I don't want to walk away from this subject without addressing this
idea of the Universal Field theory.
I think that's it's clear that what Dr. Einstein had in mind was
a formula which would interconnect the gravitation field with
the electro-magnetic field and that it seemed like it would
be a fairly straight forward problem – in which he was
obviously mistaken – but you have to give him credit for
not giving up .....
What I am about to get into is my thoughts and ideas on the
subject which are considerably different than an actual
Universal Field Theory.
Simply put – I believe that such a theory is really the realm
of mathematics more that the realm of physics. The reason
that I say that is - I don't think that the front end approach
to the problem can be successful.
As Sarfatti says – quoting Wheeler - “what is the question” ---- you
have to ask the right question – and as he points out -
string theory and loop gravity are not the right questions.
The question is – what are all possible fields – and this I believe
is a math question.
However, I think that the pursuit of quantum computing involves
a process that will shed more light on this issue for the following
reason. A qubit is essentially an abstract state vector. The process
of quantum computing involves creating superpositions and
entanglements of these abstract vector in such a way as to
create a “computable” structure or value. Now what is involved
with this is the analysis or measurement of these values.
What is required to do this is to place these vector in such
a configuration as to make them measurable. This structure
is a quantum register. Now - what are all the possible
configurations of such a register? I believe that the
answer to this question is essentially a universal field
theory.
If the math guys can dream up what configurations are
possible - the physics guys will no doubt try and build
it.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
A little more on consciousness
This is not so much about the issues
confronting physics as a science -
But speculations along the lines of
ufo concepts in SuperCosmos. There
Jack sort of lays out a justification
for the concept of phase adjusting the
"vacuum" through the use of nano-engineered
Josephson junctions and he does mention
that some form of consciousness may be
involved in the mechanism.
Some of this ideas are interesting - one
thought I have is that the ufo device -
may simply be a sort of amplifier for
a conscious effect - that is that the
space-time effects may be initiated
through some kind of consciousness and
the mechanism is a way of amplifying
these effects.
confronting physics as a science -
But speculations along the lines of
ufo concepts in SuperCosmos. There
Jack sort of lays out a justification
for the concept of phase adjusting the
"vacuum" through the use of nano-engineered
Josephson junctions and he does mention
that some form of consciousness may be
involved in the mechanism.
Some of this ideas are interesting - one
thought I have is that the ufo device -
may simply be a sort of amplifier for
a conscious effect - that is that the
space-time effects may be initiated
through some kind of consciousness and
the mechanism is a way of amplifying
these effects.
The muddle
I think that it's fair to say that after a careful reading of the
Road to Reality a serious reader must admit that physics as
a fundamental science is in a bit of a muddle. If that's not
good enough to convince a thoughtful person, then there is
the Trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin. J.
Sarfatti – doesn't get into this so much in
SuperCosmos – because - I think that he feels that
he's gotten past the muddle based on his
interpretation of Bohm's interpretation of QM.
From an institutional point of view of course there is no muddle.
Physics remains a solid fundamental science and there is
not questions or concerns on this front from the seats of
institutional science. Of course if anyone were to accept
that there are issues would involve accepting some kind
of decrease in funding – so even if academia does secretly
admit the problem – they would have to do there best to sweep
it under the carpet.
From my perspective the muddle began with the “conversations”
between Bohr and Einstein – which Bohr resolved in his own
mind – which most physicists of that time went along with
and which Einstein clearly never accepted. I think the
reality is that it had something to do with money. Physics is
after all a fundamental science – and if it's leaders can not
agree on what it's fundamental nature is – obviously that
could involve problems of a fundamentally financial nature.
And I don't think Einstein cared about that.
I'm not going to get into the specifics of that except to say
that on the particular issue – I agree that David Bohm's concept
of quantum potential is a big step forward – but the problem
exists – because no one ever admitted that there was a problem
in the first place.
Now both Smolin and Penrose think that the way out is
through a resolution of quantum gravity. Sarfatti disagrees
because he feels – I think – that quantum gravity is not
the right question – at least from his point of view.
Now I think that there is another problem which nobody
is really looking at. It's the following. No rational
person would disagree with the idea that neuro-science
is in fact a science – but clearly it is not a “fundamental”
science - which means you generally can not study it
at the under-graduate level. To some extent of course -
neuro-science has some basis in physics – but clearly
the whole notion of consciousness is a fundamental
fact of that field.
