Word of the Day: No. 8

Superconductivity. : a complete disappearance of electrical resistance in a substance especially at very low temperatures. Merriam Webster

The Humdrum Syndrome and the Origins of the Mundane

The Human Complaint–that there is never enough time–can be traced to the spacetime curve. Because spacetime is curved time can only follow a single one-dimensional path. Time, then, is available in only a finite amount, albeit, appearing infinite, but in actuality being a repeating finite amount. Hence, there is not enough for everyone. The Humdrum Syndrome, brought on by the Human Complaint and caused by the resulting circular path perceived by the spacetime curve, is an effect of the spacetime curve problem, and the origins of the Mundane. However, if spacetime were straight, and thus able to flow in multiple directions simultaneously, in this monochronic age where time is a resource and space a commodity, everyone perceiving in the third dimension could benefit.

The scope of the spacetime curve problem extends beyond the curvature of spacetime and cast tendrils out into the realms of velocity, acceleration, motion, position, and ultimately into the very material of human perception.

Time is a sort of Doppler Effect to human beings, derived from our perception of the length of time it takes for some perceived object to travel from point A to point B. All observed objects are the perception of electromagnetic radiation in the form of the visible photonic spectrum, called Light. When we speak of Light, we are also speaking of matter. Any mass object warps the spacetime fabric surrounding it and drags spacetime along with it, causing a twisting of spacetime.

 

“[There is a] dependence of space and time on velocity: at speeds near that of light, space itself becomes contracted in the direction of motion and the passage of time slows.” ~Gravitation

 

The very existence of mass objects causes spacetime to be curved, and that curvature determines the perception of Time. Human beings (a mass object) perceive time relative to their present position on the spacetime grid. The Humdrum Syndrome is the effect of that perception on the observer as he or she observes the universe. The expansion of the universe, too, is accelerating, so humans believe that Time is also accelerating.

The faster an object moves the slower its time relative to its motion. Humans are already moving at a fast pace (relatively); therefore, as people move faster to try to catch up with the speed of light, they should actually be moving slower relative to an observer (the clock). As a human being attempts to catch the speed of light (his “pursuit of happiness”), he is, in effect, stretching time out to infinite proportions without ever gaining any space. In other words, his distance and velocity remain at zero.

Humans always perceive other objects relative to the time taken for the electromagnetic radiation emitted by that object to reach our eyes plus the time taken for our brains to compute the apparent look-position of that object. Thus, human perception of another object is always relative to the past. Humans may not even have begun to use the time available, because humans are essentially always moving backwards (into the future; making each one of us a potential time machine, with the body as the space vessel) relative to one’s reference point. Conversely, this same logic could also be interpreted to mean that humans have already consumed the time available and no one yet has awakened to the reality that we are, in fact, “Out of Time.”

more. . .

*Image credits (all artwork used under CC license)–
“A Distortion In Spacetime” by TORLEY
“take it as you need it” by Parg
“Quantum Gravity” by NASA Goddard Photo and Video
“Untitled” by Tau Zero

Electron Dreams

Is one really All?

Allow me to explain: Reality (that is consensus reality) behaves like a canvas that shapes and transforms before the beholder.

An End to the Schrodinger Conundrum—the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle assumes that the observer also has powers to predict unconsciously the outcome. You see, the observer cannot inherently possess the qualities of a conductor, as the Uncertainty Principle implies. Because the electron appears as a wave and particle, the observer cannot have any bearing upon the outcome. The real question is the observer sees either wave or particle because both he and the electron are one and the same.

From the electron’s perspective (does this seem so outrageous? Are humans not also electrons; more complex certainly as there are amalgamations of many electrons to form layers of skin, organs, hair, etc. etc., but electrons all), is not the observer also particle and wave? Not metaphorically the same, mind you, but actually.

When you stare at your reflection before breakfast, do you marvel that you appear? Do you question whether you are there or not there? Do you wonder if you are both here and there? Do you try to walk through the looking glass? It is the same with the observer and electron, as the electron becomes reflection of the observer, and the observer reflection of the electron. As such, what measurable difference between observer and electron can there be?

Golden Symmetry—when the electron moves as does the observer. Think of the intimacy between observer and electron as analogous to the eye of the beholder, only observer and electron are more like eye and beholder. As if the observer were the eye and electron the beholder, and electron as the eye and observer as the beholder. If this relationship seems symbiotic, no actual host and parasite exist, as the existence of host and parasite assumes there is a distinction between them. With observer and electron, no such distinction exists.

