo questions here: first of all, "dark energy" is just another way of expressing the cosmological constant (a matter of shifting the focus from one side of the equals side to the other) like "energy of the vacuum".

The amount of energy... "dark energy" under this assumption (it is not proved, just a real good theory) is about three times the energy of the universe.

Now, assuming that the Zero-Point Energy Thesis is not valid (one of Hawking's ideas to make the big bang more ameliorable to people, stating that gravitational energy is negative energy, so the total energy is zero) take all the energy of all light (acually photons), neutrinos plus the mass of the universe (times the speed of light squared) and you get it. Multiply by 3 and you get the "dark energy".

The problem is WE DO NOT KNOW THE MASS OF THE UNIVERSE. A good guess is found at (Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) as 3.14×1054 kg times 8.99 E16 m2/s2 = 2.82E71 Joules, now double that (the best guess is that mass-energy is about equal to energy) and multiply by 3 or 8.5 E71 Joules.

Since a Metaton is pretty well understood (a million tons of TNT) this is about 2 E 56 megatons (that is a whole lot of energy). That is about as close as I can guess, could be at least 2-3 orders of magnitude off (not that that means a lot).

Good question!
 
Radarmark said:
Now, assuming that the Zero-Point Energy Thesis is not valid (one of Hawking's ideas to make the big bang more ameliorable to people, stating that gravitational energy is negative energy, so the total energy is zero) take all the energy of all light (acually photons), neutrinos plus the mass of the universe (times the speed of light squared) and you get it. Multiply by 3 and you get the "dark energy".

The problem is WE DO NOT KNOW THE MASS OF THE UNIVERSE. A good guess is found at (Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) as 3.14×1054 kg times 8.99 E16 m2/s2 = 2.82E71 Joules, now double that (the best guess is that mass-energy is about equal to energy) and multiply by 3 or 8.5 E71 Joules.

Since a Metaton is pretty well understood (a million tons of TNT) this is about 2 E 56 megatons (that is a whole lot of energy). That is about as close as I can guess, could be at least 2-3 orders of magnitude off (not that that means a lot).
Thanks, though I do need a little help with understanding something. I followed when you mentioned assuming gravitational energy is negative to make the total zero and where you explained how to compute the energy of the universe, based upon a guessed mass for it. Is there an understanding of how much the value of acceleration is for our solar system? Do we know the point that we are traveling away from and how fast we're going relative to that? Ok, but that isn't the question.

Supposing I have a handful of sand and place it on the earth which is accelerating away from the Big Bang's center. I don't know the mass of the universe but I know the mass of the sand and its acceleration. That should give me a value for the moment of the sand and also the energy put into accelerating it from rest to a relativistic speed.
Energy to accelerate=mass*gamma*(speed of light squared) where gamma=1-sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). The velocity term is in the gamma. (I'm getting this out of Wikipedia not from memory. I was going to right gamma=sqrt(1-1/v^2)==I forgot).

So my question then is if I take the initial velocity of that sand as zero at time t=0 or Big Bang time, then can I calculate the amount of energy to accelerate it to its current velocity relative to the Big Bang's zero point? If I take it energy at the start of a given year, such as 2011 and then take it again at the start of 2012, what would be the energy difference? Would it be a lot, and has it been measured? Can it be measured, and does it make sense to give it a number?

Thanks again. Don't know why I'm so interested in how fast a handful of sand is going.
 
The acceleration you speak of is energyless. It is the acceleration of the growth of the metric. To solve your problem one would need a "preferred frame of reference" and relativity says there is none.

Relative to earth there is no acceleration, relative to the sun there is a little, relative to the "edge of the observed universe" there is a lot of acceleration. The problem is, if the metric is expanding (what the Nobel prize was awarded for), then what is the edge this year is not the same as the edge next year (some of the observed universe blinks out as the relative velocity to us exceeds c).

So one can really only get a local value and it is so small (ppb) that it would not matter much and is covered in the "doubling" of the mass-energy for the energy.

To put it another way, the energy which would be manifested in the "acceleration from the point of the big bang" is manifested instead as "dark energy" (the energy needed to explain the manifestation of acceleration").

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
 
Wow, this thread is way over my head but I'll make a fool of myself proudly!

