SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
Monday, May 26, 2008
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE = INTELLIGENT DESIGN
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE = INTELLIGENT DESIGN
George Hammond
More options May 26, 2:14 am
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, rec.org.mensa, alt.philosophy, alt.talk.creationism
From: George Hammond
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 06:14:09 GMT
Local: Mon, May 26 2008 2:14 am
Subject: ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE = INTELLIGENT DESIGN
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE = INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Note:
AP = Anthropic Principle
ID = Intelligent Design
ST = Secular Trend
SPOG = Scientific Proof Of God
There IS such a thing as ID, but it is not what Dembski
and Behe think it is.
Hammond (2003) has published the world's first SPOG (copy
of peer published paper posted on website below).
This proof shows that "God" is caused by the ST in human
growth, specifically brain growth.
The average person is only 80% fully grown according to
ST data. Hence the average person only has the Intelligence
of a 14 year old... the entire adult human race on average
only has a mental age of 14!
This causes 20% of reality to be INVISIBLE to the average
person, by actual direct measurement. This invisible world
is called "Heaven" and the invisible man who lives there is
called "God".
Meanwhile, the AP of Physics tells us that the Universe
only exists because we exist (S. Hawking, _Brief History of
Time_ p. 128).
Putting these 2 facts together we see that as much as 20%
of visible reality is seemingly "supernaturally controlled"
by an INVISBLE BEING (aka "God"), and therefore that there
de facto IS such a thing as "Intelligent Design".
Hence 20% of all human achievement appears to be
"supernatural" or "superhuman" and to be the result of an
"invisible man", and is in fact "Intelligent Design" or
"design by God" so called.
These phenomenon are well known, much more well known
that Behe's "flagellum motor" and other such curiosities,
and here are 5 well known examples:
1. Mona Lisa's smile was painted by the unconscious
(invisible part) of Da Vinci's mind (aka "God") and
therefore is a world famous example of ID.
2. Janis Joplin's voice was created by the invisible or
"unconscious" power of her mind and is therefore a
famous example of ID.
3. The Eiffel tower emerged from the invisible or
"latent" mind of Gustav Eiffel and therefore is an
example of ID.
4. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution was written by the
latent, unconscious or "invisible" mind of Thomas
Jefferson, and therefore was "designed" directly by God
and is an example of ID.
5. The "Man in the Moon" is the abstract creation of
billions of observers, and therefore is indubitably the
world's most notorious example of ID.
George Hammond
More options May 26, 2:14 am
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, rec.org.mensa, alt.philosophy, alt.talk.creationism
From: George Hammond
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 06:14:09 GMT
Local: Mon, May 26 2008 2:14 am
Subject: ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE = INTELLIGENT DESIGN
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE = INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Note:
AP = Anthropic Principle
ID = Intelligent Design
ST = Secular Trend
SPOG = Scientific Proof Of God
There IS such a thing as ID, but it is not what Dembski
and Behe think it is.
Hammond (2003) has published the world's first SPOG (copy
of peer published paper posted on website below).
This proof shows that "God" is caused by the ST in human
growth, specifically brain growth.
The average person is only 80% fully grown according to
ST data. Hence the average person only has the Intelligence
of a 14 year old... the entire adult human race on average
only has a mental age of 14!
This causes 20% of reality to be INVISIBLE to the average
person, by actual direct measurement. This invisible world
is called "Heaven" and the invisible man who lives there is
called "God".
Meanwhile, the AP of Physics tells us that the Universe
only exists because we exist (S. Hawking, _Brief History of
Time_ p. 128).
Putting these 2 facts together we see that as much as 20%
of visible reality is seemingly "supernaturally controlled"
by an INVISBLE BEING (aka "God"), and therefore that there
de facto IS such a thing as "Intelligent Design".
Hence 20% of all human achievement appears to be
"supernatural" or "superhuman" and to be the result of an
"invisible man", and is in fact "Intelligent Design" or
"design by God" so called.
These phenomenon are well known, much more well known
that Behe's "flagellum motor" and other such curiosities,
and here are 5 well known examples:
1. Mona Lisa's smile was painted by the unconscious
(invisible part) of Da Vinci's mind (aka "God") and
therefore is a world famous example of ID.
2. Janis Joplin's voice was created by the invisible or
"unconscious" power of her mind and is therefore a
famous example of ID.
3. The Eiffel tower emerged from the invisible or
"latent" mind of Gustav Eiffel and therefore is an
example of ID.
4. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution was written by the
latent, unconscious or "invisible" mind of Thomas
Jefferson, and therefore was "designed" directly by God
and is an example of ID.
5. The "Man in the Moon" is the abstract creation of
billions of observers, and therefore is indubitably the
world's most notorious example of ID.
Phoenix Lands on Mars
NASA Spacecraft Lands on Mars
By ALICIA CHANG,
AP
Posted: 2008-05-25 22:48:40
Filed Under: Science News
PASADENA, Calif. (May 25) - A NASA spacecraft plunged into the atmosphere of Mars and successfully landed in the Red Planet's northern polar region on Sunday, where it will begin 90 days of digging in the permafrost to look for evidence of the building blocks of life.
Cheers swept through mission control at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory when the touchdown signal from the Phoenix Mars Lander was detected after a nailbiting descent. Engineers and scientists hugged and high-fived one another.
After a 422-million-mile journey, NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander made a harrowing descent on the red planet's north pole Sunday to collect samples from what's believed to be a reservoir of ice. Scientists hope the finding will determine whether life could have ever emerged on the planet. Above, a drawing depicts the craft landing on Mars.
"In my dreams it couldn't have gone as perfectly as it went," project manager Barry Goldstein said. "It went right down the middle."
The first images transmitted from the lander about two hours after landing showed one of its feet sitting on Martian soil amid tiny rocks and a view of the horizon of the arctic plain. Another image showed that the lander's solar panels had deployed.
The early pictures were primarily to give engineers information on the condition of the lander including its power supply and the health of its science instruments. The solar panels were designed to not unfurl until after the dust settled.
Initial results show Phoenix landed almost level, tilted at a quarter of a degree.
"The hardest part is over. There's still a lot of drama left," said Goldstein, who kept up a JPL tradition by passing out bowls of lucky peanuts during the landing.
Phoenix plunged into the Martian atmosphere at more than 12,000 mph after a 10-month, 422 million-mile voyage through space. The lander kept in contact with Earth through the orbiting Mars Odyssey during the entire "seven minutes of terror."
It performed a choreographed dance that included unfurling its parachute, shedding its heat shield and backshell, and firing thrusters to slow to a 5 mph touchdown. The radio signal confirming the landing came at 4:53 p.m. PDT.
"Touchdown detected!! We're on the surface of Mars and there is celebration in Mission Control!!" JPL engineer Brent Shockley blogged from inside mission control.
It's the first successful soft landing on Mars since the twin Viking landers touched down in 1976. NASA's twin rovers, which successfully landed on Mars four years ago, used a combination of parachutes and cushioned air bags to bounce to the surface.
Mission chief scientist Peter Smith of the University of Arizona, Tucson, had two words to describe the landing: "Picture perfect."
Phoenix's landing is a relief for NASA since Mars has a reputation of swallowing spacecraft. More than half of all nations' attempts to land on Mars have failed.
Phoenix's target landing site was 30-mile-wide shallow valley in the high northern latitudes similar in location to Earth's Greenland or northern Alaska. The site was chosen because images from space spied evidence of a reservoir of frozen water close to the surface.
An artist's graphical representation obtained from NASA depicts a pulsar, center, surrounded by whirling beams of light and radio waves. In mid-May, astronomers said they had spotted a pulsar with a orbit that they had never seen before.
Like a tourist in a foreign country, the lander initially will take in the sights during its first week on the Red Planet. It will talk with ground controllers through two Mars orbiters, which will relay data and images.
Phoenix is equipped with an 8-foot-long arm capable of digging trenches in the soil to get to ice that is believed to be buried inches to a foot deep. Then it will analyze the dirt and ice samples for traces of organic compounds, the chemical building blocks of life.
The lander also will study whether the ice ever melted at some point in Mars' history when the planet had a warmer environment than the current harsh, cold one it currently has.
Scientists do not expect to find water in its liquid form at the Phoenix landing site because it's too frigid. But they say that if raw ingredients of life exist anywhere on the planet, they likely would be preserved in the ice.
Phoenix, however, cannot detect signs of alien life that may exist now or once existed.
The only other time NASA searched for chemical signs of life was during the Viking missions. Neither lander found conclusive evidence of life.
Phoenix avoided the doom of its sister spacecraft, the Mars Polar Lander, which in 1999 crashed into the south pole after prematurely cutting off its engines. The Polar Lander loss, along with the earlier loss of an orbiter the same year, forced NASA to overhaul its Mars exploration program.
Phoenix, named after the mythical bird that is reborn from its ashes, inherited hardware from a lander mission that was scrapped after the back-to-back Mars losses, and carries similar instruments that flew on Polar Lander.
Built by Lockheed Martin Corp., Phoenix is the first mission from NASA's Scout program, a lower-cost complement to the space agency's pricier Mars missions. It cost $420 million to develop and launch Phoenix compared to the $820 million originally invested in the twin rovers.
The rovers have dazzled scientists with their Energizer Bunny-like ability to keep going and their geologic findings that ancient Mars once had water that flowed at or near the surface.
