- Thank you received: 0
Quantized redshift anomaly
19 years 7 months ago #12478
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b><center>Do fields fall? </center></b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 7 months ago #12479
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />
For example, the mathematics behind the Big Bang. Can it be that it is based on gravity only? That only gravity matters? I don't know, but that's all I hear about from the standard theory. So what's the matter with gravity? And what is gravity? And, for that matter, does a single isolated atom have gravity?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi,
"Hypothesis non fingo" (Newton).
We are, at a time, unable to understand a lot of observations and to give a more physical explanation to mathematical concepts. The first need for a scientist is being able to say: I do not know.
We have mathematical laws well established by the observation of their consequences, that we may use to explain observations, and imagine new systems, provided that we remain in the field where they are verified with a required precision. An example: Maxwell's equations in the vacuum work very well, and in conjonction with a theory of the matter such as the semi-classical theory, they give spectroscopic rules, the CREIL for instance which shows that it is useless (and dangerous) to introduce new hypothesis such as the Bigbang to explain the observation of the stars. But, we need not ignore the limits of Maxwell's equations at high energy, where electron pairs may appear.
<br />
For example, the mathematics behind the Big Bang. Can it be that it is based on gravity only? That only gravity matters? I don't know, but that's all I hear about from the standard theory. So what's the matter with gravity? And what is gravity? And, for that matter, does a single isolated atom have gravity?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi,
"Hypothesis non fingo" (Newton).
We are, at a time, unable to understand a lot of observations and to give a more physical explanation to mathematical concepts. The first need for a scientist is being able to say: I do not know.
We have mathematical laws well established by the observation of their consequences, that we may use to explain observations, and imagine new systems, provided that we remain in the field where they are verified with a required precision. An example: Maxwell's equations in the vacuum work very well, and in conjonction with a theory of the matter such as the semi-classical theory, they give spectroscopic rules, the CREIL for instance which shows that it is useless (and dangerous) to introduce new hypothesis such as the Bigbang to explain the observation of the stars. But, we need not ignore the limits of Maxwell's equations at high energy, where electron pairs may appear.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 7 months ago #13173
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />Still, you made me think about "strange" but what is strange?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
"strange" is, for me a mixture of "marvelous", "useless", maybe "absurd".
The BB requires a lot of hypothesis which I say "strange" because the BB is founded on ignoring elementary spectroscopy which says that the redshifts for which the relative frequency shift df/f is not strictly constant is the result of an elementary light-matter interaction rather than the result of a Doppler (or expansion) effect which requires a new hypothesis (variation of the fine structure constant).
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The energy output produced by the Casimir effect during the creation of a neutron star turns out to be sufficient to explain nova and supernova explosions.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Usual nuclear fusion seems sufficient.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
It is shown that the Casimir effect might be a possible source of the huge energy output of quasars.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The quasars are more probably an evolution of the micro-quasars, objects (neutron stars) of our galaxy which become brighter by accretion of clouds when they leave our galaxy. Therefore they are not huge.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
We propose that the dynamic Casimir effect is a mechanism that converts the energy of neutron starquakes into -rays.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Again, use old physics in place of ignoring old physics: Hertz experiments show that all energy emitted by an oscillator is not absorbed by the receivers, so that it remains "lost waves" (I do not how to translate the French "ondes vagabondes") These lost waves were the source of a lot of absurdities (Dowsing ? in French radiesthésie), but the source of some good physics after the evaluation of their mean energy by Nernst. Many people think that they are quantum objects while Nernst evaluation (1916) was done 10 years before QM! The Casimir effect is an elementary use of these lost waves. They must be used in the semi-classical theory, to obtain a paradox-less physics.
But one must remind that their concept uses Maxwell's equations in the vacuum which fails at high frequencies...
Trying to use these waves at high energies allows to make hypothesis without garantee of serious : interpretation of the gravitation as a high energy Casimir effect, continuous generation of matter... Strange!
<br />Still, you made me think about "strange" but what is strange?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
"strange" is, for me a mixture of "marvelous", "useless", maybe "absurd".
The BB requires a lot of hypothesis which I say "strange" because the BB is founded on ignoring elementary spectroscopy which says that the redshifts for which the relative frequency shift df/f is not strictly constant is the result of an elementary light-matter interaction rather than the result of a Doppler (or expansion) effect which requires a new hypothesis (variation of the fine structure constant).
