This week in Cosmology

[Snoopy]

And so space isn't really empty?

sg, perhaps you will find this explanation by Red Pine (Bill Porter) to be helpful (unless you're just button pushing ):

(by self-existent, he means existent without dependence upon anything other that itself, i.e. to be unconditioned)

“…the word ‘emptiness’ does not mean nothingness. Emptiness means indivisibility.

Form itself is empty of anything that could be called self-existent. Whatever we use to define form, it is dependent on something else. Thus, the essential nature of form is emptiness. But emptiness is simply another name for reality – not just a part of reality, for reality has no parts, but all of reality – though neither can reality considered to be a whole. The essential nature of reality is that it is indivisible, or empty of anything self-existent. But if form is equivalent to emptiness, or the indivisible fabric of reality, then emptiness must also be equivalent to form.

The absence of anything self-existent is the true nature of all that we experience, however distorted that experience might be by the matrix of our minds. But it is also the true nature of reality.”

s.

PS Does this count as on topic?!?

 

[seattlegal]

sg, perhaps you will find this explanation by Red Pine (Bill Porter) to be helpful (unless you're just button pushing ):

You know how I like to push buttons. (If only to stimulate thought.)

(by self-existent, he means existent without dependence upon anything other that itself, i.e. to be unconditioned)

“…the word ‘emptiness’ does not mean nothingness. Emptiness means indivisibility.
Form itself is empty of anything that could be called self-existent. Whatever we use to define form, it is dependent on something else.

Absolutely relativistic?

Thus, the essential nature of form is emptiness. But emptiness is simply another name for reality – not just a part of reality, for reality has no parts, but all of reality – though neither can reality considered to be a whole. The essential nature of reality is that it is indivisible, or empty of anything self-existent.

Relatively absolutist?

But if form is equivalent to emptiness, or the indivisible fabric of reality, then emptiness must also be equivalent to form.

The absence of anything self-existent is the true nature of all that we experience, however distorted that experience might be by the matrix of our minds. But it is also the true nature of reality.”

Methinks there are more than a few koans in there waiting to emerge.

s.

PS Does this count as on topic?!?

The nature of reality? Yes, I would say it is very much on topic.

 

[Snoopy]

Absolutely relativistic?

Possibly.

Relatively absolutist?

sg, how is this relative?

Methinks there are more than a few koans in there waiting to emerge.

Indeed. None more so than this most famous of lines from the sutra.


s.

 

[seattlegal]

Possibly.

Which would mean that the one thing that is continual is change.

sg, how is this relative?

Change and motion involve some relativity, unless change and motion=zero? (Does this mean that change and motion is also empty? I hope not, otherwise our actions would not make one wit of difference.)

 

[Snoopy]

Change and motion involve some relativity, unless change and motion=zero? (Does this mean that change and motion is also empty? I hope not, otherwise our actions would not make one wit of difference.)

This possibly links to your comments about relative and absolute. Relative and absolute truth distinguish compassion (relative truth) and the wisdom of no-self (absolute truth). All is empty of selfhood: form, sensation, perception, memory and consciousness. The self is empty (“empty” in the manner described above).

s.

 

[Snoopy]

We all must start thinking in terms of an "inside-outside" universe rather than looking at the blackness around Earth's environment and declaring only that to be "space". Or as I like to put it, the entire universe is reflected in a grain of sand.
flow....

flow, quantum theory is not really anything I know about but it sure gets referenced a lot in my reading (if that's the kind of thing we're on about here?).

Come across David Bohm, Ronald Kotulak or Piero Scaruffi? (apologies if this is a repeat, put it down to a silver drool cup moment. )

s.

 

[flowperson]

flow, quantum theory is not really anything I know about but it sure gets referenced a lot in my reading (if that's the kind of thing we're on about here?).

Come across David Bohm, Ronald Kotulak or Piero Scaruffi? (apologies if this is a repeat, put it down to a silver drool cup moment. )

s.

Absolutely spot on Snoop. There's a guy named Pribam that's influenced this new sort of thinking also. A lot of their work was done in the mid 20th century and it has taken the rest of the world to catch up and on.

BTW, I use a brass drool cup and don't polish it up very often. I see it as a fashion accessory, especially when I frequent concert halls.

flow....pfffttt....

 

[Snoopy]

Absolutely spot on Snoop. There's a guy named Pribam that's influenced this new sort of thinking also.