Mission managers do not expect Phoenix to be as hardy as the rovers since winter will set in later this year at the landing site with fewer hours of sunlight available each day to power the lander's solar panels.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2008-05-25 12:41:43
By ALICIA CHANG,
AP
Posted: 2008-05-25 22:48:40
Filed Under: Science News
PASADENA, Calif. (May 25) - A NASA spacecraft plunged into the atmosphere of Mars and successfully landed in the Red Planet's northern polar region on Sunday, where it will begin 90 days of digging in the permafrost to look for evidence of the building blocks of life.
Cheers swept through mission control at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory when the touchdown signal from the Phoenix Mars Lander was detected after a nailbiting descent. Engineers and scientists hugged and high-fived one another.
After a 422-million-mile journey, NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander made a harrowing descent on the red planet's north pole Sunday to collect samples from what's believed to be a reservoir of ice. Scientists hope the finding will determine whether life could have ever emerged on the planet. Above, a drawing depicts the craft landing on Mars.
"In my dreams it couldn't have gone as perfectly as it went," project manager Barry Goldstein said. "It went right down the middle."
The first images transmitted from the lander about two hours after landing showed one of its feet sitting on Martian soil amid tiny rocks and a view of the horizon of the arctic plain. Another image showed that the lander's solar panels had deployed.
The early pictures were primarily to give engineers information on the condition of the lander including its power supply and the health of its science instruments. The solar panels were designed to not unfurl until after the dust settled.
Initial results show Phoenix landed almost level, tilted at a quarter of a degree.
"The hardest part is over. There's still a lot of drama left," said Goldstein, who kept up a JPL tradition by passing out bowls of lucky peanuts during the landing.
Phoenix plunged into the Martian atmosphere at more than 12,000 mph after a 10-month, 422 million-mile voyage through space. The lander kept in contact with Earth through the orbiting Mars Odyssey during the entire "seven minutes of terror."
It performed a choreographed dance that included unfurling its parachute, shedding its heat shield and backshell, and firing thrusters to slow to a 5 mph touchdown. The radio signal confirming the landing came at 4:53 p.m. PDT.
"Touchdown detected!! We're on the surface of Mars and there is celebration in Mission Control!!" JPL engineer Brent Shockley blogged from inside mission control.
It's the first successful soft landing on Mars since the twin Viking landers touched down in 1976. NASA's twin rovers, which successfully landed on Mars four years ago, used a combination of parachutes and cushioned air bags to bounce to the surface.
Mission chief scientist Peter Smith of the University of Arizona, Tucson, had two words to describe the landing: "Picture perfect."
Phoenix's landing is a relief for NASA since Mars has a reputation of swallowing spacecraft. More than half of all nations' attempts to land on Mars have failed.
Phoenix's target landing site was 30-mile-wide shallow valley in the high northern latitudes similar in location to Earth's Greenland or northern Alaska. The site was chosen because images from space spied evidence of a reservoir of frozen water close to the surface.
An artist's graphical representation obtained from NASA depicts a pulsar, center, surrounded by whirling beams of light and radio waves. In mid-May, astronomers said they had spotted a pulsar with a orbit that they had never seen before.
Like a tourist in a foreign country, the lander initially will take in the sights during its first week on the Red Planet. It will talk with ground controllers through two Mars orbiters, which will relay data and images.
Phoenix is equipped with an 8-foot-long arm capable of digging trenches in the soil to get to ice that is believed to be buried inches to a foot deep. Then it will analyze the dirt and ice samples for traces of organic compounds, the chemical building blocks of life.
The lander also will study whether the ice ever melted at some point in Mars' history when the planet had a warmer environment than the current harsh, cold one it currently has.
Scientists do not expect to find water in its liquid form at the Phoenix landing site because it's too frigid. But they say that if raw ingredients of life exist anywhere on the planet, they likely would be preserved in the ice.
Phoenix, however, cannot detect signs of alien life that may exist now or once existed.
The only other time NASA searched for chemical signs of life was during the Viking missions. Neither lander found conclusive evidence of life.
Phoenix avoided the doom of its sister spacecraft, the Mars Polar Lander, which in 1999 crashed into the south pole after prematurely cutting off its engines. The Polar Lander loss, along with the earlier loss of an orbiter the same year, forced NASA to overhaul its Mars exploration program.
Phoenix, named after the mythical bird that is reborn from its ashes, inherited hardware from a lander mission that was scrapped after the back-to-back Mars losses, and carries similar instruments that flew on Polar Lander.
Built by Lockheed Martin Corp., Phoenix is the first mission from NASA's Scout program, a lower-cost complement to the space agency's pricier Mars missions. It cost $420 million to develop and launch Phoenix compared to the $820 million originally invested in the twin rovers.
The rovers have dazzled scientists with their Energizer Bunny-like ability to keep going and their geologic findings that ancient Mars once had water that flowed at or near the surface.
Mission managers do not expect Phoenix to be as hardy as the rovers since winter will set in later this year at the landing site with fewer hours of sunlight available each day to power the lander's solar panels.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
2008-05-25 12:41:43
Thursday, May 22, 2008
'Nothing special about our Sun'
22 May 2008, 0004 hrs IST,PTI
MELBOURNE: Astronomers claim to have found evidence that there is nothing special about the Sun, a finding which adds weight to the idea that life could be common in the universe.
An international team, led by planetary scientists from the Australian National University, compared the sun -which hosts a life-bearing planet -to other stars to reach their conclusion.
"Our research goes further than previous work which only looked at single properties such as mass or iron content. We looked at 11 properties that could plausibly be connected with life and did an analysis of these properties.
"We found that the upshot is that there doesn't seem to be anything special about the sun. It seems to be a random star that was blindly pulled out of the bag of all stars," according to the leader of the team, Jose Robles.
The astronomers found that the Sun's mass is the most anomalous of its properties; the Sun is more massive than 95% of stars. The Sun's orbit around the centre of the galaxy is also more circular than the orbits of 93% of its peers.
"But when analysing the 11 properties together, the sun shows up as a star selected at random, rather than one selected for some life-enhancing property," Robles was quoted by the 'Astrophysical Journal' as saying.
Added co-researcher Charley Lineweaver: "Those who are searching for justification for their beliefs that terrestrial life and humanity in particular are special, will probably interpret this result as a humiliating dethronement.
22 May 2008, 0004 hrs IST,PTI
MELBOURNE: Astronomers claim to have found evidence that there is nothing special about the Sun, a finding which adds weight to the idea that life could be common in the universe.
An international team, led by planetary scientists from the Australian National University, compared the sun -which hosts a life-bearing planet -to other stars to reach their conclusion.
"Our research goes further than previous work which only looked at single properties such as mass or iron content. We looked at 11 properties that could plausibly be connected with life and did an analysis of these properties.
"We found that the upshot is that there doesn't seem to be anything special about the sun. It seems to be a random star that was blindly pulled out of the bag of all stars," according to the leader of the team, Jose Robles.
The astronomers found that the Sun's mass is the most anomalous of its properties; the Sun is more massive than 95% of stars. The Sun's orbit around the centre of the galaxy is also more circular than the orbits of 93% of its peers.
"But when analysing the 11 properties together, the sun shows up as a star selected at random, rather than one selected for some life-enhancing property," Robles was quoted by the 'Astrophysical Journal' as saying.
Added co-researcher Charley Lineweaver: "Those who are searching for justification for their beliefs that terrestrial life and humanity in particular are special, will probably interpret this result as a humiliating dethronement.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Extinct animal's DNA reactivated
Extinct animal's DNA reactivated
London, (GUARDIAN NEWS SERVICE)
By Ian Sample
In a breakthrough Jurassic Park-like experiment, scientists have resurrected genes from the Tasmanian tiger - a meat-eating marsupial that became extinct more than 70 years ago - by injecting them into mouse embryos.
The Tasmanian tiger, the largest of the carnivorous marsupials, was wiped out in the wild by intensive hunting in the early 1900s. The stripy, wolf-like creatures grew up to 1.80m in length and had long, stiff tails and bulky heads.
Researchers at the University of Melbourne and Texas University in Houston extracted DNA from four 100-year-old museum specimens, including three preserved in alcohol, the journal PLoS One reported. They isolated a string of genes from each and injected it into early-stage mouse embryos.
Tests on the growing mice revealed that a gene from the Tasmanian tiger called Col2a1 had switched on and was driving the growth of bone and cartilage in the young animals.
"This is the first time DNA from an extinct species has been used to induce a functional response in another living organism," said Andrew Pask, who led the study. Scientists now hope to use the technique to understand the role of other genes found in extinct animals.
London, (GUARDIAN NEWS SERVICE)
By Ian Sample
In a breakthrough Jurassic Park-like experiment, scientists have resurrected genes from the Tasmanian tiger - a meat-eating marsupial that became extinct more than 70 years ago - by injecting them into mouse embryos.
The Tasmanian tiger, the largest of the carnivorous marsupials, was wiped out in the wild by intensive hunting in the early 1900s. The stripy, wolf-like creatures grew up to 1.80m in length and had long, stiff tails and bulky heads.
Researchers at the University of Melbourne and Texas University in Houston extracted DNA from four 100-year-old museum specimens, including three preserved in alcohol, the journal PLoS One reported. They isolated a string of genes from each and injected it into early-stage mouse embryos.
Tests on the growing mice revealed that a gene from the Tasmanian tiger called Col2a1 had switched on and was driving the growth of bone and cartilage in the young animals.
"This is the first time DNA from an extinct species has been used to induce a functional response in another living organism," said Andrew Pask, who led the study. Scientists now hope to use the technique to understand the role of other genes found in extinct animals.