The problem I see can be clearly stated by the fact
that “institutionally” physics refuses to admit
that consciousness is a fundamental “fact”. Jack
goes on about the ufo issue – but I think that's small
potatoes in relation to the lack of willingness of
“institutional” physics to put this clearly important
fundamental issue in some kind of “plausible”
frame work .....
It is sort of understandable, because as a "fundamental"
science you want to try to remain objective - and
persuing an understanding of the physical nature
of consciousness, seems like it would through you
a bit into a more subjective - less objectifiable
program. For myself, I believe this is a bullet
that physics as a science must bite because only
by trying to get at the nature of this problem
will it be able to solve the logical impasses
which currently confronts it. Really, it would
be even nicer if the math guys would pick it
up and carry the ball for awhile - but that's
never going to happen.
Jack of course has developed and devoted quite
a bit of effort on this subject ---- I'm not sure that
that prevents him per se in being institutionalized
but --- well that's where that's at.
Road to Reality a serious reader must admit that physics as
a fundamental science is in a bit of a muddle. If that's not
good enough to convince a thoughtful person, then there is
the Trouble with Physics, by Lee Smolin. J.
Sarfatti – doesn't get into this so much in
SuperCosmos – because - I think that he feels that
he's gotten past the muddle based on his
interpretation of Bohm's interpretation of QM.
From an institutional point of view of course there is no muddle.
Physics remains a solid fundamental science and there is
not questions or concerns on this front from the seats of
institutional science. Of course if anyone were to accept
that there are issues would involve accepting some kind
of decrease in funding – so even if academia does secretly
admit the problem – they would have to do there best to sweep
it under the carpet.
From my perspective the muddle began with the “conversations”
between Bohr and Einstein – which Bohr resolved in his own
mind – which most physicists of that time went along with
and which Einstein clearly never accepted. I think the
reality is that it had something to do with money. Physics is
after all a fundamental science – and if it's leaders can not
agree on what it's fundamental nature is – obviously that
could involve problems of a fundamentally financial nature.
And I don't think Einstein cared about that.
I'm not going to get into the specifics of that except to say
that on the particular issue – I agree that David Bohm's concept
of quantum potential is a big step forward – but the problem
exists – because no one ever admitted that there was a problem
in the first place.
Now both Smolin and Penrose think that the way out is
through a resolution of quantum gravity. Sarfatti disagrees
because he feels – I think – that quantum gravity is not
the right question – at least from his point of view.
Now I think that there is another problem which nobody
is really looking at. It's the following. No rational
person would disagree with the idea that neuro-science
is in fact a science – but clearly it is not a “fundamental”
science - which means you generally can not study it
at the under-graduate level. To some extent of course -
neuro-science has some basis in physics – but clearly
the whole notion of consciousness is a fundamental
fact of that field.
The problem I see can be clearly stated by the fact
that “institutionally” physics refuses to admit
that consciousness is a fundamental “fact”. Jack
goes on about the ufo issue – but I think that's small
potatoes in relation to the lack of willingness of
“institutional” physics to put this clearly important
fundamental issue in some kind of “plausible”
frame work .....
It is sort of understandable, because as a "fundamental"
science you want to try to remain objective - and
persuing an understanding of the physical nature
of consciousness, seems like it would through you
a bit into a more subjective - less objectifiable
program. For myself, I believe this is a bullet
that physics as a science must bite because only
by trying to get at the nature of this problem
will it be able to solve the logical impasses
which currently confronts it. Really, it would
be even nicer if the math guys would pick it
up and carry the ball for awhile - but that's
never going to happen.
Jack of course has developed and devoted quite
a bit of effort on this subject ---- I'm not sure that
that prevents him per se in being institutionalized
but --- well that's where that's at.
Monday, August 31, 2009
The A. word -----
Well, if you look at both books the central theme from both of
them is Dr./Mr. A. Einstein, and undoubtedly they are both
familiar with 1921 and The Meaning of Relativity. And of course –
that is a short and long story.
To start with Dr. Einstein had a theory – and you know there
was other scientific theories from that time – most notably
would be the theory of evolution. But Dr. Einstein, I think
was kind of fixated with the field - particularly the
“electro-magnetic field” and what that was all about.
The thing was that he developed a sort of prototype –
I mean the theory of evolution was one thing – but the
whole general relativity was a big deal in a variety of
ways because it was really a prototype from which
came lots of different stuff – including twistor theory
(the “radical perspective”) - as Roger Penrose puts it.