Oneness as Reciprocal Union—the concept of oneness is the same mistake as the uncertainty principle assumes there is distinction between observer and electron. This thought is not in error, but incomplete. There is no distinction between any singular entities (the proverbial ‘We’ whatever that includes) from which to pinpoint an all-encompassing oneness, no origin. To say We Are All One is to observe the electron in wave state. I posit, mustn’t there first be a distinction to have elements that can connect into this action at a distance known as oneness?

Peering in again at the Uncertainty Principle: How is it possible for any one (any beholder or electron) to possess control (that is the ability to determine as observer the eventual appearance of the electron)? I mean, the idea that the observer can inherently possess the ability to control (conduct, as if the observer were separate) the universe to such an extent as to predict the electron and himself is kind of just like hugging yourself.

Let us follow another thread further. To believe that because the boat has a motor and rudder whoever holds the wheel steers the boat across the ocean is like thinking the observer controls/conducts the appearance of the electron as wave or particle. No matter what the engine horsepower or nuclear powered propulsion used, one hiccup from the ocean depths renders any expense useless.  It is more like the ocean steers the boat. The conundrum of the Uncertainty Principle occurs because humans do not control the motion of electrons, they and the electron move simultaneously, neither conductor, neither observer or observed, neither at the wheel, both floating along in quantum foam.

Einstein spoke of relativity; I can see his point. In the guise of oneness, the only point of reference from which all things can be relative is the reflection, which means relativity may actually be an illusion.

Ones Within Ones (or A Way Out of the Heisenberg Absurdity) —  See, the beholder and the electron may be symmetrical (do not be so limited in imagination, symmetry does not have to be identical in appearance to be symmetrical. Two concepts can be symmetrical, as such two conceptual masses, an object, can be symmetrical of one another’s motion). This is no contest to thinking; however, let us move laterally to the left and see what we can see. Imagine a Cartesian coordinate system, x-, y-axis. Turn the axis sharply to the left and arrive at a z-axis, a 90-degree turn from the y-axis. If you turn your mind 90 degrees from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle . . . are we still beholder or electron, wave or particle? This idea of borders must first be unlearned.

“People say to me, “Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?” No, I’m not… If it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it — that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it’s like an onion with millions of layers… then that’s the way it is. . . . [M]y interest in science is to simply find out about the world and the more I find out the better it is, I like to find out…” ~Richard Feynman

Oneness and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle are incomplete as within the depths of their meaning sits the assumption that there is but one level of observation. That of the observer and electron as separate, so the conundrum is the observer can only see the electron as wave or particle and nothing else. Within the Uncertainty Principle and Oneness exists the real question that there is no distinction between observer and electron, like the electron the observer is both wave and particle as well. As Einstein’s theory of relativity posits, the observer and electron are relative to one another, in motion simultaneously, so observer cannot see beyond wave or particle. The illusion exists because the observer has only a single lens perspective; there are other ones. The flaw of oneness, which assumes We Are All One, rather than We Are All Ones Within Ones . . .  within ones, and so forth in all directions. It is more a matter of peeling away the layers, than a single perception.

Oneness does not stop at one, no prime mover exists (no which from which there is no whicher. Apologies to my fine fellow, Alan Watts), no origin, no nicely spelt out beginning to the story, motion does not require cause and effect or effect and cause. As the photon emitted from the electron, it simply moves as randomness disguised as cause and effect.

When oneness appears as social diversity (the continual perpetual mind-spinning circular categorization of intangibles, the tree-ing of an otherwise single concept, i.e., departmental hierarchy within a body corporate) bureaucracy abounds, actually epitomizes that there is no real origin. When it is used for the pleasure of finding things out then you have onion-ing. Where each one within one has all other ones, yet, out of nothing also appears as a new one (within one). Analogous to a field of probable action constantly flexing to accommodate new ones, without bias or judgment.

Like an elaborately woven tapestry with fractal designs, the tapestry as first layer oneness (or the observer’s perspective/perception), and all the threads are the ones within. One can look at the tapestry and say We Are All One, and then one can look at a thread and say We Are All One. It is not so much that we forego the trees for the forest or the forest for the trees, as looking closely at a thread. It works in the other direction, too; the tapestry does not end at its borders. Think of the tapestry as our known universe, and the threads as people-ing, earth-ing, sun-ing, solar system-ing, hell, it could even be universe-ing.

Let us not end here (wherever ‘here’ may be; our imaginary 90-degree turn), as further question beckons: Who am I?