Monday, May 19, 2008
200TH. ANNIVERSARY OF CHARLES DARWIN'S BIRTH
In 2009 we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the first publication of t ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES and 200th anniversary of
CHARLES DARWIN'S birth
CHARLES DARWIN'S birth
New Supernova
Discovery of the Week
The Hot New Supernova
Stellar scientists announced last week that they've spotted the youngest supernova remnant ever seen in the Milky Way. Called "G1.9+0.3," the remnant's estimated age is just 140 years--meaning that's when the radio waves started reaching Earth. (The actual supernova happened 26,000 years ago.)
How young is that, in supernova remnant terms? Until last week, the youngest remnant ever seen in our galaxy was a 330-year-old named "Cassiopeia A." So, why hadn't scientists spotted "G1.9+0.3" before, if its radio waves first reached us in the 1860s? Because to see it, they had to peer through a thick cloak of interstellar dust.
While astronomers pore over their super new data, we're here to help you understand what supernovas really are. It's all about the hot life and violent death of a big star.
A Star Is Born
Like humans, stars are born through contractions--though the contractions here are not of muscle, but of massive clouds of gas and dust in interstellar space. Every now and then, such a cloud accumulates enough matter for gravitational forces to pull it together even more. A protostar is born, and gets hot. When the temperature near its center hits 18 million degrees Fahrenheit (10 million degrees Celsius), nuclear reactions kick in.
Newborn stars are made mostly of hydrogen. At their cores, they "burn" hydrogen and generate helium. Of course, they don't use matches or flames. The burning at a young star's heart is a nuclear fusion reaction, in which four hydrogen atoms fuse to produce a single helium atom. The mass of that helium atom is less than the combined mass of the four hydrogen atoms, and the leftover mass is released as energy.
The release of that energy drives the temperature inside the star way up--in some cases to hundreds of millions (even billions) of degrees Fahrenheit. Pressure inside the star increases enough to counteract the gravitational forces still trying to contract it. At the same time, heat pours from the star's core toward its cooler surface, and from there radiates into space. Presto: a relatively stable star is burning bright.
Twinkle, Twinkle, Supergiant Star
Stars survive a long time by human measures, but eventually they all run out of gas, literally. And those that live larger burn out quicker. A relatively small star--like our sun--might burn for 10 billion years, and then linger for eons as a cosmic cinder called a "white dwarf." A star 10 times as massive might live just 10 million years, and then go out with a bang.
When a star's core runs out of hydrogen to burn, it begins to contract again. The core's temperature increases until the helium made earlier ignites. Now a helium fusion reaction produces carbon and oxygen in the star's core, while hydrogen fusion fires up in a thin shell around it. The star generates far more energy than before, and puffs up accordingly. If the star started out modest, it grows into a red giant. If it started out big, it becomes a supergiant.
Smaller stars' nuclear careers generally end with the burning of core helium. But big stars start burning the carbon and oxygen fused in the helium reaction, too. They go on to produce elements like neon, magnesium, silicon, and sulfur. Then they burn the silicon to produce iron. Such stars wind up layered like onions--with a central core of iron, surrounded by layers of burning silicon, magnesium, neon, oxygen, carbon, helium, and hydrogen.
Out with a Bang
After taking several million years to grow up, a supergiant builds its iron core in about a day. At its peak, the iron core is around two-thirds the size of the Earth but contains more mass than the sun. It's also caught in an enormous gravitational crunch. The star's core no longer generates energy to counteract the forces of contraction--to fuse iron requires energy input rather than leading to energy release--so it can't hold out for long.
When it goes, it goes fast. In less than a second, the core collapses from a 5,000-mile-wide sphere (8,000 km) into a 12-mile-wide one (20 km). The sudden crash releases a huge amount of energy--100 times the energy our sun will produce in its entire 10-billion-year life. Tiny particles called neutrinos carry most of that energy off into space. The rest races out through the star's layers in a supercharged shockwave.
The resulting explosion blasts the star's gaseous shell into space at speeds exceeding 10 million miles per hour (16 million km/h). For a few weeks, this "supernova" burns brighter than a billion suns. And for millennia to come, the former star's gaseous shell plows into the interstellar medium. Meanwhile, the star's collapsed iron core carries on as a neutron star--or, in some cases, becomes a black hole. In the cosmos, it seems, big stars burn out and fade away.
--Steve Sampson
The Hot New Supernova
Stellar scientists announced last week that they've spotted the youngest supernova remnant ever seen in the Milky Way. Called "G1.9+0.3," the remnant's estimated age is just 140 years--meaning that's when the radio waves started reaching Earth. (The actual supernova happened 26,000 years ago.)
How young is that, in supernova remnant terms? Until last week, the youngest remnant ever seen in our galaxy was a 330-year-old named "Cassiopeia A." So, why hadn't scientists spotted "G1.9+0.3" before, if its radio waves first reached us in the 1860s? Because to see it, they had to peer through a thick cloak of interstellar dust.
While astronomers pore over their super new data, we're here to help you understand what supernovas really are. It's all about the hot life and violent death of a big star.
A Star Is Born
Like humans, stars are born through contractions--though the contractions here are not of muscle, but of massive clouds of gas and dust in interstellar space. Every now and then, such a cloud accumulates enough matter for gravitational forces to pull it together even more. A protostar is born, and gets hot. When the temperature near its center hits 18 million degrees Fahrenheit (10 million degrees Celsius), nuclear reactions kick in.
Newborn stars are made mostly of hydrogen. At their cores, they "burn" hydrogen and generate helium. Of course, they don't use matches or flames. The burning at a young star's heart is a nuclear fusion reaction, in which four hydrogen atoms fuse to produce a single helium atom. The mass of that helium atom is less than the combined mass of the four hydrogen atoms, and the leftover mass is released as energy.
The release of that energy drives the temperature inside the star way up--in some cases to hundreds of millions (even billions) of degrees Fahrenheit. Pressure inside the star increases enough to counteract the gravitational forces still trying to contract it. At the same time, heat pours from the star's core toward its cooler surface, and from there radiates into space. Presto: a relatively stable star is burning bright.
Twinkle, Twinkle, Supergiant Star
Stars survive a long time by human measures, but eventually they all run out of gas, literally. And those that live larger burn out quicker. A relatively small star--like our sun--might burn for 10 billion years, and then linger for eons as a cosmic cinder called a "white dwarf." A star 10 times as massive might live just 10 million years, and then go out with a bang.
When a star's core runs out of hydrogen to burn, it begins to contract again. The core's temperature increases until the helium made earlier ignites. Now a helium fusion reaction produces carbon and oxygen in the star's core, while hydrogen fusion fires up in a thin shell around it. The star generates far more energy than before, and puffs up accordingly. If the star started out modest, it grows into a red giant. If it started out big, it becomes a supergiant.
Smaller stars' nuclear careers generally end with the burning of core helium. But big stars start burning the carbon and oxygen fused in the helium reaction, too. They go on to produce elements like neon, magnesium, silicon, and sulfur. Then they burn the silicon to produce iron. Such stars wind up layered like onions--with a central core of iron, surrounded by layers of burning silicon, magnesium, neon, oxygen, carbon, helium, and hydrogen.
Out with a Bang
After taking several million years to grow up, a supergiant builds its iron core in about a day. At its peak, the iron core is around two-thirds the size of the Earth but contains more mass than the sun. It's also caught in an enormous gravitational crunch. The star's core no longer generates energy to counteract the forces of contraction--to fuse iron requires energy input rather than leading to energy release--so it can't hold out for long.
When it goes, it goes fast. In less than a second, the core collapses from a 5,000-mile-wide sphere (8,000 km) into a 12-mile-wide one (20 km). The sudden crash releases a huge amount of energy--100 times the energy our sun will produce in its entire 10-billion-year life. Tiny particles called neutrinos carry most of that energy off into space. The rest races out through the star's layers in a supercharged shockwave.
The resulting explosion blasts the star's gaseous shell into space at speeds exceeding 10 million miles per hour (16 million km/h). For a few weeks, this "supernova" burns brighter than a billion suns. And for millennia to come, the former star's gaseous shell plows into the interstellar medium. Meanwhile, the star's collapsed iron core carries on as a neutron star--or, in some cases, becomes a black hole. In the cosmos, it seems, big stars burn out and fade away.
--Steve Sampson
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
New Physics and the Mind - 20th-Century Physics
New Physics and the Mind - 20th-Century Physics
Here is a chapter from the book New Physics and the Mind by Robert Paster available at amazon.com
About the Author
Robert Paster earned his bachelor's degree in mathematics from M.I.T. and his master's degree in education from Harvard. He has taught mathematics at an alternative high school, worked as a systems analyst, and worked as an actuary at one of the nation's largest insurance companies. During this time he continued to keep up with developments in physics, including physicists' speculative research into developing a Theory of Everything, into new physics phenomena that challenge the standard models of particle physics and cosmology, and into the role in physics of consciousness and the mind. Mr. Paster recently took early retirement as vice president of expense & subsidiary management and resumed his study of physics full-time.
NEW PHYSICS AND THE MIND is the synthesis of Mr. Paster's two-year effort researching the historical development and scientists' latest thinking regarding the mind, the brain, cognition and perception, atoms and matter, quantum theory, gravitation, and particle physics.
CHAPTER 1: TWENTIETH-CENTURY PHYSICS
The three great strands of twentieth-century physics were special relativity, general relativity, and quantum physics.
Albert Einstein was the central developer of both special and general relativity, and he also developed important aspects of quantum physics. Time magazine named Albert Einstein the man of the century.
