Observations
Compare:
models of electrons:
anu the ultimate atom of Theosphy
Swedenborg singularity
Holographic brain and universe
Pitkanen’s theory
Gravity appears to shape space.
Matti Pitkanen’s Topological Geometrodynamics
Questions: does physicistMatti Pitkanen’s Topological Geometrodynamics theory allow for the findings of biophysics?: note his theory supports quantum biology??
Mainstream physics approach
Mainstream physics has assumed responsibility for discovering “fundamental reality”.
The mainstream focus is on shoehorning the four fundamental forces; the electromagnetic, weak and strong atomic, and gravity, into a unified “Theory of Everything” (TOE).
Currently the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP) claims to have unified the electromagnetic, weak and strong atomic by assuming each force is associated with a particle. This attempt is based on an analogy with the very successful Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). In QED, it was found that the electromagnetic force could be considered to be transmitted by a particle called a photon. By analogy, a theory (QCD) was developed to associate the strong nuclear force with the alleged “gluon” particle, and the weak nuclear force was associated with the W+, W-, and Z boson particles.
Gravitational force, and the graviton are not part of the standard model, so it is considered only a Grand Unified Theory (GUT), not a TOE.
Unfortunately, a picture of fundamental reality is not forthcoming from the physics community, for a number of reasons.
D.L. Hotson argues against the credibility of the SMPP: [1] According to him, the principle criteria for a successful scientific theory would seem to include: It should embody as few “entities” as possible; It should have few adjustable parameters;It should be mathematically consistent; It should satisfy all of the known data; It should obey causality: every effect should have a proximate cause, with no “action at a distance.”; It should be falsifiable, making testable predictions;
Hotson holds that all 6 criteria are violated by the current SMPP. The major problems are that: SMPP is not simple: by the end of the 20th century,the SMPP calledfor around thirty-six “fundamental” particles, most with anantiparticle, and each with its very own “field”: again almostone hundred separate entities, to generate three entities; the electron, proton, and neutron, which are the building blocks of the 92 elements. (ibid)SMPP requires 19 adjustable parameters. (ibid)SMPP is not mathematically consistent: (ibid)
The SM calculations of many ordinary values come out to be infinite. To get rid of this “impossible result, “renormalization” is invoked: the positive infinity is, in effect, divided by a negative infinity. Richard Feynman, who originated the “renormalization” process (with Schwinger and Tomonaga), himself called it a “. . . a dippy process!” [2]Asked for what he had won the Nobel Prize, Feynman replied, “For sweeping them [the infinities] under the rug.” [3]
Gordon Kane [4] notes: “In its basic form, the Standard Theory is a theory for massless particles. All the leptons, quarks, and bosons must be particles without mass, or the mathematical consistency of the theory is destroyed. The photon and the gluons indeed have no mass, but the others do.” If values for mass are just inserted into the equations, then calculations start to give infinite values for many ordinary measurements.
Hotson holds that the Dirac Equation, postulating positive energy positron-electron pairs, and also undetectable negative energy positron-electron pairs, resolves all of the problems with the Standard Theory of particle physics, and provides simple, logical, and natural models of the electromagnetic field, the “photon,” the “strong nuclear” force, the Psi wave, inertia, and gravitation.[5]
Another issue with describing a physics based fundamental reality is the bazaar nature of quantum mechanics.
Renowned quantum physicist and Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman said “No one understands Quantum Mechanics”. In their book The Quantum Challenge: Modern Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics[6], authors George Greenstein and Arthur Zajonc note that the photon of electromagnetic radiation is much more subtle than the simplistic theories of Einstein predict. They point out that the challenges to our understanding posed by quantum theory extend all the way to our conceptions of the nature of physical reality. Their research has made it clear that our conventional view of reality is entirely inadequate.
Another problem is that the two greatest theories of 20th century physics; quantum theory and general relativity theory, which addresses the nature of gravity, are incompatible.
As David Bohm noted, In relativity, movement is continuous, causally determinate and well defined, while in quantum mechanics it is discontinuous, not causally determinate and not well-defined. Physics has been at an impasse ever since this incompatibility has been recognized.
Some physicists argue that we don’t even understand matter, so how is a “TOE”, or even a “GUT” possible?
In addition, a GUT of the type represented by the Standard Modelwouldnot, and could not address what is most fundamental to our existence: Life, and consciousness.
Understanding Matter
String theory, holographic theory, and vortex theory offer alternative perspectives on understanding matter.
string theory
String theory, which asserts that all phenomena are made up of very tiny strings of energy, which vibrate in varying ways, has been a major contender in the attempt to shoehorn the universe into that single GUT equation. Edward Witten showed that the original five different versions of string theory were merely different perspectives on the same thing; this theory was called “M” theory, and requires 11 dimensions. String theory also predicts multiple universes. These dimensions and universes are predicted by mathematics. [7]
Without intending disparagement, the concept of multiple dimensions and universes in string theory may be compared with the concept of epicycles in predicting the motions of the planets in medieval astronomy. Each is an analytical construction that fits the mathematical data, but provides no continuity in the structuring of multiple epicycles, dimensions or universes.
