Theos-Talk Archives (May 2010 Message tt00050)

Unfortunately, if the final conclusion of Moti is true, and spacetime continues to be considered fundamental -- then reductive physics will still never be able to explain the cause and nature of consciousness and its linkage to mind, memory, brain, body, senses, etc. ... And, will forever be an incomplete scientific explanation or description of ALL fundamental reality... Since it can never escape from a finite dimensional of material spacetime. 

So, in order to come up with a true theory of everything (TOE), a new holonomic paradigm of physics -- where consciousness is fundamental along with absolute space of infinite potential energy that exists prior to ALL dimensional space, time, unified fields or multiverses -- will have to supersede and encompass ALL current physics theories, including QM, SR, GR, string, QG, QF, SUSY, M, etc., etc.  

In such a case, the current standard model will have to be completely revised.  One suggested model is my ABC theory of cosmogenesis, consciousness and mind -- starting with absolute consciousness and infinite spin momentum as fundamental
http://knol.google.com/k/how-it-all-began#

Leon Maurer

On May 18, 2010, at 5/18/1011:21 AM, yanniru wrote:

> String theory goes deeper than quantum field theory in that matter and spacetime are unified at a fundamental level. We know from General Relativity that gravitons and geometry are related or unified.
> 
> Because in string theory, gluons, electrons, and other particle species are "made out of" the very same stuff as gravitons, it's clear that the matter and geometry is unified. For example, the E8 x E8 gauge bosons in heterotic string theory arise as very similar excitations to the gravitons.
> 
> You may either say that there are two forms of "existence" whose origin used to be split but it is unified in string theory. Or you can say that the E8 x E8 gauge bosons, while being "matter" in the pre-stringy theories, become a part of the "generalized stringy geometry" (involving the extra left-moving 16-dimensional torus), and everything is made out of the "generalized geometry". This kind of unification of matter and geometry has essentially been known already to Kaluza and Klein who were the first ones to realize that photons (and gauge bosons) could arise just as gravitons in a higher-dimensional geometry. String theory has brought us many new ways how to link gravity and other, conventional types of matter.
> 
> Of you can say that everything is made out of matter and some forms of matter, namely strings (and/or branes) in particular vibrational patterns etc. living on a pre-existing spacetime with no dynamical geometry inserted, and some of the vibrational patterns - the gravitons - just happen to be indistinguishable from deformations of the spacetime geometry: the spacetime geometry is made out of them and you ultimately find out that it is de facto dynamical, anyway.
> 
> In all three interpretations, the mathematics that ultimately describes what's going on is identical. So you can't really say which of the three answers is correct. However, it's clear that the "absolute" separation of the forms of existence into "matter" and "underlying space" is gone. While it will be forever useful to separate these players in the analysis of any conceivable realistic situation, the iron curtain that separated them has been torn down in fundamental physics.
> 
> The spacetime is no longer "absolute" and it is no longer "strictly separated from other forms of matter" that used to occupy it. The iron curtain between these different forms of existence has been torn apart. 
> 
> However, there's one crucial point that I haven't articulated in this text yet: it's still absolutely critical for any theory considered in physics to predict something that behaves as space and something that behaves as matter living in this space - and the major classes of particle species - that live in this Universe.
> 
> If we say that the spacetime and matter ceased to be fundamental and/or separated, it surely doesn't mean that they have disappeared from physics. Quite on the contrary. They're still essential parts of physics - essential predictions that every theory has to make unless it wants to be instantly eliminated. The reason is that the matter and space are being observed all the time and physics has to agree with the observations.
> 
> Exactly because the most accurate theories we are testing and elaborating upon today can't build the world out of a pre-existing spacetime and a strictly and permanently separated matter living on the spacetime - because that's not how the world works at the fundamental level - it becomes extremely nontrivial for these theories to predict physics that approximately, with a huge accuracy, does seem to separate the phenomena to spacetime and the required types of matter. 
> 
> If a theory with a "non-fundamental spacetime" fails in this task, it was probably too abstract or detached from the reality and it immediately dies. Only the theories carefully walking on the thin rope between the "hot philosophical sexiness of the new concepts that destroy all the boundaries" and the "cold empirical realism required to match all the strictly classified experimental facts" has a chance to survive.