Twentieth-century physics was important to the twentieth century.
Special Relativity
Lonnie is the stay-at-home type, but her twin sister Bonnie is an astronaut. At age 20, Lonnie starts to raise a family while Bonnie goes to visit the planets in a nearby star system.
It’s a long trip for Bonnie and her crewmates, but this trip is taking place with advanced technology allowing travel at very high speeds. Great discoveries are made and, after the long voyage home, Bonnie returns just at her 30th birthday.
Lonnie is 70 years old and greets the returning astronauts at Cape Canaveral with her grandchildren.
Huh?
Lonnie is 70 and Bonnie is 30.
Moving clocks run slow.
This is a fact. A physical reality.
Whether Bonnie is 30 or 31 or 69 or 69.99999 years old when she returns—this is a detail that depends on Bonnie’s exact speed on her voyage.
But Bonnie will be younger than Lonnie when she returns. All contemporary scientists agree with this reality. It’s how the universe works.
Why we don’t notice in our everyday lives that this is how the universe works is because we on earth travel very slowly.
Bonnie would have to travel at over 650 million miles per hour in order for the age difference to be 40 years. She would have to travel over 90 million miles per hour for there to be even a 1% difference in aging.
But just the concept—the idea that Bonnie’s speed has anything to do with how fast time travels for her—sounds absurd.
Perhaps more absurd-sounding is the idea that time is not universal. Time does not flow like a smooth river, second by second, the same everywhere. Time is a local phenomenon whose passage varies with how fast we travel.
There is nothing about this that matches anything from how we experience our everyday lives, but nevertheless it’s true. It’s completely imperceptible to us because we don’t experience speeds of 650 million or even 90 million miles per hour, so we have no intuition for this. We may safely be ignorant of this fact, yet function perfectly normally for our entire lives.
Part of Einstein’s brilliance is evidenced by his being able to draw these conclusions about special relativity simply by thinking about the implications of the speed of light being the same for all travelers. When I’m moving away from an object, the light waves emitted from this object will inevitably be more spread out for me than for someone not moving away from the object, due to my motion away from the object. But because the speed of light is invariable, it is time itself that must spread out.
There’s more to special relativity, of course, and you don’t get college credit for reading these few pages. For example, in addition to time passing more slowly for a fast-moving traveler, length contracts and mass increases. But for our brief overview, we’ll just accept that, if our normal lives took place at 650 million miles per hour, or if we routinely dealt with distances of intergalactic magnitude, we would never have created for ourselves the conceptualizations that we have of distance, time, space, and mass. Our everyday concepts don’t work for scientists who work with the fast-moving particles of the subatomic world, and they don’t work for scientists dealing with the vast distances of the universe. For these scientists, the adjustments developed through special relativity must be made, because special relativity is reality.
General Relativity
It gets weirder.
If you think of planets as giant masses revolving around the mass of the sun, held in place by gravitational force, you’ve got it wrong.
What’s actually happening is that the sun reshapes space. Gravitational waves emanate from the sun and change the shape of space around it. For millions of miles around the sun, space is not shaped with a north-south dimension at ninety degrees to an east-west dimension at ninety degrees to a vertical dimension. Space is curved. And the planets float effortlessly, taking the path of least resistance through this curved space.
Now this may actually sound to you like a distinction without a difference. After all, what’s the practical difference between a universe in which planets are held in place by gravitational force, and a universe in which the force of gravity is propelled at light speed via gravitational waves which reshape space?
Not much, it turns out. But there are differences, and they were first observed by precise measurements of perturbations in the orbit of the planet Mercury about the sun, and by similarly precise measurements involving phenomena that can be observed only during a solar eclipse, when measurements matched general relativity’s predictions for the bending of light. Only after many decades of additional observation has near-unanimity been reached on the existence of gravitational waves.
Again, no college credit for this summary description. But the important point for this book’s perspective is that—to understand the universe—we have more strange and counterintuitive concepts to absorb, for example a concept that the force of gravity is propelled in waves throughout the universe, reshaping space and time, and setting up the motions and interactions among the planets, the galaxies, all matter.
This understanding will not help you in your everyday life. In fact, your day will go just fine if you don’t make any adjustments at all for either general relativity or special relativity. This is because we obtain only a very refined degree of additional accuracy by introducing relativity’s corrections: Isaac Newton’s seventeenth-century classical physics is good enough to point you in the right direction to get to work or to the grocery store, and you will not have to be concerned with the very small discrepancy that has been created between your wristwatch and those of the people you encounter. But relativity’s adjustments do make our measurements of time and space just a bit more accurate, and perhaps more importantly they give us a truer understanding of how the universe works.
Unifying the Forces
What’s key about this for this book is how much focus has been placed during recent decades on the force of gravity. Throughout the twentieth century, physicists have been obsessed with the creation of a unified force theory, and it is gravity that has proven the most troublesome force to unify with the other forces.
Four forces exist in the universe—the electromagnetic force, the weak and strong forces that operate within the structure of atoms, and the force of gravity.
Back in the nineteenth century, physicists had an even earlier success at this, unifying the force of electricity and the force of magnetism, by showing that these two forces are actually the “same” force, the electromagnetic force.
Now this is odd, because common sense—our common basis for understanding the universe—tells us that electricity and magnetism are not the same thing. They’re different. One goes through wires, and the other involves magnets and iron filings.
But the point is that we’re just not understanding the universe correctly if we continue to think that electricity and magnetism are different forces.
The physicist’s perspective is that electricity and magnetism are best understood as dual aspects of a single phenomenon, modeled mathematically as interacting fields, moving in tandem, electricity producing magnetism, and magnetism producing electricity.
With electricity and magnetism unified, physicsts focused on unifying electromagnetism and gravity. But then two additional forces were identified within the physics of atomic particles—the strong force and the weak force—increasing from two to four the number of basic interactions of the universe that physicists are now challenged to unify.
So why the obsession? What’s so important about unifying the forces, creating a physical framework in which there is only one force?
The answer is the big bang.
If the universe began as a miniscule point that has been expanding for fourteen billion years—well, what was in that miniscule point? There couldn’t have been room in there for four forces (so the thinking goes, loosely expressed). There must have been just one force, whose manifestations varied (especially as experienced through our simple senses) as the universe expanded (and cooled). So let’s figure out how it can be that these four forces can all be understood as one. Let’s move backward in time to the big bang.
Now you may not be convinced that the only conclusion we can draw from the fact of the big bang is that there exists only one, unified force. You may not even be convinced of the fact of the big bang. But the fact is that, as the twentieth century ended, physicists had come very close to achieving a consensus view—within the standard model of particle physics—on how it is that all the forces except gravity are unified. This consensus view is called the Grand Unified Theory, and we’ll be discussing in more depth the mainstream view of the extent of Grand Unification. It’s certainly been a great achievement of physics and mathematics to have gotten so far during the past century.
You may be thinking: aren’t physicists getting a bit carried away here, in calling Grand Unification something that seems more properly called “Three-Quarters Unification”? After all, “Grand Unification” is unifying only three of the four known forces.
Maybe you’re right if this is what you’re thinking. But if so, physicists have paid a price for this overstatement: what will they call it when gravity too is brought into the unification? Their answer to that is the “Theory of Everything.” That’s what physicists are striving for as they work to unify all of the forces, including gravity.
We’ll have a lot more to say about Everything. But first we have the third and strangest strand of twentieth-century physics.
Quantum Physics
For much of the twentieth century, physics has focused on quantum physics, the physics of the very small, the physics operating inside the atom.
The thrust of quantum physics is that physical phenomena are not continuous phenomena, but instead take place in very small but discrete increments—that is, quanta. These quanta cannot be isolated with certainty or specificity, but instead we can say only where they’re likely to be. In fact, quantum physics—through the Heisenberg uncertainty principle—tells us that there are limits on how much we can know: the more accurately we can locate a quantum particle’s position, the less we are able to know about another core characteristic of the particle, its momentum.
Quantum physics is incredibly accurate, and not just about the limitations of our knowledge. The equations that probabalistically point to the physical world’s quanta have given us another great leap in our accuracy of measurement of space, time, matter, and other physical phenomena. Because of quantum physics’ accuracy, we have made great advances in chemistry, biology, electronics, and other applied sciences: lasers, bar code readers, compact disc players, global positioning devices, DNA, genetic engineering, microsurgery, semiconductors, nuclear energy, superconductors, spectral lines, the stability of the atom—all have applications that are due to the great accuracy of the equations of quantum physics.
Quantum physics is also about subatomic particles—identifying and ultimately observing the particles that make up matter. And also the particles—gravitons, photons, gluons, W and Z bosons—that transmit the four forces. (Most physicists would probably prefer here the terminology: gluons are the exchange particles of the strong interaction, W and Z bosons are the exchange particles of the weak interaction, and so on. But in this book we’ll tend to use slightly less technical language—transmit the forces—where we can.)
There is another strand of quantum physics, with numerous interpretations, some philosophical, perhaps even mystical. Quantum physics stretches our understanding of reality. It is, in some interpretations, filled with dualities and contradictions. Matter emerges from then disappears into a great quantum vacuum. Particles can’t both be and be known to be. Matter shifts from existing to only having the potential to exist. The act of measurement distorts what’s being measured. Human consciousness seeps into the discussion of quantum physics. Our human acts affect what is true at the quantum level.
With coming up to a century of effort, much has been done to demystify quantum physics. It’s not all dualities and contradictions, and in fact these won’t be useful concepts for us to proceed with. For this book, we’ll need to know that quantum physics has important deterministic elements and important nondeterministic elements.