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The energy output produced by the Casimir effect during the creation of a neutron star turns out to be sufficient to explain nova and supernova explosions.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Usual nuclear fusion seems sufficient.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
It is shown that the Casimir effect might be a possible source of the huge energy output of quasars.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The quasars are more probably an evolution of the micro-quasars, objects (neutron stars) of our galaxy which become brighter by accretion of clouds when they leave our galaxy. Therefore they are not huge.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
We propose that the dynamic Casimir effect is a mechanism that converts the energy of neutron starquakes into -rays.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Again, use old physics in place of ignoring old physics: Hertz experiments show that all energy emitted by an oscillator is not absorbed by the receivers, so that it remains "lost waves" (I do not how to translate the French "ondes vagabondes") These lost waves were the source of a lot of absurdities (Dowsing ? in French radiesthésie), but the source of some good physics after the evaluation of their mean energy by Nernst. Many people think that they are quantum objects while Nernst evaluation (1916) was done 10 years before QM! The Casimir effect is an elementary use of these lost waves. They must be used in the semi-classical theory, to obtain a paradox-less physics.
But one must remind that their concept uses Maxwell's equations in the vacuum which fails at high frequencies...
Trying to use these waves at high energies allows to make hypothesis without garantee of serious : interpretation of the gravitation as a high energy Casimir effect, continuous generation of matter... Strange!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 7 months ago #12516
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
LB, Thanks for your comments posted somewhere up the thread here. You have posted some good how to ideas for modeling. The primary objection I have about models is they get accepted as truth as you can see from most of what is believed about the universe. This is the same thing as any past empire has done. Its like the Incas or Romans have done before; believing what they think is ruling the universe.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 7 months ago #12517
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> (Jim) The primary objection I have about models is they get accepted as truth as you can see from most of what is believed about the universe. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"><hr noshade size="1">
You are so right about models. This "misplaced concreteness" is a problem that all of us have to contend with. Zen has a koan: "Do not mistake the pointing finger for the moon." However, pointing fingers is all we got to work with. So, while the evolution of our knowledge will someday proceed, we will have to make do today with all we got. I think that we need to start by realizing that our models are just that - models. Only then can we use them for the tools that they are, rather than be used by them as if they were master.
Western science (I don't know if I am overgeneralizing or not) for the most part does not seem to acknowledge much less appreciate the wisdom of the ancients or of the so-called metaphysical knowledge systems. (This is not true of the scientfic greats, who always reference the wisdom) Ironic, because the deep message of all of these is that deep knowledge does not come from without, it comes from a direct experience. And this direct eperience is what science is supposed to be all about.
There are indeed two worlds we live in. One is an illusion, the other is real. To believe the illusion is all that is real is delusion. It is worthwhile to listen to what has been said about this subject...
<hr noshade size="1">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
You are so right about models. This "misplaced concreteness" is a problem that all of us have to contend with. Zen has a koan: "Do not mistake the pointing finger for the moon." However, pointing fingers is all we got to work with. So, while the evolution of our knowledge will someday proceed, we will have to make do today with all we got. I think that we need to start by realizing that our models are just that - models. Only then can we use them for the tools that they are, rather than be used by them as if they were master.
Western science (I don't know if I am overgeneralizing or not) for the most part does not seem to acknowledge much less appreciate the wisdom of the ancients or of the so-called metaphysical knowledge systems. (This is not true of the scientfic greats, who always reference the wisdom) Ironic, because the deep message of all of these is that deep knowledge does not come from without, it comes from a direct experience. And this direct eperience is what science is supposed to be all about.
There are indeed two worlds we live in. One is an illusion, the other is real. To believe the illusion is all that is real is delusion. It is worthwhile to listen to what has been said about this subject...
<hr noshade size="1">
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
PART ONE
Words and Language
WILLIAM JAMES
"Out of what is in itselt an indistinguishable, swarming continuum, devoid of distinction (sunyata), or emphasis, our senses make for us, by attending to this motion and ignoring that, a world full of contrasts, of sharp accents, of abrupt changes, of picturesque light and shade. Helmholtz says that we notice only those sensations which are signs to us of things. But what are things? Nothing, as we shall abundantly see, but special groups of sensible qualities, which happen practically or aesthetically to interest us, to which we therefore give substantive names, and which we exalt to this exclusive status of independence and dignity."