> Lubos Motl 
> http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/05/fall-of-reductionism-and-other.html#more
> 
> 
> ---"yanniru" <yanniru@...> wrote:
>> 
>> That's not the latest research. The latest research is based on quantum field theory in which photons and other particles are ripples in fields, even according to references you provided.
>> 
>> Tell me why I do not like the idea. I did not know myself that I did not like particles. I just happen to know established physics like the Standard Model.
>> 
>> --- "Anna" <pantheon@> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I understand why you may not like the idea. However, according to the latest research,  photons are particles FIRST.  Isolating a single photon seems to be a good evidence too. If you can prove otherwise, do it, as it means a guaranteed Nobel Prize.
>>> 
>>> Anna
>>> 
>>> From: yanniru 
>>> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:51 AM
>>> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com 
>>> Subject: [Mind and Brain] Re: a particle or a wave?
>>> 
>>> Bad science: " But when one of these photons hits a boundary between the layers of material, it creates waves at each surface"
>>> 
>>> Photons are waves to begin with.
>>> 
>>> --- "Anna" <pantheon@> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Science News
>>>> Single Photons Observed at Seemingly Faster-Than-Light Speeds
>>>> ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2010) - Researchers at the Joint Quantum Institute (JQI), a collaboration of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the University of Maryland at College Park, can speed up photons (particles of light) to seemingly faster-than-light speeds through a stack of materials by adding a single, strategically placed layer.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> At the boundaries between layers, the photon creates waves interfering with each other, affecting its transit time. (Credit: JQI)
>>>> Ads by Google
>>>> This experimental demonstration confirms intriguing quantum-physics predictions that light's transit time through complex multilayered materials need not depend on thickness, as it does for simple materials such as glass, but rather on the order in which the layers are stacked. This is the first published study of this dependence with single photons.
>>>> 
>>>> Strictly speaking, light always achieves its maximum speed in a vacuum, or empty space, and slows down appreciably when it travels through a material substance, such as glass or water. The same is true for light traveling through a stack of dielectric materials, which are electrically insulating and can be used to create highly reflective structures that are often used as optical coatings on mirrors or fiber optics.
>>>> 
>>>> In a follow up to earlier experimental measurements, the JQI researchers created stacks of approximately 30 dielectric layers, each about 80 nanometers thick, equivalent to about a quarter of a wavelength of the light traveling through it. The layers alternated between high (H) and low (L) refractive index material, which cause light waves to bend or reflect by varying amounts. After a single photon hits the boundary between the H and L layers, it has a chance of being reflected or passing through.
>>>> 
>>>> When encountering a stack of 30 layers alternating between L and H, the rare photons that completely penetrate the stack pass through in about 12.84 femtoseconds (fs, quadrillionths of a second). Adding a single low-index layer to the end of this stack disproportionately increased the photon transit time by 3.52 fs to about 16.36 fs. (The transit time through this added layer would be only about 0.58 fs, if it depended only upon the layer's thickness and refractive index.) On the contrary, adding an extra H layer to a stack of 30 layers alternating between H and L would reduce the transit time to about 5.34 fs, so that individual photons seem to emerge through the 2.6-micron-thick stack at superluminal (faster-than-light) speeds.
>>>> 
>>>> What the JQI researchers are seeing can be explained by the wave properties of light. In this experiment, the light begins and ends its existence acting as a particle -- a photon. But when one of these photons hits a boundary between the layers of material, it creates waves at each surface, and the traveling light waves interfere with each other just as opposing ocean waves cause a riptide at the beach. With the H and L layers arranged just right, the interfering light waves combine to give rise to transmitted photons that emerge early. No faster than light speed information transfer occurs because, in actuality, it is something of an illusion: only a small proportion of photons make it through the stack, and if all the initial photons were detected, the detectors would record photons over a normal distribution of times.
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100126175921.htm Email or share this story:
>>>> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]