In the mathematics of quantum physics, the state function—the formula for how the state of a quantum particle evolves over time—changes in two different ways. Deterministicaly, by continuous causal evolution, one step triggers a next step triggers a next step. This is in contrast to the second way in which the state function can change, the nondeterministic element of quantum physics—collapse at measurement.
In quantum physics, multiple possibilities exist—are superposed—and it is not until observation (or, synonymously for this purpose, measurement) that the state function collapses to just one of these actualities. Without observation or measurement, the superposed (multiple) possibilities proceed in parallel, but deterministically.
Parallel realities are not reduced to a single path until observation triggers a quantum jump. This is without question bizarre. It seems far distant from a scientific view of the world and leads to basic questions, which we’ll touch on in Chapter 5, about the nature of reality.
Quantum physics’ nondeterministic elements are probabalistic (Einstein referred to them, dismissively, as God throwing dice): when quantum physics’ probabalistic phenomena are observed, we don’t know in advance what we’re going to see; we know only what we might see and how likely each possibility is.
Quantum physics correctly predicts that, when the position of a particle is repeatedly measured or observed, we will not come up with the same answer every time, but instead will come up with a range of answers whose likelihood is predicted by the Schrödinger equation for the quantum wave function, a central equation of quantum physics. This amazing equation incorporates both the parallel deterministic time evolution of the superposed quantum possibilities, and also each quantum possibility’s probability that it is how the quantum system will collapse upon observation.
There are a number of interpretations of quantum physics—interpretations of reality—which we will be discussing later on. Schrödinger himself did not accept that physical phenomena are not real until they are observed, and he developed the somewhat gory thought experiment—now referred to as Schrödinger’s cat—to demonstrate the absurdity of Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Schrödinger’s cat is unobserved in an enclosure in which the cat may or may not have died from poison gas, and it was Schrödinger’s intention to show the absurdity of the cat’s living or dying being indeterminate until the lid is opened and the cat observed. Schrödinger, with Einstein, rejected the Copenhagen interpretation’s observer-dependent reality, and preferred a realist interpretation, in which the cat’s fate is real even before it is observed.
When Is Classical Physics Good Enough?
For many purposes, classical physics is good enough. That is, our physics is accurate without introducing quantum corrections. After all, those high school physics tests had very precise answers to questions about blocks sliding down inclined planes and planets in motion.
There is no quantum indeterminancy in physics’ macroscopic events and objects. Macroscopic events can be correctly described without worrying about the submicroscopic uncertainties of the quantum world. At the macroscopic level, unlikely quantum possibilities cancel each other out and events transpire according to classical Newtonian physics, with relativistic corrections, if needed, but without quantum corrections.
The dividing line between classical physics and quantum physics is traditionally drawn somewhere between macromolecules (complex molecules) on the classical side, and atoms, electrons, and photons on the quantum side. So proteins and cells can be treated classically. And the brain, even at the level of the single neuron, is subject only to classical physics, not to quantum physics, in the view of most neurobiologists and other scientists. There are minority views on this subject among physicists, however, and we’ll be discussing this whole topic in depth later in this book.
The central quantum phenomenon—the collapse of the wave function, or the quantum jump—occurs when we observe or measure a quantum process, resulting in the forcing of the quantum hand. A quantum system, when observed or measured, turns over its cards; it can no longer reside in a world in which it can be many things (each with its own probabiltity). When we observe or measure, the quantum card becomes specific.
This central quantum phenomenon has many names, many ways of labeling it and thinking about it. It is called the reduction or the collapse of the wave function. It is also called the quantum jump or the quantum leap or the quantum transition. It is quantum decoherence: the cohered probabilities, layered one on top of each other in quantum superposition, decohere to create classical properties. It is the migration from the sum over histories, in which all quantum possibilities accumulate, to a single classical event or particle. It is “popping the qwiff.”
Physics’ Contradicting Strands
At the deepest and smallest scales, quantum physics contradicts general relativity. General relativity’s reshaping of spacetime through the force of gravity is a smooth reshaping. But the submicroscopic world of quantum physics is a cauldron of possibility: the quantum forcing of hand is discrete and discontinuous at the quanta of space and time.
Unlike general relativity’s picture of a smooth and continuous reshaping of spacetime at all levels, there is nothing smooth about the quantum view of spacetime. Gravity again rears its head as the mysterious force: general relativity has permitted us to understand gravity’s influence on the great masses and distances of space, but general relativity seems to contradict quantum physics when gravity is brought down to the scale of the smallest worlds of the elementary particles.
Click here to look inside more of NEW PHYSICS AND THE MIND.
Or click below to go to Amazon.com's NEW PHYSICS AND THE MIND page: Search inside. Browse sample pages. Explore similar items. Reviews. Discussions. Tags. Statistically improbable phrases.
NEW PHYSICS AND THE MIND, although aimed at the general reading public, is intensively researched and sourced. See NEW PHYSICS AND THE MIND for the endnotes associated with this excerpt, as well as for a complete bibliography of the works referenced throughout NEW PHYSICS AND THE MIND.
Here is a chapter from the book New Physics and the Mind by Robert Paster available at amazon.com
About the Author
Robert Paster earned his bachelor's degree in mathematics from M.I.T. and his master's degree in education from Harvard. He has taught mathematics at an alternative high school, worked as a systems analyst, and worked as an actuary at one of the nation's largest insurance companies. During this time he continued to keep up with developments in physics, including physicists' speculative research into developing a Theory of Everything, into new physics phenomena that challenge the standard models of particle physics and cosmology, and into the role in physics of consciousness and the mind. Mr. Paster recently took early retirement as vice president of expense & subsidiary management and resumed his study of physics full-time.
NEW PHYSICS AND THE MIND is the synthesis of Mr. Paster's two-year effort researching the historical development and scientists' latest thinking regarding the mind, the brain, cognition and perception, atoms and matter, quantum theory, gravitation, and particle physics.
CHAPTER 1: TWENTIETH-CENTURY PHYSICS
The three great strands of twentieth-century physics were special relativity, general relativity, and quantum physics.
Albert Einstein was the central developer of both special and general relativity, and he also developed important aspects of quantum physics. Time magazine named Albert Einstein the man of the century.
Twentieth-century physics was important to the twentieth century.
Special Relativity
Lonnie is the stay-at-home type, but her twin sister Bonnie is an astronaut. At age 20, Lonnie starts to raise a family while Bonnie goes to visit the planets in a nearby star system.
It’s a long trip for Bonnie and her crewmates, but this trip is taking place with advanced technology allowing travel at very high speeds. Great discoveries are made and, after the long voyage home, Bonnie returns just at her 30th birthday.
Lonnie is 70 years old and greets the returning astronauts at Cape Canaveral with her grandchildren.
Huh?
Lonnie is 70 and Bonnie is 30.
Moving clocks run slow.
This is a fact. A physical reality.
Whether Bonnie is 30 or 31 or 69 or 69.99999 years old when she returns—this is a detail that depends on Bonnie’s exact speed on her voyage.
But Bonnie will be younger than Lonnie when she returns. All contemporary scientists agree with this reality. It’s how the universe works.
Why we don’t notice in our everyday lives that this is how the universe works is because we on earth travel very slowly.
Bonnie would have to travel at over 650 million miles per hour in order for the age difference to be 40 years. She would have to travel over 90 million miles per hour for there to be even a 1% difference in aging.
But just the concept—the idea that Bonnie’s speed has anything to do with how fast time travels for her—sounds absurd.
Perhaps more absurd-sounding is the idea that time is not universal. Time does not flow like a smooth river, second by second, the same everywhere. Time is a local phenomenon whose passage varies with how fast we travel.
There is nothing about this that matches anything from how we experience our everyday lives, but nevertheless it’s true. It’s completely imperceptible to us because we don’t experience speeds of 650 million or even 90 million miles per hour, so we have no intuition for this. We may safely be ignorant of this fact, yet function perfectly normally for our entire lives.
Part of Einstein’s brilliance is evidenced by his being able to draw these conclusions about special relativity simply by thinking about the implications of the speed of light being the same for all travelers. When I’m moving away from an object, the light waves emitted from this object will inevitably be more spread out for me than for someone not moving away from the object, due to my motion away from the object. But because the speed of light is invariable, it is time itself that must spread out.
There’s more to special relativity, of course, and you don’t get college credit for reading these few pages. For example, in addition to time passing more slowly for a fast-moving traveler, length contracts and mass increases. But for our brief overview, we’ll just accept that, if our normal lives took place at 650 million miles per hour, or if we routinely dealt with distances of intergalactic magnitude, we would never have created for ourselves the conceptualizations that we have of distance, time, space, and mass. Our everyday concepts don’t work for scientists who work with the fast-moving particles of the subatomic world, and they don’t work for scientists dealing with the vast distances of the universe. For these scientists, the adjustments developed through special relativity must be made, because special relativity is reality.
General Relativity
It gets weirder.
If you think of planets as giant masses revolving around the mass of the sun, held in place by gravitational force, you’ve got it wrong.
What’s actually happening is that the sun reshapes space. Gravitational waves emanate from the sun and change the shape of space around it. For millions of miles around the sun, space is not shaped with a north-south dimension at ninety degrees to an east-west dimension at ninety degrees to a vertical dimension. Space is curved. And the planets float effortlessly, taking the path of least resistance through this curved space.