ALDOUS HUXLEY
"Every individual is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the linguistic tradition into which he has been born - the beneficiary inasmuch as language gives access to the accumulated records of other people's experience, the victim in so far as it confirms him in the belief that reduced awareness is the only awareness and as it bedevils his sense of reality, so that he is all too apt to take his concepts for data, his words for actual things." [TDOP Huxley 23]
DAVID BOHM
"Indeed, to some extent it has always been necessary and proper for man, in his thinking, to divide things up, if we tried to deal with the whole of reality at once, we would be swamped. However when this mode of thought is applied more broadly to man's notion of himself and the whole world in which he lives, (i.e. in his world-view) then man ceases to regard the resultant divisions as merely useful or convenient and begins to see and experience himself and this world as actually constituted of separately existing fragments. What is needed is a relativistic theory, to give up altogether the notion that the world is constituted of basic objects or building blocks. Rather one has to view the world in terms of universal flux of events and processes."
KEN WILBER
Bergson was also aware of the spurios reality of "things" because, - as he himself pointed out - thought creates things by slicing up reality into small bits that it can easily grasp. Thus when you are think-ing you are thing-ing. Thought does not report things, it distorts reality to create things, and, as Bergson noted, "In so doing it allows what is the very essence of the real to escape." Thus to the extent we actually imagine a world of discrete and separate things, conceptions have become perceptions, and we have in this manner populated our universe with nothing but ghosts. Therefore the Madhyamika declares that Reality, besides being void of conceptual elaboration, is likewise Void of separate things.The doctrine of mutual interpenetration and mutual identification of the Dharmadhatu represents man's highest attempt to put into words that non-dual experience of Reality which itself remains wordless, ineffable, unspeakable, that nameless nothingness. The Dharmadhatu is not entirely foreign to Western thought, for something very similar to it is seen emerging in modern Systems Theory, in Gestalt psychology, and in the organismic philosophy of Whitehead. As a matter of fact, Western science as a whole is moving very rapidly towards a Dharmadhatu view of the cosmos, as biophysicist Ludwig von Bertalanffy states: "We may state as a characteristic of modern sciece that the scheme of isolable units acting in one-way-causality has proved to be insufficient. Hence the appearence, in all fields of science, of notions like wholeness, holistic, organismic, gestalt, etc, which signify that in the last resort, we must think in terms of systems of elements in mutual interaction."
ALAN WATTS
THE JOYOUS COSMOLOGY
"The principle is that all dualities and opposites are not disjoined but polar. They do not confront eachother from afar, they expoliate from a common center. Ordinary thinking conceals polarity and relativity because it employs terms and terminals, the poles, neglecting what lies inbetween them. The difference of front to back, to be or not to be, hides their unity and mutuality."
D.T. SUZUKI
"According to the philosophy of Zen, we are too much a slave to the conventional way of thinking. which is dualistic through and through. No "interpenetration" is allowed, there takes place no fusing of opposites in our everyday logic. What belongs to God is not of this world, and what is of this world is incompatible with the divine. Black is not white, and white is not black. Tiger is tiger, and cat is cat, and they will never be one. Water flows, a mountain towers. This is the way things or ideas go in this universe of the senses and syllogisms. Zen, however, upsets this scheme of thought and substitutes a new one in which there exists no logic, no dualistic arrangement of ideas. We believe in dualism chiefly because of our traditional training. Whether ideas really correspond to facts is another matter requiring a special investigation. Ordinarily we do not inquire into the matter, we just accept what is instilled into our minds; for to accept is more convenient and practical, and life is to a certain extent, though not in reality, made thereby easier. We are in nature conservatives, not because we are lazy, but because we like repose and peace, even superficially. But the time comes when traditional logic holds true no more, for we begin to feel contradictions and splits and consequently spiritual anguish. We lose trustful repose which we experienced when we blindly followed the traditional ways of thinking. Eckhart says that we are all seeking repose whether consciously or not just as the stone cannot cease moving until it touches the earth. Evidently the repose we seemed to enjoy before we were awakened to the contradictions involved in our logic was not the real one, the stone has kept moving down toward the ground. Where then is the ground of non-dualism on which the soul can be really and truthfully tranquil and blessed? To quote Echart again, "Simple people conceive that