Maybe I should check this stuff out directly then.

A lot of their work was done in the mid 20th century and it has taken the rest of the world to catch up and on.

Huh huh. (gosh, did that sound manly?). It appears that 20/21st century Western science is catching up on the Mahayana a couple of millenia on.

BTW, I use a brass drool cup and don't polish it up very often. I see it as a fashion accessory, especially when I frequent concert halls.

Just tried to get Portishead tickets. Sold out. Poo. OK they're not R&B, but they float my boat.

s.

 

[seattlegal]

flow, quantum theory is not really anything I know about but it sure gets referenced a lot in my reading (if that's the kind of thing we're on about here?).

Come across David Bohm, Ronald Kotulak or Piero Scaruffi? (apologies if this is a repeat, put it down to a silver drool cup moment. )

s.

Working with probabilities in quantum theory sounds reminiscent of "emptiness" being full of possibilities.

{To tie all of these ideas of emptiness and self (somewhat) together to be inclusive under the topic of cosmology: I look at the cosmos as a work of art.

Just what is it that makes a piece of art? Is it the canvas, or the paint, (or other media?) Is it the skill of the artist in composing the media? Is it the idea conveyed by the art? Is it what the artist left out? Can it be pinned down to any one thing?

Does this make the concept of "art" also empty?}

 

[flowperson]

Hi Snoop...You should try and get ahold of an 80's book titled, The Holographic Universe, by Michael Talbott. Much maligned by the traditionalist science establishment here. That alone tells me there's probably a lot of truth in it. It centers upon the work of Drs. Pribam and Bohm, and describes in detail an alternate universal structure which seemed plausible to me, but that was when I read it fifteen years ago.

I've bought a soft cover copy to reread, but just haven't gotten that started yet. Wasting a lot of time here these days. I'll do almost anything to avoid beginning another portion of what I'm writing because it's just such hard word.

What's the buzz over there about Amy Winehouse cleaning up on the Grammy recording awards ? I'm an old school R&B guy so my daughter and I are happy to see the "persecuted" finally win something important .

Ta !

flow....

 

[Snoopy]

Does this make the concept of "art" also empty?}

Is this meant as a rhetorical question? Hard to tell online...and if so ...yes or no...

I say yes, you give a perfect example: remove any one "thing" required and the art is gone; it is empty of selfhood.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Hi Snoop...You should try and get ahold of an 80's book titled, The Holographic Universe, by Michael Talbott. Much maligned by the traditionalist science establishment here. That alone tells me there's probably a lot of truth in it. It centers upon the work of Drs. Pribam and Bohm, and describes in detail an alternate universal structure which seemed plausible to me, but that was when I read it fifteen years ago.

I've bought a soft cover copy to reread, but just haven't gotten that started yet. Wasting a lot of time here these days. I'll do almost anything to avoid beginning another portion of what I'm writing because it's just such hard word.

OK ta. Don't you go doing any hard work now.

What's the buzz over there about Amy Winehouse cleaning up on the Grammy recording awards ? I'm an old school R&B guy so my daughter and I are happy to see the "persecuted" finally win something important

.

Never heard her meself. Probably a lot of media froth. People say she's got a great voice but certainly needs to sort her life out I think. Hasn't she been charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice (over her husband's case?) As you can gather, it's not really anything I'm interested in!

s.

 

[seattlegal]

*Note to moderators*
I admit it! I lead the Old Farts off topic! Please feel free to move the irrelevant posts to another thread if you deem necessary!

One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly making exciting discoveries.
--Winnie the Pooh​

Is this meant as a rhetorical question? Hard to tell online...and if so ...yes or no...

I say yes, you give a perfect example: remove any one "thing" required and the art is gone; it is empty of selfhood.

s.

Oh, Pooh! Now we're back to the uncarved block.

"When you wake up in the morning, Pooh," said Piglet at last, "what's the first thing you say to yourself?"
"What's for breakfast?" said Pooh. "What do you say, Piglet?"
"I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting today?" said Piglet.
Pooh nodded thoughtfully. "It's the same thing," he said.​

 

[Snoopy]

*Note to moderators*
Please feel free to move the irrelevant posts to another thread if you deem necessary!

That'll mean most of this forum getting moved around!

Oh, Pooh! Now we're back to the uncarved block.

You calling me Pooh? I see myself more as Eeyore.