Ok, the consensus is that the universe is expanding, we're not sure if 'into' something or it creates the space as it expands?

Do you think the universe will reach an expansion point where it stops, then begins to retract again?
 
We do not know is the real answer. The scientific answer is that the universe just expands like the surface area of a balloon. Where there was not surface area before there is after the balloon expands.

The scientific answer is that the universe just keeps expanding until its "Heat death" (Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). As for me, if allowed to subject scientism to my metaphysics, I think both hyper-inflation (the universe expanded real quick during its early existence Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and inflation now are products of trying to explain the universe in terms of "the standard model" instead of expalining it in terms of what makes sense.

The early history of the universe does not require this inflation, nor does the end require eternal inflation (see http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0612/0612243v1.pdf-- actually do nto see it, see Cyclic model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

I believe the universe to be in a continual cycle. This is based on a very, very complicated "quantum information" theory the best parallel in the popular literature is the Baum–Frampton model given in last reference. As I stated in other places, I have a real problem with scientism and the standard model. I believe that the metaphysics of materialism, determinism, and locality have led physicists to create "nice" and "acceptable" models that are mathematically correct (like the Everett Many Worlds Interpretation, see Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) that are just mental masturbation. They are sooooo complex and unbelieveable that I quit physics (not that I was much good at it). Like conspiracy theories, you can create a mathematical model consistent with scientism to explain anything, but the truth as it exists out there is most likely nothing like the theory.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.

P.S. when I get "over your head" let me know (with a specific quote) and I will re-visit the idea, okay?
 
We do not know is the real answer.
Good Lord ... that suggests the Cosmos is a Mystery, something it shares in common with man, and something both share in common with their Cause (mystery in the trad sense of the word, not the 'whodunnit' sense ... )

Do you accept multiple universes contemporaneously as well as continuously?

If I accept God as Absolute and Infinite, then surely I must?

But to suppose any continuity between this particular cosmos, and any other, seems rather assumptive ... for the saem reason I don't believe in reincarnation, I think the general notion is a sentimentalising of the idea that 'life goes on' rather than 'you' or 'I' keep coming back ...

... but that's not what I wanted to say ...

There's been a bit of talk in some circles that a Platonic way of looking at things is better suited to the New Physics than the Aristotelian ... have you come across that?

God bless,

Thomas
 
I have often imagined the universe as being inside of a ball and the inside wall is a mirror of infinite reflection, depending on how much I am conscious of will determine how much I see/understand.

Are there any scientific platforms that come close to this concept?
 
Good Lord ... that suggests the Cosmos is a Mystery, something it shares in common with man, and something both share in common with their Cause (mystery in the trad sense of the word, not the 'whodunnit' sense ... )
Yep, 'tis all a mystery. We make informed guesses in all three areas (physics, man, Cause).

Do you accept multiple universes contemporaneously as well as continuously?
I am no fan of "many-worlds" or "many-minds" theory. I believe that the "collapse of the wavefunction" is nothing more than what an "observation" was in classical theory. Real simple hard-core Copenhagen interpretation.

If I accept God as Absolute and Infinite, then surely I must?
I believe in one eternal universe which G!d created. The Divine's Creation and Revelation are enough for me.

But to suppose any continuity between this particular cosmos, and any other, seems rather assumptive ... for the saem reason I don't believe in reincarnation, I think the general notion is a sentimentalising of the idea that 'life goes on' rather than 'you' or 'I' keep coming back ...
That is the problem... multiple universes, while mathematically correct, are a metaphysical abomination. While I really believe in karma (which I see as an extension of causality), I do not really believe in either reincarnation or eternal self. Hartshorne is closer I think. That is why I consider myself an agnostic, I just do not know.

... but that's not what I wanted to say ...

There's been a bit of talk in some circles that a Platonic way of looking at things is better suited to the New Physics than the Aristotelian ... have you come across that?
Platonists really drive the big rigs in science (look up both Goedel and Penrose). However, I am a little more Socratic (as was Whitehead)... that "second universe" or "third universe" gives me the shivers. Do not get me wrong I will use Platonic and Aristotelian metaphors and logic when required. Do I buy it? Not really.

Thanks, Friend.
 
Back
Top