Image Credits (used with permission through CC license)–
(in order of appearance)
“I create my day” by Cornelia Kopp
“Schrodinger’s lolcat” by Dan Lurie
“curious” & “moon ride” by Cornelia Kopp
“Wolfgang Pauli’s Portrait: Macrorational vs. Microirrational” by AlphaDesigner
“looking for the sun”, “infinite worlds” & “wanderer between worlds” by Cornelia Kopp

Related articles

• Uncertainty Principle, NonDuality and Reality (NIKOtheOrb.wordpress.com)
• The Uncertainty Principle (starsnstuff.wordpress.com)
• Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle/Observer Effect (frugal2free.typepad.com)
• There is no such thing as emptiness. There is only quantum foam. (musingsofamildmanneredman.com)
• Parallel universes: The science, mythology and quantum weirdness (voxxi.com)
• I’ve Heard One Physicist Say the Cosmos Is Ultimately a Concept (jrbenjamin.com)
• Electron Dreams (exploringthelateral.wordpress.com)
• On Borges, Particles and the Paradox of the Perceived (opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com)
• I Don’t Think It Means What You Think It Means (topdocumentaryfilms.com)

The Pleasure of Finding UnThinking Out

Was Richard Feynman really intelligent?

Richard Feynman’s mind discovered secrets of natural law as if it were compelled to, of this attribute who has any doubt? Feynman was known for his uncanny ability at peering into the quantum foam and divining the mysteries of the universes. However, he was not a magician, but a primordial poet. Pulling on the secrets of potential existence, miniature big bangs contained in an elegant symphony of symbols. For all his beautiful brilliance therein lay fallacies of flaw: logic. His theories and discoveries (Feynman Diagrams) have been illustrated unalterable thoroughly and rigorously proven to be correct, still standing against the test of time. In what is he correct though? Elegance? Symbols? Strung together numbers quantifying the unquantifiable? A seeker, searching out the bottomless pit of observable action?  Atomic in his energy race for the penultimate pinnacle of “that which there is no whicher”? And what is its symbol? A Bohr Model surrounding Manhattan?

Richard Feynman said that during the building of the atomic bomb, he never thought about the human lives the testing of the bomb portended. After the Trinity Test ended, he and the other scientists celebrated. What we, the beneficiaries of the atomic race, know and remember of that era are the photographs depicting the burned victims and stock footage of the atomic tests released by the military; and known by its true name, Destruction.

Richard Feynman celebrated the precursor of searing, fleshless death to tens of thousands because a product of his brilliant mind succeeded. To Richard Feynman the magnificent glow of what would ten days later become Little Boy was the affirmation of success. To the residents of Hiroshima, it was the wrath of god. Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, Nobel Prize winner, professor, joker, father, friend, husband, and child of the universe played the drums and drank wine to the tune of death’s bell. Is that not disgusting? Is that not an heinous act? Does that not make one want to deny someone as prestigious as a Nobel Prize recipient could be so. . . EVIL?

Richard Feynman did not think.

Man’s celebration of his labor pangs can be awfully unwinding. Man’s attempt at supernatural godhood can create a monster of focus that life itself fails notice. In all other aspects of his life, Feynman displayed great depths of empathy, generosity, and kindness as profound as his natural talent. Feynman was not a monster of a man, but was the ilk of great men recorded by human history. His feats are not small in impact on human consciousness leaping into the future (Feynman whispered the beginnings of the current technologically advanced computer age into the builders of the digital revolution [quantum computing]).

Initially, Feynman’s focus was such that he did not consider consequences of success, even after the rational reasons for developing this type of mass destruction no longer applied. As the soldiers hired to drop the bombs thought nothing of the life below the peering eye of their scope, Feynman did not realize until later the impact and totality of the act he committed. Beyond the air, below the looming devastation lay only a target, a completion of a mission, the following of orders, nothing more. Nothing more. Where it lay as the greatest war in the belly of the hired soldier;  this kind of conditioned response is almost necessary under such extreme psychological provisions, elsewise the hired soldier might not drop the bomb (or build it). Words are chosen carefully so as instruction overrides conscience, what Feynman lacked in his focus to solve the problem of nuclear fission. He simply did not think.