And that's enough button pushing for one day - now go and find something useful to do!

s.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Not in the news this week, (well not to my knowledge), but I am still finding my pea brain wandering back to Black Holes and the relationship they have to the wider universe. What is really buzzing my head is that if you were to get a black hole the size of our universe it would have the same mass that we observe in our universe. Estimates of the total quantity of Dark Matter vary from around 72%-94% of the total mass of our universe. When you look at the distribution maps of Dark Matter, and the positioning of visible matter, (galactic clusters), it seems to me that the idea that our universe is a Black Hole seems ever more credible.
Short animation on Dark Matter 'clumping' :
YouTube - Dark Matter 3D Map

When you look at an active Super Massive Black Hole, (SMBH), we can observe that it is a powerhouse of creation or recycling for the essential elements of stellar birth. And that it seems to do this in cycles that somewhat resemble a sponge soaking up then squeezing out matter. The sponge like structure of DM mapped in the animation is then perhaps an indication that our universe is the same?

So what is DM...exactly? In a Black hole matter becomes so compressed that it loses its molecular identity. In some sense it enters a quantum state or at least a quantum-like state of undetectability that renders every would be particle capable of the potential of any other would be particle. Is DM exactly the same kind of super-condensate? Undetectable, except by its gravitational effect, simply because it exists in a quantum state of undetermined potential?

Perhaps it would be helpful and maybe even accurate to liken this state to another dimension. We can see the non-uniformity or clumpiness of DM distribution creates the overall appearance of a sponge like structure. That we do not see an even distribution may indicate that there are stresses and influences outwith our own local universe. In much the same way that despite its awesome gravitational effects an SMBH at the center of any galaxy is stressed by the mass of that galaxy. There seems to be a ratio of a central SMBH being approximately 1% of of galactic total mass and the sigma (rotational velocity at the galactic edge), infer that the 'tidal' influence of galactic rotation does indeed place huge stresses on the SMBH. This effect is the squeezing and release of the sponge, so to speak.

If our universe is a Black Hole in a bigger universe I would expect to see much the same distribution map of matter/dark matter that we do see due to the gravitational influences of a Galaxy on a scale of magnitude that boggles the mind. One of billions of similar vast galaxies that make up an even more massive Black Hole just like our universe. In turn the Black Holes we observe would be universes in their own right, dimensionally shifted in an order of magnitude.

I am captivated by this theory and would appreciate all comments, pointers and links that either support or refute the ideas expressed.

Tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

This links to the above post but to get where I am going with this you will need to read the following two articles:
Neutrinos may indeed be the solution to the mystery surrounding dark matter - insciences
Stretched neutrinos could span the universe - physics-math - 09 June 2009 - New Scientist

It may also be helpful to first look at the link in the above post too.

Neutrinos are real. Around 50 trillion of them pass right through you every second. Though they are very low mass subatomic particles their quantitative effect is very large and the standard model suggests that for every neutrino there is an anti-neutrino. The first article suggest that the mass of a neutrino may be greater than first thought and may explain the invisible mass we currently refer to as Dark Matter. The second article suggests that they are even more massive than that. The mass of anything billions of light years in length has to be pretty enormous.

It seems to me that adding these articles together and looking how they fit with the current debate on mass distribution in the visible universe reveals some simple explanations for how that mass is distributed. When thinking about this I use a mental image of gravity as an Einstein inspired geometric skeleton overlaid on a three dimensional map of the universe. Mass, in this case representing galactic clusters and super-clusters, when collected together causes gravity wells that can be represented by the classic geometry of a well or by a thickening/ increased density of the the superimposed skeleton.

One of the interesting questions that arise from our observations is where the hell is all the antimatter. If antimatter had the property of being anti-gravitational to normal matter, repellent of it, it would explain not only why we do not routinely observe matter/antimatter annihilations in the cosmos but the tendency of matter to clump and the driving force behind the theorised expansion of the universe. The way I try to imagine it is that in the antimatter regions all the laws that we see are absolutely equivalent to those in the normal mass regions that define as our visible regions. The only thing that stops them being visible is something akin to a polarisation. And there could well be sentient antimatter beings asking the same questions with us just as invisible to them as they are to us. They would see essentially the same sort of universe as us in every regard but theirs would only comprise antimatter. Their theories on dark matter would be talking about the stuff of which we are made.