Now this may actually sound to you like a distinction without a difference. After all, what’s the practical difference between a universe in which planets are held in place by gravitational force, and a universe in which the force of gravity is propelled at light speed via gravitational waves which reshape space?
Not much, it turns out. But there are differences, and they were first observed by precise measurements of perturbations in the orbit of the planet Mercury about the sun, and by similarly precise measurements involving phenomena that can be observed only during a solar eclipse, when measurements matched general relativity’s predictions for the bending of light. Only after many decades of additional observation has near-unanimity been reached on the existence of gravitational waves.
Again, no college credit for this summary description. But the important point for this book’s perspective is that—to understand the universe—we have more strange and counterintuitive concepts to absorb, for example a concept that the force of gravity is propelled in waves throughout the universe, reshaping space and time, and setting up the motions and interactions among the planets, the galaxies, all matter.
This understanding will not help you in your everyday life. In fact, your day will go just fine if you don’t make any adjustments at all for either general relativity or special relativity. This is because we obtain only a very refined degree of additional accuracy by introducing relativity’s corrections: Isaac Newton’s seventeenth-century classical physics is good enough to point you in the right direction to get to work or to the grocery store, and you will not have to be concerned with the very small discrepancy that has been created between your wristwatch and those of the people you encounter. But relativity’s adjustments do make our measurements of time and space just a bit more accurate, and perhaps more importantly they give us a truer understanding of how the universe works.
Unifying the Forces
What’s key about this for this book is how much focus has been placed during recent decades on the force of gravity. Throughout the twentieth century, physicists have been obsessed with the creation of a unified force theory, and it is gravity that has proven the most troublesome force to unify with the other forces.
Four forces exist in the universe—the electromagnetic force, the weak and strong forces that operate within the structure of atoms, and the force of gravity.
Back in the nineteenth century, physicists had an even earlier success at this, unifying the force of electricity and the force of magnetism, by showing that these two forces are actually the “same” force, the electromagnetic force.
Now this is odd, because common sense—our common basis for understanding the universe—tells us that electricity and magnetism are not the same thing. They’re different. One goes through wires, and the other involves magnets and iron filings.
But the point is that we’re just not understanding the universe correctly if we continue to think that electricity and magnetism are different forces.
The physicist’s perspective is that electricity and magnetism are best understood as dual aspects of a single phenomenon, modeled mathematically as interacting fields, moving in tandem, electricity producing magnetism, and magnetism producing electricity.
With electricity and magnetism unified, physicsts focused on unifying electromagnetism and gravity. But then two additional forces were identified within the physics of atomic particles—the strong force and the weak force—increasing from two to four the number of basic interactions of the universe that physicists are now challenged to unify.
So why the obsession? What’s so important about unifying the forces, creating a physical framework in which there is only one force?
The answer is the big bang.
If the universe began as a miniscule point that has been expanding for fourteen billion years—well, what was in that miniscule point? There couldn’t have been room in there for four forces (so the thinking goes, loosely expressed). There must have been just one force, whose manifestations varied (especially as experienced through our simple senses) as the universe expanded (and cooled). So let’s figure out how it can be that these four forces can all be understood as one. Let’s move backward in time to the big bang.
Now you may not be convinced that the only conclusion we can draw from the fact of the big bang is that there exists only one, unified force. You may not even be convinced of the fact of the big bang. But the fact is that, as the twentieth century ended, physicists had come very close to achieving a consensus view—within the standard model of particle physics—on how it is that all the forces except gravity are unified. This consensus view is called the Grand Unified Theory, and we’ll be discussing in more depth the mainstream view of the extent of Grand Unification. It’s certainly been a great achievement of physics and mathematics to have gotten so far during the past century.
You may be thinking: aren’t physicists getting a bit carried away here, in calling Grand Unification something that seems more properly called “Three-Quarters Unification”? After all, “Grand Unification” is unifying only three of the four known forces.
Maybe you’re right if this is what you’re thinking. But if so, physicists have paid a price for this overstatement: what will they call it when gravity too is brought into the unification? Their answer to that is the “Theory of Everything.” That’s what physicists are striving for as they work to unify all of the forces, including gravity.
We’ll have a lot more to say about Everything. But first we have the third and strangest strand of twentieth-century physics.
Quantum Physics
For much of the twentieth century, physics has focused on quantum physics, the physics of the very small, the physics operating inside the atom.
The thrust of quantum physics is that physical phenomena are not continuous phenomena, but instead take place in very small but discrete increments—that is, quanta. These quanta cannot be isolated with certainty or specificity, but instead we can say only where they’re likely to be. In fact, quantum physics—through the Heisenberg uncertainty principle—tells us that there are limits on how much we can know: the more accurately we can locate a quantum particle’s position, the less we are able to know about another core characteristic of the particle, its momentum.
Quantum physics is incredibly accurate, and not just about the limitations of our knowledge. The equations that probabalistically point to the physical world’s quanta have given us another great leap in our accuracy of measurement of space, time, matter, and other physical phenomena. Because of quantum physics’ accuracy, we have made great advances in chemistry, biology, electronics, and other applied sciences: lasers, bar code readers, compact disc players, global positioning devices, DNA, genetic engineering, microsurgery, semiconductors, nuclear energy, superconductors, spectral lines, the stability of the atom—all have applications that are due to the great accuracy of the equations of quantum physics.
Quantum physics is also about subatomic particles—identifying and ultimately observing the particles that make up matter. And also the particles—gravitons, photons, gluons, W and Z bosons—that transmit the four forces. (Most physicists would probably prefer here the terminology: gluons are the exchange particles of the strong interaction, W and Z bosons are the exchange particles of the weak interaction, and so on. But in this book we’ll tend to use slightly less technical language—transmit the forces—where we can.)
There is another strand of quantum physics, with numerous interpretations, some philosophical, perhaps even mystical. Quantum physics stretches our understanding of reality. It is, in some interpretations, filled with dualities and contradictions. Matter emerges from then disappears into a great quantum vacuum. Particles can’t both be and be known to be. Matter shifts from existing to only having the potential to exist. The act of measurement distorts what’s being measured. Human consciousness seeps into the discussion of quantum physics. Our human acts affect what is true at the quantum level.
With coming up to a century of effort, much has been done to demystify quantum physics. It’s not all dualities and contradictions, and in fact these won’t be useful concepts for us to proceed with. For this book, we’ll need to know that quantum physics has important deterministic elements and important nondeterministic elements.
In the mathematics of quantum physics, the state function—the formula for how the state of a quantum particle evolves over time—changes in two different ways. Deterministicaly, by continuous causal evolution, one step triggers a next step triggers a next step. This is in contrast to the second way in which the state function can change, the nondeterministic element of quantum physics—collapse at measurement.
In quantum physics, multiple possibilities exist—are superposed—and it is not until observation (or, synonymously for this purpose, measurement) that the state function collapses to just one of these actualities. Without observation or measurement, the superposed (multiple) possibilities proceed in parallel, but deterministically.
Parallel realities are not reduced to a single path until observation triggers a quantum jump. This is without question bizarre. It seems far distant from a scientific view of the world and leads to basic questions, which we’ll touch on in Chapter 5, about the nature of reality.
Quantum physics’ nondeterministic elements are probabalistic (Einstein referred to them, dismissively, as God throwing dice): when quantum physics’ probabalistic phenomena are observed, we don’t know in advance what we’re going to see; we know only what we might see and how likely each possibility is.
Quantum physics correctly predicts that, when the position of a particle is repeatedly measured or observed, we will not come up with the same answer every time, but instead will come up with a range of answers whose likelihood is predicted by the Schrödinger equation for the quantum wave function, a central equation of quantum physics. This amazing equation incorporates both the parallel deterministic time evolution of the superposed quantum possibilities, and also each quantum possibility’s probability that it is how the quantum system will collapse upon observation.
There are a number of interpretations of quantum physics—interpretations of reality—which we will be discussing later on. Schrödinger himself did not accept that physical phenomena are not real until they are observed, and he developed the somewhat gory thought experiment—now referred to as Schrödinger’s cat—to demonstrate the absurdity of Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Schrödinger’s cat is unobserved in an enclosure in which the cat may or may not have died from poison gas, and it was Schrödinger’s intention to show the absurdity of the cat’s living or dying being indeterminate until the lid is opened and the cat observed. Schrödinger, with Einstein, rejected the Copenhagen interpretation’s observer-dependent reality, and preferred a realist interpretation, in which the cat’s fate is real even before it is observed.
When Is Classical Physics Good Enough?
For many purposes, classical physics is good enough. That is, our physics is accurate without introducing quantum corrections. After all, those high school physics tests had very precise answers to questions about blocks sliding down inclined planes and planets in motion.
There is no quantum indeterminancy in physics’ macroscopic events and objects. Macroscopic events can be correctly described without worrying about the submicroscopic uncertainties of the quantum world. At the macroscopic level, unlikely quantum possibilities cancel each other out and events transpire according to classical Newtonian physics, with relativistic corrections, if needed, but without quantum corrections.
The dividing line between classical physics and quantum physics is traditionally drawn somewhere between macromolecules (complex molecules) on the classical side, and atoms, electrons, and photons on the quantum side. So proteins and cells can be treated classically. And the brain, even at the level of the single neuron, is subject only to classical physics, not to quantum physics, in the view of most neurobiologists and other scientists. There are minority views on this subject among physicists, however, and we’ll be discussing this whole topic in depth later in this book.