we are to see God as if He stood on that side and we on this. It is not so; God and I are one in the act of my perceiving Him." In this absolute oneness of things Zen establishes the foundations of its philosophy. The idea of absolute oneness is not the exclusive possesion of Zen. There are other religious and philosophies that preach the same doctrine. If Zen, like other monisms or theisms, merely laid down this principle and did not have anythng specifically to be known as Zen, it would have long ceased to exist as such. But there is in Zen something unique which makes up its life and justifies its claim to be the most precious heritage of Eastern culture. The following "Mondo" or dialogue (literally questioning and answering) will give us a glimsp into the ways of Zen, A monk asked Joshu, one of the greatest masters in China, "What is the ultimate word of Truth?" Instead of giving him any specific answer he made a simple response saying, "Yes." The monk who naturally failed to see any sense in this kind of response asked for a second time, and to this the Master roared back. "I am not deaf!" See how irrelevantly (shall I say) the all-important problem of absolute oneness or of the ultimate reason is treated here! But this is characteristic of Zen, this is where Zen transcends logic and overrides the tyranny and misrepresentation of ideas. As I have said before, Zen mistrusts the intellect, does not rely upon traditional and dualistic methods of reasoning, and handles problems after its own original manners....To understand all this, it is necessary that we should acquire a "third eye", as they say, and learn to look at things from a new point of view."
Zen
I-hsüan
A Sermon
Reverend Sirs, time is precious. Don't make the mistake of following others in desperately studying meditation or the Path, learning words or phrases, seeking after the Buddha or patriarchs or good friends. Followers of the Path, you have only one father and one mother. What else do you want? Look into yourselves . An ancient sage said that Yajna-datta thought he had lost his head [and sought after it], but when his seeking mind was stopped he realized that he had never lost it.
From Sources of Chinese Tradition (de Bary, Chan and Watson, ed. and trans.), pp. 360--363
Typed 31 March 1995
CRS
Ken Wilber
HOW BIG IS OUR UMBRELLA?
And when we pause from all this research, and put theory temporarily to rest, and when we relax into the primordial ground of our own intrinsic awareness, what will we find therein? When the joy of the robin sings on a clear morning dawn, where is our consciousness then? When the sunlight beams from the glory of a snow-capped mountain, where is consciousness then? In the place that time forgot, in this eternal moment without date or duration, in the secret cave of the heart where time touches eternity and space cries out for infinity, when the raindrop pulses on the temple roof, and announces the beauty of the divine with every single beat, when the moonlight reflects in a simple dewdrop to remind us who and what we are, and when in the entire universe there is nothing but the sound of a lonely waterfall somewhere in the mists, gently calling your name-where is consciousness then?
GOETHE
<b>"My friend, all theory is gray, and the Golden tree of life is green."[/</b>center]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Words and Language
WILLIAM JAMES
"Out of what is in itselt an indistinguishable, swarming continuum, devoid of distinction (sunyata), or emphasis, our senses make for us, by attending to this motion and ignoring that, a world full of contrasts, of sharp accents, of abrupt changes, of picturesque light and shade. Helmholtz says that we notice only those sensations which are signs to us of things. But what are things? Nothing, as we shall abundantly see, but special groups of sensible qualities, which happen practically or aesthetically to interest us, to which we therefore give substantive names, and which we exalt to this exclusive status of independence and dignity."
ALDOUS HUXLEY
"Every individual is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the linguistic tradition into which he has been born - the beneficiary inasmuch as language gives access to the accumulated records of other people's experience, the victim in so far as it confirms him in the belief that reduced awareness is the only awareness and as it bedevils his sense of reality, so that he is all too apt to take his concepts for data, his words for actual things." [TDOP Huxley 23]
DAVID BOHM
"Indeed, to some extent it has always been necessary and proper for man, in his thinking, to divide things up, if we tried to deal with the whole of reality at once, we would be swamped. However when this mode of thought is applied more broadly to man's notion of himself and the whole world in which he lives, (i.e. in his world-view) then man ceases to regard the resultant divisions as merely useful or convenient and begins to see and experience himself and this world as actually constituted of separately existing fragments. What is needed is a relativistic theory, to give up altogether the notion that the world is constituted of basic objects or building blocks. Rather one has to view the world in terms of universal flux of events and processes."