Since Dirac solved the Relativistic Shroedinger Question and discovered antimatter it has been created many times. These minute particles created in atom smashers decay incredibly fast. Or do they? If we take the second article about spaghetti neutrinos I just wonder if we are watching decay or if we are watching a transit of polarisation or phase shift. The theory of Hawkins Radiation, which concerns what happens to a photon as it hits an event horizon, suggests that it is possible to split a photon, said confusingly to hold both positive and negative energy states into its two states. The negative one will fall into the black hole and the positive one will escape it. Now I need to invent something which I will call intrinsic mass. That is a measurement that allows comparison between mass made of matter and that of antimatter, a unifying measure. No I am not trying to claim Newtons work on mass and energy as my own but the concept is very similar. Newton's and Einstein's physics would work just the same in the antimatter universe if they were absolutely equivalent in every respect. But what if they are not? Why is it that the negative always falls into the black hole? Could it be that there are not equivilant antimatter star systems phase-shifted out of perception or measurement but that all the antimatter ends up in black holes?

Another article I just read links in at this point, AFP: Black hole more massive than imagined: study , and gives a tantalising glimpse that black holes may be far more massive than had been assumed up until now. The invocation of dark matter by physicists was brought about to explain two things. Cosmic Expansion and the gravitational anomallies of galaxy and galaxy cluster formation. In relation to galaxy formation if black hole mass is far greater than had been supposed then no dark matter is required to explain what we see.

There are many lines of thought that can be followed from these three articles.... if anybody cares to share I'd be grateful.

 

[iBrian]

It's certainly an interesting proposition - there have been so many unknowns and unquantified variables (dark matter, dark energy, Higgs Boson, etc) in recent cosmology that it certain appears to be the most fluid of the sciences.

I'll try and catch up on the lit, so I can properly engage you on this, and get this thread re-activated.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Thanks for reply Brian,

If you look at the map of the dark matter, in which observable matter sits, on the youtube clip two posts up it really helps to get a feel for what I am saying. And if you add to that the current theories of galaxy evolution, starting with hot dense quasars, evolving into spiral galaxies and those agglomerating into huge elipticals, all driven by the repulsive force of antimatter blackholes, (feeding black holes are not feeding but repelling), then a coherant model seems to appear. It requires a fine tuning too, a perfect balance, but then physics tells us that balance is there. For every partcle of matter there is a corrseponding one of antimatter. It provides no explanation for the alleged increase in the rate of cosmological expansion, true, but I have always doubted that anyway and with some justification. It seems to depend on where you look in the universe. There are what amount to currents in the cosmos and depending where you look at corresponding distances you get very different redshifts. It is an exciting time in cosmology and with Planck and Hershel telescopes now in orbit, and a much improved Hubble, I feel the old orthodoxies are bound to fall!!

 

[iBrian]

Tao, if it's not distracting, what do you think of the concept of dark energy causing the universe to expand faster?

I remember reading it as it came through - and it all seemed to boil down to this:

1. We expect a class of supernovea to have a certain brightness
2. When observing a sample from this group, they were not as bright as expected
3. Therefore there must exist a new form of matter that is causing the universe to accelerate its expansion, in order to account for this observation

That was certainly my reading of it at the time, and it seemed suitably ridiculous - the whole idea of dark energy seemed like one giant goose chase.

The idea, on the other hand, that neutrinos could account for a significant amount of the missing mass, or even anti-matter galaxies, is extremely intriguing.

I think the received idea was that some form of imbalance must have caused matter to exceed anti-matter in volume somehow - and it also seemed accepted that we had merely misunderstood the mechanics of anti-matter formation so that perhaps it was not generated as equally as presupposed. The short life span of anti-matter particles at CERN and similar would normally support this idea.

However, there is great appeal in what you've suggested - huge anti-matter galaxies. If we do have an accelerated process in the early formation of the universe (I forget the guy who made a key contribution here - Richard ____?) then the clumping process could be one way in which matter and anti-matter avoided mass annihilation in the first place. It would also give rise to some form of imbalance in terms of mass we might expect.

Will very much consider this idea in mind as I do my reading - this all your own theory? If so, do you fancy writing up something on it for publishing to the front end of the site? (I'm currently pushing a lot of redevelopment on the front end). Also, would be happy for you to critique my old theory of planetary formation.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Not at home till tomorrow Brian, will reply then.