Let us delve deeper into the quantum foam—

I once thought logic superior to thinking, as if to think were some diseased form of logic. I was delightfully mistaken. Logic has within its very philosophy an inherent and obvious flaw, it mimics thinking. Logic can be described as a series of instructions strictly adhered to, through which process one can conclude true or false, an unthinking (as with thinking there needn’t be any instructions strictly adhered to). As such, logic cannot sustain under its own power, as it can tend toward massive destruction (however, this is not altogether negative as massive destruction transitions into massive construction). Lest duality be the term conjured in mind, know nonduality waits always behind apparent duality. How the universe (“the which from which there is no whicher” ~Alan Watts) holds no bias for any life, animate and inanimate.

That confusion of life, animate and inanimate, is often made. Inanimation cannot, nor does not, oppose life; life includes the animate and the inanimate. Whatever exists is life is the universe. Whether or not its resonance falls under category as animate or inanimate does not apply. For example, a robot animates like a human, is it life?  A human being mimics an inanimate vegetable or mineral, is he/she life? What line of distinction marks life from animate and inanimate?  Animate merely implies that a form of life is imbibed with motion, with motivation and will, with mind and all its capacities. An inanimate object implies that a form of life can be without motion, motivation and will, and without full capacity of mind.

[This does not sound terribly enlightening.

Rest assured, though, that a future writing should elaborate more on this apparent problem of animate vs inanimate. In the meanwhile, let us return to Ritty Feynman.]

The preceding idea Feynman did not fully comprehend until later. Feynman’s brilliant mind could imagine multi-dimensional abstractions layered upon one another in chaotic complexities; he could grasp the madness of the quantum and return with insights so illuminating as to be frightening. Nevertheless, Feynman did not realize the breadth of such an idea (the nonduality of natural law, of quantum mechanics [perhaps the leap of imagination Einstein supposedly could not stomach about quantum mechanics?] until later in his life.

The focused single mind needs equilibrium (as disequilibrium can be no different from the bicameral mind Julian Jaynes discusses about consciousness) to recycle destruction into construction. It was only after he realized that he did not think and why that Feynman erased the line between this or that. The secret of quantum mechanics and answer to the immortal question: But how could it be that way?

“The question is: what if our whole universe were just an atom of an infinitely bigger universe? And what if each of “our world’s” atoms contains a whole universe? In either case, we would ever know. We aren’t able to look past our universe (or past our immediate surroundings in space and time, to tell the truth), nor we can look into anything smaller than a few sub-atomic particles.” ~Daniele Nicolucci

This or that becomes this and that, before it becomes thisthat, then thatthis . . . thathis . . .thaits . . . and so forth. Like galaxies colliding [except this is a slight misnomer. When spring arrives there is no clean exact line marking the first day of spring and the last of winter. Spring weaves through winter, tendrils of the awakening days to come ride the last of winter’s wonder]. . .  Galaxies so-call collide, but they don’t hit one another like two walls meeting each other in the middle of an otherwise empty room, they weave through one another, until one can hardly tell one from the other (at a distance) . . . then something new emerges. Two galaxies wrestle but for no reward and under no competition, only the struggle and then oneness again. Just as a paradigm shift ushers a new era, and as a great innovation charts the way for a new kind of culture and mentality.

Feynman played with physics until the day he died, the pleasure of finding things out continued as his mantra well into his last days. One cannot divine pleasure from finding things out until one has forgone his detachment from all other life. Leggo the ego. . .

The day Man touches that obelisk could be the day he always remembers to think.

“I, a universe of atoms, an atom in the universe.” ~Richard P. Feynman

Image Credits—
“Richard Feynman Digital Painting” by Balamurugan Bhaskar
“Hydrogen Density Plots” by Windell H. Oskay, EvilMadScientist
“Substatics Quantum Mechanics Maxi Single” by AlphaDesigner
“Galaxies” by Daniele Nicolucci
“Feynman on complementarity between science and religion” by Martin LaBar

For Your Pleasure: Men’s Madness: The Myth of Male Reason (this is a documentary about logic run wild in a society)

Related articles

• Richard Feynman Biographical Comic Out Today (tested.com)
• Not-so-Serious Sunday 46: Richard Feynman’s Ode to a Flower (oncirculation.com)
• Richard Feynman: The Pleasure of Fnding Things Out (ritholtz.com)
• Horizon: Richard Feynman – No Ordinary Genius (BBC Horizon 1993) (thedisquisitionist.wordpress.com)
• Richard Feynman and The Connection Machine (longnow.org)
• Feynman’s double-slit experiment preserved (nanowerk.com)
• Learn How Richard Feynman Cracked the Safes with Atomic Secrets at Los Alamos (openculture.com)
• The Common Character Trait of Geniuses: A Passion for Abstraction (bigthink.com)