KEN WILBER
Bergson was also aware of the spurios reality of "things" because, - as he himself pointed out - thought creates things by slicing up reality into small bits that it can easily grasp. Thus when you are think-ing you are thing-ing. Thought does not report things, it distorts reality to create things, and, as Bergson noted, "In so doing it allows what is the very essence of the real to escape." Thus to the extent we actually imagine a world of discrete and separate things, conceptions have become perceptions, and we have in this manner populated our universe with nothing but ghosts. Therefore the Madhyamika declares that Reality, besides being void of conceptual elaboration, is likewise Void of separate things.The doctrine of mutual interpenetration and mutual identification of the Dharmadhatu represents man's highest attempt to put into words that non-dual experience of Reality which itself remains wordless, ineffable, unspeakable, that nameless nothingness. The Dharmadhatu is not entirely foreign to Western thought, for something very similar to it is seen emerging in modern Systems Theory, in Gestalt psychology, and in the organismic philosophy of Whitehead. As a matter of fact, Western science as a whole is moving very rapidly towards a Dharmadhatu view of the cosmos, as biophysicist Ludwig von Bertalanffy states: "We may state as a characteristic of modern sciece that the scheme of isolable units acting in one-way-causality has proved to be insufficient. Hence the appearence, in all fields of science, of notions like wholeness, holistic, organismic, gestalt, etc, which signify that in the last resort, we must think in terms of systems of elements in mutual interaction."
ALAN WATTS
THE JOYOUS COSMOLOGY
"The principle is that all dualities and opposites are not disjoined but polar. They do not confront eachother from afar, they expoliate from a common center. Ordinary thinking conceals polarity and relativity because it employs terms and terminals, the poles, neglecting what lies inbetween them. The difference of front to back, to be or not to be, hides their unity and mutuality."
D.T. SUZUKI
"According to the philosophy of Zen, we are too much a slave to the conventional way of thinking. which is dualistic through and through. No "interpenetration" is allowed, there takes place no fusing of opposites in our everyday logic. What belongs to God is not of this world, and what is of this world is incompatible with the divine. Black is not white, and white is not black. Tiger is tiger, and cat is cat, and they will never be one. Water flows, a mountain towers. This is the way things or ideas go in this universe of the senses and syllogisms. Zen, however, upsets this scheme of thought and substitutes a new one in which there exists no logic, no dualistic arrangement of ideas. We believe in dualism chiefly because of our traditional training. Whether ideas really correspond to facts is another matter requiring a special investigation. Ordinarily we do not inquire into the matter, we just accept what is instilled into our minds; for to accept is more convenient and practical, and life is to a certain extent, though not in reality, made thereby easier. We are in nature conservatives, not because we are lazy, but because we like repose and peace, even superficially. But the time comes when traditional logic holds true no more, for we begin to feel contradictions and splits and consequently spiritual anguish. We lose trustful repose which we experienced when we blindly followed the traditional ways of thinking. Eckhart says that we are all seeking repose whether consciously or not just as the stone cannot cease moving until it touches the earth. Evidently the repose we seemed to enjoy before we were awakened to the contradictions involved in our logic was not the real one, the stone has kept moving down toward the ground. Where then is the ground of non-dualism on which the soul can be really and truthfully tranquil and blessed? To quote Echart again, "Simple people conceive that we are to see God as if He stood on that side and we on this. It is not so; God and I are one in the act of my perceiving Him." In this absolute oneness of things Zen establishes the foundations of its philosophy. The idea of absolute oneness is not the exclusive possesion of Zen. There are other religious and philosophies that preach the same doctrine. If Zen, like other monisms or theisms, merely laid down this principle and did not have anythng specifically to be known as Zen, it would have long ceased to exist as such. But there is in Zen something unique which makes up its life and justifies its claim to be the most precious heritage of Eastern culture. The following "Mondo" or dialogue (literally questioning and answering) will give us a glimsp into the ways of Zen, A monk asked Joshu, one of the greatest masters in China, "What is the ultimate word of Truth?" Instead of giving him any specific answer he made a simple response saying, "Yes." The monk who naturally failed to see any sense in this kind of response asked for a second time, and to this the Master roared back. "I am not deaf!" See how irrelevantly (shall I say) the all-important problem of absolute oneness or of the ultimate reason is treated here! But this is characteristic of Zen, this is where Zen transcends logic and overrides the tyranny and misrepresentation of ideas. As I have said before, Zen mistrusts the intellect, does not rely upon traditional and dualistic methods of reasoning, and handles problems after its own original manners....To understand all this, it is necessary that we should acquire a "third eye", as they say, and learn to look at things from a new point of view."