And of course Dr. Sarfatti has a theory as well – which
I'm not sure is all that “homogeneous” - because basically
he just wants to build something - and wants the universe
to be able to handle it. Device – mechanisms – which
are cable of course of traveling – astronomical distances –
are not really that easy to build and of course you have
to make the concepts necessary to do that and be able to
convince a lot of people that what you are saying is
in fact “pretty” reliable. And he can be convincing –
at least for some of the people some of the time.
So we have these issues with fields, and we have this
pesky little issue of atomic scale..... and the math
that is sufficient to describe events and interactions
that occur – that way. Then we have the cosmos, the universe,
how far out can we see and what can we predict in
terms of who is out there and what kind of resources
including ours do they control and how much leverage
to we have ?????
All very important questions, most are unanswered and
so do we “blindly” go where no man has gone before –
I would prefer that we deal with immediate and pressing
issues of the survival of the species – rather than
having an out and out speed contest with beings we can
only imagine, because number one – there is no one on
this planet that currently holds any kind of
valid license for dealing with that kind of stuff.
You know that if you think you have a big stick -
there is bound to be someone just around the
corner with one bigger.
Now – just for starters – what kind of energy requirement
do we have to support a life form – traveling a distance
of one light year?/////
Now lets say we could do that in 24 hours ???
What if you get a flat tire ???
Or ? run out of Ovaltine ?
Are there rest stops, and can you get coffee
out there ?????
I think these are all very important questions that need to
be addressed before attempting to develop a technology that
would make such an adventure like that ???? reasonable ?????
Another issue that has not been thoroughly investigated by
any one on earth that I am aware of is ???? what kind
of smoking regulations are enforced as concerns interplanetary
travel ????? If I was making a long trip ---- say maybe
200 – 250 light years --- and could do that in some reasonable
period of time ---- whether I was alone or with some company
I would sure like to know if I was going to be busted
by some alien gestapo for smoking – one kind of weed or
another. Like ??? are we the only species in the universe that
smokes ???? Dr. Einstein never went into any detail on that
either – but where exactly did he come up with that name
relativity ????? Now, that's a tough one.
I know these are not issues that either Sarfatti or Penrose really
address – after all they both have Ph D's --- but you know -
everybody doesn't. Actually, Penrose really never seems to
care much about it – really all he wants to know is how
the R and U .....
Now to the biggest question,,,,, yes maybe you build something
that is small – but if you're going any real long distance wouldn't
you really like to use a transporter to get down to
the planet and where will you find a mechanic to fix
something like that – Sure, everybody trusts Mr. Scott or
Mr. Spock, and I guess Ghordy and Data are ok if
you like newer and bigger equipment – but where do you find guys
like that???? Ghordy of course was --- blind --- ???????
Data was constructed by some genuine wacko – so
what that's all that about anyway?????-- now you have that ever
wondrous conundrum of the machine that fixes machines....
Boy – when that works – then I guess we'll really
have something to talk about.
But finally, there have been two popular visionaries
concerning the future – interplanetary types of
societies or cultures. They would
be – if I'm not mistaken , Gene Roddenbery and George Lucas.
--- I would like to say that the “sober” and
“realistic” versions of that future will be
somewhat different - but do we want to
create some kind of future – at the expense
of life on Earth. I don't think that's a
very swell hypothesis.
C
them is Dr./Mr. A. Einstein, and undoubtedly they are both
familiar with 1921 and The Meaning of Relativity. And of course –
that is a short and long story.
To start with Dr. Einstein had a theory – and you know there
was other scientific theories from that time – most notably
would be the theory of evolution. But Dr. Einstein, I think
was kind of fixated with the field - particularly the
“electro-magnetic field” and what that was all about.
The thing was that he developed a sort of prototype –
I mean the theory of evolution was one thing – but the
whole general relativity was a big deal in a variety of
ways because it was really a prototype from which
came lots of different stuff – including twistor theory
(the “radical perspective”) - as Roger Penrose puts it.
And of course Dr. Sarfatti has a theory as well – which
I'm not sure is all that “homogeneous” - because basically
he just wants to build something - and wants the universe
to be able to handle it. Device – mechanisms – which
are cable of course of traveling – astronomical distances –
are not really that easy to build and of course you have
to make the concepts necessary to do that and be able to
convince a lot of people that what you are saying is
in fact “pretty” reliable. And he can be convincing –
at least for some of the people some of the time.