The central quantum phenomenon—the collapse of the wave function, or the quantum jump—occurs when we observe or measure a quantum process, resulting in the forcing of the quantum hand. A quantum system, when observed or measured, turns over its cards; it can no longer reside in a world in which it can be many things (each with its own probabiltity). When we observe or measure, the quantum card becomes specific.
This central quantum phenomenon has many names, many ways of labeling it and thinking about it. It is called the reduction or the collapse of the wave function. It is also called the quantum jump or the quantum leap or the quantum transition. It is quantum decoherence: the cohered probabilities, layered one on top of each other in quantum superposition, decohere to create classical properties. It is the migration from the sum over histories, in which all quantum possibilities accumulate, to a single classical event or particle. It is “popping the qwiff.”
Physics’ Contradicting Strands
At the deepest and smallest scales, quantum physics contradicts general relativity. General relativity’s reshaping of spacetime through the force of gravity is a smooth reshaping. But the submicroscopic world of quantum physics is a cauldron of possibility: the quantum forcing of hand is discrete and discontinuous at the quanta of space and time.
Unlike general relativity’s picture of a smooth and continuous reshaping of spacetime at all levels, there is nothing smooth about the quantum view of spacetime. Gravity again rears its head as the mysterious force: general relativity has permitted us to understand gravity’s influence on the great masses and distances of space, but general relativity seems to contradict quantum physics when gravity is brought down to the scale of the smallest worlds of the elementary particles.
Click here to look inside more of NEW PHYSICS AND THE MIND.
Or click below to go to Amazon.com's NEW PHYSICS AND THE MIND page: Search inside. Browse sample pages. Explore similar items. Reviews. Discussions. Tags. Statistically improbable phrases.
NEW PHYSICS AND THE MIND, although aimed at the general reading public, is intensively researched and sourced. See NEW PHYSICS AND THE MIND for the endnotes associated with this excerpt, as well as for a complete bibliography of the works referenced throughout NEW PHYSICS AND THE MIND.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Challenge to Relgions - mortuary science: Dissolving bodies with lye - Yahoo! News
New idea in mortuary science: Dissolving bodies with lye - Yahoo! News
New idea in mortuary science: Dissolving bodies with lye
By NORMA LOVE, Associated Press Writer Fri May 9, 5:41 PM ET
CONCORD, N.H. - Since they first walked the planet, humans have either buried or burned their dead. Now a new option is generating interest — dissolving bodies in lye and flushing the brownish, syrupy residue down the drain.
The process is called alkaline hydrolysis and was developed in this country 16 years ago to get rid of animal carcasses. It uses lye, 300-degree heat and 60 pounds of pressure per square inch to destroy bodies in big stainless-steel cylinders that are similar to pressure cookers.
No funeral homes in the U.S. — or anywhere else in the world, as far as the equipment manufacturer knows — offer it. In fact, only two U.S. medical centers use it on human bodies, and only on cadavers donated for research.
But because of its environmental advantages, some in the funeral industry say it could someday rival burial and cremation.
"It's not often that a truly game-changing technology comes along in the funeral service," the newsletter Funeral Service Insider said in September. But "we might have gotten a hold of one."
Getting the public to accept a process that strikes some as ghastly may be the biggest challenge. Psychopaths and dictators have used acid or lye to torture or erase their victims, and legislation to make alkaline hydrolysis available to the public in New York state was branded "Hannibal Lecter's bill" in a play on the sponsor's name — Sen. Kemp Hannon — and the movie character's sadism.
Alkaline hydrolysis is legal in Minnesota and in New Hampshire, where a Manchester funeral director is pushing to offer it. But he has yet to line up the necessary regulatory approvals, and some New Hampshire lawmakers want to repeal the little-noticed 2006 state law legalizing it.
"We believe this process, which enables a portion of human remains to be flushed down a drain, to be undignified," said Patrick McGee, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester.
State Rep. Barbara French said she, for one, might choose alkaline hydrolysis.
"I'm getting near that age and thought about cremation, but this is equally as good and less of an environmental problem," the 81-year-old lawmaker said. "It doesn't bother me any more than being burned up. Cremation, you're burned up. I've thought about it, but I'm dead."
In addition to the liquid, the process leaves a dry bone residue similar in appearance and volume to cremated remains. It could be returned to the family in an urn or buried in a cemetery.
The coffee-colored liquid has the consistency of motor oil and a strong ammonia smell. But proponents say it is sterile and can, in most cases, be safely poured down the drain, provided the operation has the necessary permits.
Alkaline hydrolysis doesn't take up as much space in cemeteries as burial. And the process could ease concerns about crematorium emissions, including carbon dioxide as well as mercury from silver dental fillings.
The University of Florida in Gainesville and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., have used alkaline hydrolysis to dispose of cadavers since the mid-1990s and 2005, respectively.
Brad Crain, president of BioSafe Engineering, the Brownsburg, Ind., company that makes the steel cylinders, estimated 40 to 50 other facilities use them on human medical waste, animal carcasses or both. The users include veterinary schools, universities, pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. government.
Liquid waste from cadavers goes down the drain at the both the Mayo Clinic and the University of Florida, as does the liquid residue from human tissue and animal carcasses at alkaline hydrolysis sites elsewhere.
Manchester funeral director Chad Corbin wants to operate a $300,000 cylinder in New Hampshire. He said that an alkaline hydrolysis operation is more expensive to set up than a crematorium but that he would charge customers about as much as he would for cremation.
George Carlson, an industrial-waste manager for the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, said things the public might find more troubling routinely flow into sewage treatment plants in the U.S. all the time. That includes blood and spillover embalming fluid from funeral homes.
The department issued a permit to Corbin last year, but he let the deal on the property fall through because of delays in getting the other necessary permits. Now he must go through the process all over again, and there is gathering resistance. But he said he is undeterred.
"I don't not know how long it will take," he said recently, "but eventually it will happen."
___
AP News Researcher Judith Ausuebel contributed to this report.
New idea in mortuary science: Dissolving bodies with lye
By NORMA LOVE, Associated Press Writer Fri May 9, 5:41 PM ET
CONCORD, N.H. - Since they first walked the planet, humans have either buried or burned their dead. Now a new option is generating interest — dissolving bodies in lye and flushing the brownish, syrupy residue down the drain.
The process is called alkaline hydrolysis and was developed in this country 16 years ago to get rid of animal carcasses. It uses lye, 300-degree heat and 60 pounds of pressure per square inch to destroy bodies in big stainless-steel cylinders that are similar to pressure cookers.
No funeral homes in the U.S. — or anywhere else in the world, as far as the equipment manufacturer knows — offer it. In fact, only two U.S. medical centers use it on human bodies, and only on cadavers donated for research.
But because of its environmental advantages, some in the funeral industry say it could someday rival burial and cremation.
"It's not often that a truly game-changing technology comes along in the funeral service," the newsletter Funeral Service Insider said in September. But "we might have gotten a hold of one."
Getting the public to accept a process that strikes some as ghastly may be the biggest challenge. Psychopaths and dictators have used acid or lye to torture or erase their victims, and legislation to make alkaline hydrolysis available to the public in New York state was branded "Hannibal Lecter's bill" in a play on the sponsor's name — Sen. Kemp Hannon — and the movie character's sadism.
Alkaline hydrolysis is legal in Minnesota and in New Hampshire, where a Manchester funeral director is pushing to offer it. But he has yet to line up the necessary regulatory approvals, and some New Hampshire lawmakers want to repeal the little-noticed 2006 state law legalizing it.
"We believe this process, which enables a portion of human remains to be flushed down a drain, to be undignified," said Patrick McGee, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester.
State Rep. Barbara French said she, for one, might choose alkaline hydrolysis.
"I'm getting near that age and thought about cremation, but this is equally as good and less of an environmental problem," the 81-year-old lawmaker said. "It doesn't bother me any more than being burned up. Cremation, you're burned up. I've thought about it, but I'm dead."
In addition to the liquid, the process leaves a dry bone residue similar in appearance and volume to cremated remains. It could be returned to the family in an urn or buried in a cemetery.
The coffee-colored liquid has the consistency of motor oil and a strong ammonia smell. But proponents say it is sterile and can, in most cases, be safely poured down the drain, provided the operation has the necessary permits.
Alkaline hydrolysis doesn't take up as much space in cemeteries as burial. And the process could ease concerns about crematorium emissions, including carbon dioxide as well as mercury from silver dental fillings.
The University of Florida in Gainesville and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., have used alkaline hydrolysis to dispose of cadavers since the mid-1990s and 2005, respectively.
Brad Crain, president of BioSafe Engineering, the Brownsburg, Ind., company that makes the steel cylinders, estimated 40 to 50 other facilities use them on human medical waste, animal carcasses or both. The users include veterinary schools, universities, pharmaceutical companies and the U.S. government.
Liquid waste from cadavers goes down the drain at the both the Mayo Clinic and the University of Florida, as does the liquid residue from human tissue and animal carcasses at alkaline hydrolysis sites elsewhere.
Manchester funeral director Chad Corbin wants to operate a $300,000 cylinder in New Hampshire. He said that an alkaline hydrolysis operation is more expensive to set up than a crematorium but that he would charge customers about as much as he would for cremation.
George Carlson, an industrial-waste manager for the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, said things the public might find more troubling routinely flow into sewage treatment plants in the U.S. all the time. That includes blood and spillover embalming fluid from funeral homes.
The department issued a permit to Corbin last year, but he let the deal on the property fall through because of delays in getting the other necessary permits. Now he must go through the process all over again, and there is gathering resistance. But he said he is undeterred.
"I don't not know how long it will take," he said recently, "but eventually it will happen."