Zen
I-hsüan
A Sermon
Reverend Sirs, time is precious. Don't make the mistake of following others in desperately studying meditation or the Path, learning words or phrases, seeking after the Buddha or patriarchs or good friends. Followers of the Path, you have only one father and one mother. What else do you want? Look into yourselves . An ancient sage said that Yajna-datta thought he had lost his head [and sought after it], but when his seeking mind was stopped he realized that he had never lost it.
From Sources of Chinese Tradition (de Bary, Chan and Watson, ed. and trans.), pp. 360--363
Typed 31 March 1995
CRS
Ken Wilber
HOW BIG IS OUR UMBRELLA?
And when we pause from all this research, and put theory temporarily to rest, and when we relax into the primordial ground of our own intrinsic awareness, what will we find therein? When the joy of the robin sings on a clear morning dawn, where is our consciousness then? When the sunlight beams from the glory of a snow-capped mountain, where is consciousness then? In the place that time forgot, in this eternal moment without date or duration, in the secret cave of the heart where time touches eternity and space cries out for infinity, when the raindrop pulses on the temple roof, and announces the beauty of the divine with every single beat, when the moonlight reflects in a simple dewdrop to remind us who and what we are, and when in the entire universe there is nothing but the sound of a lonely waterfall somewhere in the mists, gently calling your name-where is consciousness then?
GOETHE
<b>"My friend, all theory is gray, and the Golden tree of life is green."[/</b>center]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 7 months ago #12518
by JMB
Replied by JMB on topic Reply from Jacques Moret-Bailly
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />
For example, the mathematics behind the Big Bang. Can it be that it is based on gravity only?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The origin of the relativity is the study of the changes of coordinates which leave Maxwell's equations invariant, or, if you prefer, Michelson and Morley experiment which show that the local speed of the light is isotropic.
This is translated into mathematics with the concepts of "Lie algebra" and "Lie groups", in this case the "conformal group" in four dimensions (space+time).
The theory of Lie algebra and groups is an important field of mathematics, lots of books...
You can observe, on a very simple subgroup the complexity of the conformal group:
In the plane (2 dimensions), consider a transformation from any point of the plane A to a point a defined, using a fixed point O and a real number k, by Oa*OA=k (algebric measures) It is a conformal transformation (it is easy to show that the local angles remain invariant). It transform a small surface close to O into a very large surface. Does such a transformation seem be physical ? And the problem is more complicated in 4D, with the particular behaviour of the time !
Pay attention : the mathematical representation of physics is always approximate, the strangest mathematical results of generally good theories must be tested seriously.
<br />
For example, the mathematics behind the Big Bang. Can it be that it is based on gravity only?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The origin of the relativity is the study of the changes of coordinates which leave Maxwell's equations invariant, or, if you prefer, Michelson and Morley experiment which show that the local speed of the light is isotropic.
This is translated into mathematics with the concepts of "Lie algebra" and "Lie groups", in this case the "conformal group" in four dimensions (space+time).
The theory of Lie algebra and groups is an important field of mathematics, lots of books...
You can observe, on a very simple subgroup the complexity of the conformal group:
In the plane (2 dimensions), consider a transformation from any point of the plane A to a point a defined, using a fixed point O and a real number k, by Oa*OA=k (algebric measures) It is a conformal transformation (it is easy to show that the local angles remain invariant). It transform a small surface close to O into a very large surface. Does such a transformation seem be physical ? And the problem is more complicated in 4D, with the particular behaviour of the time !
Pay attention : the mathematical representation of physics is always approximate, the strangest mathematical results of generally good theories must be tested seriously.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.343 seconds