So we have these issues with fields, and we have this
pesky little issue of atomic scale..... and the math
that is sufficient to describe events and interactions
that occur – that way. Then we have the cosmos, the universe,
how far out can we see and what can we predict in
terms of who is out there and what kind of resources
including ours do they control and how much leverage
to we have ?????
All very important questions, most are unanswered and
so do we “blindly” go where no man has gone before –
I would prefer that we deal with immediate and pressing
issues of the survival of the species – rather than
having an out and out speed contest with beings we can
only imagine, because number one – there is no one on
this planet that currently holds any kind of
valid license for dealing with that kind of stuff.
You know that if you think you have a big stick -
there is bound to be someone just around the
corner with one bigger.
Now – just for starters – what kind of energy requirement
do we have to support a life form – traveling a distance
of one light year?/////
Now lets say we could do that in 24 hours ???
What if you get a flat tire ???
Or ? run out of Ovaltine ?
Are there rest stops, and can you get coffee
out there ?????
I think these are all very important questions that need to
be addressed before attempting to develop a technology that
would make such an adventure like that ???? reasonable ?????
Another issue that has not been thoroughly investigated by
any one on earth that I am aware of is ???? what kind
of smoking regulations are enforced as concerns interplanetary
travel ????? If I was making a long trip ---- say maybe
200 – 250 light years --- and could do that in some reasonable
period of time ---- whether I was alone or with some company
I would sure like to know if I was going to be busted
by some alien gestapo for smoking – one kind of weed or
another. Like ??? are we the only species in the universe that
smokes ???? Dr. Einstein never went into any detail on that
either – but where exactly did he come up with that name
relativity ????? Now, that's a tough one.
I know these are not issues that either Sarfatti or Penrose really
address – after all they both have Ph D's --- but you know -
everybody doesn't. Actually, Penrose really never seems to
care much about it – really all he wants to know is how
the R and U .....
Now to the biggest question,,,,, yes maybe you build something
that is small – but if you're going any real long distance wouldn't
you really like to use a transporter to get down to
the planet and where will you find a mechanic to fix
something like that – Sure, everybody trusts Mr. Scott or
Mr. Spock, and I guess Ghordy and Data are ok if
you like newer and bigger equipment – but where do you find guys
like that???? Ghordy of course was --- blind --- ???????
Data was constructed by some genuine wacko – so
what that's all that about anyway?????-- now you have that ever
wondrous conundrum of the machine that fixes machines....
Boy – when that works – then I guess we'll really
have something to talk about.
But finally, there have been two popular visionaries
concerning the future – interplanetary types of
societies or cultures. They would
be – if I'm not mistaken , Gene Roddenbery and George Lucas.
--- I would like to say that the “sober” and
“realistic” versions of that future will be
somewhat different - but do we want to
create some kind of future – at the expense
of life on Earth. I don't think that's a
very swell hypothesis.
C
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Issues and Einstein
It seems clear to me that one of the things that Dr. Einstein was
shooting for was a description of the harmony of nature that
could be described clearly in a mathematical sense and I think
he was extremely frustrated by his inability to do that.
What does that reflect and what does that mean???
1. Maybe he was approaching the problems and issues in the
wrong way.
2. Maybe he was using the wrong techniques and approaches.
3. Maybe there is no simple harmony in nature which can be reflected
by clever mathematical manipulation.
Is it really possible to hit that target ???????
shooting for was a description of the harmony of nature that
could be described clearly in a mathematical sense and I think
he was extremely frustrated by his inability to do that.
What does that reflect and what does that mean???
1. Maybe he was approaching the problems and issues in the
wrong way.
2. Maybe he was using the wrong techniques and approaches.
3. Maybe there is no simple harmony in nature which can be reflected
by clever mathematical manipulation.
Is it really possible to hit that target ???????
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
BCS theory
Wikipedia
BCS theory is the first microscopic theory of superconductivity, proposed by Bardeen, Cooper, and Schrieffer in 1957 since the discovery of superconductivity 1911. It describes superconductivity as a microscopic effect caused by a condensation of pairs of electrons into a boson-like state.
BCS theory is the first microscopic theory of superconductivity, proposed by Bardeen, Cooper, and Schrieffer in 1957 since the discovery of superconductivity 1911. It describes superconductivity as a microscopic effect caused by a condensation of pairs of electrons into a boson-like state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)