___
AP News Researcher Judith Ausuebel contributed to this report.
Monday, May 5, 2008
GOD = RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE - alt.philosophy | Google Groups
GOD = RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE - alt.philosophy | Google Groups
George Hammond
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, alt.sci.physics.new-theories, alt.sci.physics, alt.philosophy
From: George Hammond
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:28:30 GMT
Local: Sun, Apr 20 2008 5:28 pm
Subject: GOD = RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
GOD = RAP
(Relativistic Anthropic Principle)
The Anthropic Principle is well known to Science today.
Carter, Barrow, Tipler, Wheeler and even Hawking and Penrose
and Weinberg have written extensively on the subject.
What Science DOESN'T KNOW is that the Anthropic Principle
was actually discovered thousands of years ago by Religion.
The irony of this has not been lost on Religious experts.
Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
"observables exist because observers exist". After all, it
doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if there was
no such thing as an observer, then there would be no such
thing as observables; since the testimony of observers is
the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist.
As far as Physics is concerned of course, "Man" is THE
observer. This proves that it is MAN who causes the
Universe to exist. After all, if all people died at 9am
tomorrow, there would no longer be any observables, no
universe, no time, no space; no nothing. NOTHING WOULD
"EXIST".
Religion recognized this principle thousands of years
ago, St. Augustine in particular. In fact Bishop George
Berkeley formally published the thesis 300 years ago, and as
recently as 1900 Mary Baker Eddy founded the highly
successful Christian Science Church on the principle.
It is therefore a fascinating irony that Science has
finally stumbled on the PRACTICAL DISCOVERY of the Anthropic
Principle... they finally recognized such elementary facts
as WHY the Universe is 13 billion years old... i.e. that it
took that long for Man to emerge, and without Man there is
no "Universe"... therefore, the Anthropic Principle not only
explains the "age of the Universe"... but that realization
actually proves that the AP explains the existence of the
Universe in the first place!
OK... but the scientists have YET to realize this; that
the existence itself, of anything, depends on the Anthropic
Principle... and therefore, that the Anthropic Principle de
facto explains the so called "Biblical Creation"...
existence itself only came into being 200,000 years ago when
Man appeared; Homo Sapiens sapiens. Note that the Bible
figures this was 6,000 years ago, but Anthropology was in a
primitive state when the Bible was written, so they're about
194,000 short of the correct date of Creation... but still a
good guess for nonscientific people in primitive times.
OK.... here's the REAL ENTERTAINMENT aspect of all this.
Religious people are far smarter and more widely educated
than Scientists (believe it or not), and consequently they
view the Scientific "discovery" of the Anthropic Principle
with MUCH AMUSEMENT, since they have known about it for
thousands of years.
The Religious people of course realize that "Man created
reality" and they further realize that Scientists think that
"Reality created Man". Knowing that it is futile to try and
explain this to stubborn and nerd like Scientists, the
Religious people are having a field day teasing the
Physicists with long endless dissertations on how
"scientifically peculiar" it is that the Universe seems to
be so "finely tuned" to support life (when of course just
the opposite is true as any dunderhead can see... that in
fact "life is finely tuned to fit into the universe by
Natural Selection). And sure enough, the scientists fall
for it every time, why we have scientists pointing out that
"if the electron was 1% smaller, life couldn't exist", or
"if the Earths orbit was 1% larger, we would be extinct", or
"if there wasn't an excited state of Carbon at 6.67 Mev
carbon based life couldn't exist", blah, blah, blah.
However, it turns out that HAMMOND (2003) is slated to
have the last laugh, a laugh at BOTH the scientists and the
Theologians!
HAMMOND of course long ago recognized that "the mind
creates Reality, and therefore the Universe and everything
in it.... but AMAZINGLY....Hammond also being a prodigious
Relativity physicist psychology investigator
(Psychometrics), accidentally discovered that human
perception (of reality) is actually RELATIVISTICALLY CURVED.
In other words, the reality you see, is actually a CURVED
VERSION of true reality, and that this makes part of true
reality INVISBLE to you, me, and every other person in the
human race. And this phenomena is known historically as
"GOD".
Yes... HAMMOND has discovered (and proved and peer
published, 2003) that the universal Secular Trend Growth
Deficit in Man, causes Man's perception (of sight, sound,
touch, taste, smell) to be RELATIVISTICALLY CURVED thus
rendering 20%, on average, of (normal) Reality to be
invisible... thus scientifically explaining and proving the
existence of God and Heaven in one fell swoop.
Meanwhile the entertaining dialog between Physics and
Religion over the so called "Anthropic Principle" continues
to highly amuse those people in society who already full
well know what God actually is, and I predict, that there
will be much gnashing of teeth among the academic pedants
when HAMMOND'S discovery of the world's first bona fide
Scientific Proof of God (SPOG for short) becomes common
scientific knowlege.
George Hammond
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics, alt.sci.physics.new-theories, alt.sci.physics, alt.philosophy
From: George Hammond
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:28:30 GMT
Local: Sun, Apr 20 2008 5:28 pm
Subject: GOD = RELATIVISTIC ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
GOD = RAP
(Relativistic Anthropic Principle)
The Anthropic Principle is well known to Science today.
Carter, Barrow, Tipler, Wheeler and even Hawking and Penrose
and Weinberg have written extensively on the subject.
What Science DOESN'T KNOW is that the Anthropic Principle
was actually discovered thousands of years ago by Religion.
The irony of this has not been lost on Religious experts.
Fact is, the "Anthropic Principle" simply says:
"observables exist because observers exist". After all, it
doesn't take rocket science to figure out that if there was
no such thing as an observer, then there would be no such
thing as observables; since the testimony of observers is
the ONLY WAY we know that the observables exist.
As far as Physics is concerned of course, "Man" is THE
observer. This proves that it is MAN who causes the
Universe to exist. After all, if all people died at 9am
tomorrow, there would no longer be any observables, no
universe, no time, no space; no nothing. NOTHING WOULD
"EXIST".
Religion recognized this principle thousands of years
ago, St. Augustine in particular. In fact Bishop George
Berkeley formally published the thesis 300 years ago, and as
recently as 1900 Mary Baker Eddy founded the highly
successful Christian Science Church on the principle.
It is therefore a fascinating irony that Science has
finally stumbled on the PRACTICAL DISCOVERY of the Anthropic
Principle... they finally recognized such elementary facts
as WHY the Universe is 13 billion years old... i.e. that it
took that long for Man to emerge, and without Man there is
no "Universe"... therefore, the Anthropic Principle not only
explains the "age of the Universe"... but that realization
actually proves that the AP explains the existence of the
Universe in the first place!
OK... but the scientists have YET to realize this; that
the existence itself, of anything, depends on the Anthropic
Principle... and therefore, that the Anthropic Principle de
facto explains the so called "Biblical Creation"...
existence itself only came into being 200,000 years ago when
Man appeared; Homo Sapiens sapiens. Note that the Bible
figures this was 6,000 years ago, but Anthropology was in a
primitive state when the Bible was written, so they're about
194,000 short of the correct date of Creation... but still a
good guess for nonscientific people in primitive times.
OK.... here's the REAL ENTERTAINMENT aspect of all this.
Religious people are far smarter and more widely educated
than Scientists (believe it or not), and consequently they
view the Scientific "discovery" of the Anthropic Principle
with MUCH AMUSEMENT, since they have known about it for
thousands of years.
The Religious people of course realize that "Man created
reality" and they further realize that Scientists think that
"Reality created Man". Knowing that it is futile to try and
explain this to stubborn and nerd like Scientists, the
Religious people are having a field day teasing the
Physicists with long endless dissertations on how
"scientifically peculiar" it is that the Universe seems to
be so "finely tuned" to support life (when of course just
the opposite is true as any dunderhead can see... that in
fact "life is finely tuned to fit into the universe by
Natural Selection). And sure enough, the scientists fall
for it every time, why we have scientists pointing out that
"if the electron was 1% smaller, life couldn't exist", or
"if the Earths orbit was 1% larger, we would be extinct", or
"if there wasn't an excited state of Carbon at 6.67 Mev
carbon based life couldn't exist", blah, blah, blah.
However, it turns out that HAMMOND (2003) is slated to
have the last laugh, a laugh at BOTH the scientists and the
Theologians!
HAMMOND of course long ago recognized that "the mind
creates Reality, and therefore the Universe and everything
in it.... but AMAZINGLY....Hammond also being a prodigious
Relativity physicist psychology investigator
(Psychometrics), accidentally discovered that human
perception (of reality) is actually RELATIVISTICALLY CURVED.
In other words, the reality you see, is actually a CURVED
VERSION of true reality, and that this makes part of true
reality INVISBLE to you, me, and every other person in the
human race. And this phenomena is known historically as
"GOD".
Yes... HAMMOND has discovered (and proved and peer
published, 2003) that the universal Secular Trend Growth
Deficit in Man, causes Man's perception (of sight, sound,
touch, taste, smell) to be RELATIVISTICALLY CURVED thus
rendering 20%, on average, of (normal) Reality to be
invisible... thus scientifically explaining and proving the
existence of God and Heaven in one fell swoop.
Meanwhile the entertaining dialog between Physics and
Religion over the so called "Anthropic Principle" continues
to highly amuse those people in society who already full
well know what God actually is, and I predict, that there
will be much gnashing of teeth among the academic pedants
when HAMMOND'S discovery of the world's first bona fide
Scientific Proof of God (SPOG for short) becomes common
scientific knowlege.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)