Interestingly, Leonard Susskind, known as the “Father of String Theory”, with the publication of his latest books, The Cosmic Landscape and The Black Hole War is at the epicenter of current mainstream thinking about the nature of the universe. [8]
According to Susskind, String Theory is based on Quantum Mechanics and describes a system of elementary particles similar to those in our universe. It assumes all material objects interact through gravitational forces, and the universe has black holes, and we have impressive evidence that string theory is a mathematically consistent theory of some world…
Problems with string theory
According to Sylvia, the current model of superstring theory makes use of a classical filament of vibrating energy (which is not quantum mechanical) and a “calabi-Yau” shape. The “calabi-Yau” shape is a mathematical depiction of a unit of spacetime geometry, upon which the strings of energy vibrate, supposedly creating all the laws, forces, and particle properties of the universe.
This theory has several problems: The theory starts with a classical rather than quantum mechanical framework of string. Since spacetime geometry is required, the theory is background dependent. Theorists also have no way to know the exact geometrical form in which space can bend into extra dimensions. The “calabi-Yau” shape is only one example of the many ways extra dimensions can be made to curl up.
String theory and the “holographic principle”
Susskind notes “There is something crazy about string theory that I first came across in 1969, but it is so crazy that string theorists don’t even want to think about it… the mathematics of string theory implies an absurdly violent case of quantum jitters [zero point fluctuations], with fluctuations so ferocious that the pieces of an electron would spread out to the ends of the universe. To most physicists, including string theorists, that seems so crazy that it is unthinkable.”
“String theory …places every bit of information, whether in black holes or black newsprint, at the outer edges of the universe” [9].
The appearance of this information at the outer edges of the universe for Susskind constitutes a “holographic principle”; a peculiar type of non-locality arrived at apparently independently from Bohm’s theory of a holographic universe.
String theorists have been developing the idea that the space and time we inhabit, including ourselves, might be nothing more than an illusion, a hologram conjured up by a reality which lacks a crucial feature of the world as we perceive it: the third dimension. Just as the 3D image in a hologram emerges from patterns encoded on a flat piece of paper, so, the theorists speculate, our 3D space may emerge from a peculiar kind of physics that lives on a 2D surface at the edge of the universe. Maldacena's string theory based holographic universe
It a hologram because all the physical goings-on inside it can be described by a physical theory that's only defined on the boundary. What's more, it's a universe in which the gravity/quantum conundrum has been resolved completely: the boundary theory is purely quantum, it contains no gravity, but a being living in the interior will still experience gravity. Gravity in this universe is part of the holographic illusion.[10]
Holographic universe
David Bohm developed a version of Quantum Mechanics which gives the same results as standard quantum theory, but, but is continuous, causally determinate and well defined, and thus compatible with relativity.
From this, he went on to develop the idea of an implicate and explicate order. The implicate, or enfolded order, is seen as a deeper and more fundamental order of reality. In contrast, the explicate or "unfolded" order include the abstractions that humans normally perceive. The explicate order arises out of the implicate analogous to the waya manifest holographic image arises out of an unmanifest hologram. In a sense then, Bohm proposes a Holographic nature of the Universe. [11]
holographic brain model of cognitive function
Karl Pribram developmed a holographic brain model of cognitive function. Pribram’s research and theory encompass the whole spectrum of human consciousness: learning and learning disorders, imagination, meaning, perception, intention, paradoxes of brain function. [12]
He and other researchers uncovered what appeared to be the brain’s neural strategies for knowing and sensing. It appears that for us to use our senses, the brain performs complex calculations on the frequencies of data it receives. This amounts to a local spatial frequency filtering (fourier transform) of sensory input.
These mathematical processes have little common sense relationship to the world as we perceive it. [13]
Pribrams brain model has gained experimental support.
.Bohm and Pribram collaborated on their ideas, resulting in the Holographic paradigm worldview discussed in a book by that neme edited by philosopher Ken Wilber. [14]
Taken together, Pribram and Bohm’s theories, put in a nutshell, say:
Our brains mathematically construct “concrete “ reality by interpreting frequencies from another dimension, a realm of meaningful, patterned primary reality that transcends time and space. The brain is a hologram, interpreting a holographic universe. [15]
Experimental support for a holographic universe
String theory apparently supports a holographic aspect of the universe, though perhaps with different physics from Pribram and Bohm. The concept of a “holographic universe” has also been supported by the results of an investigation into gravity waves by a German team. Their gravity wave detector had been plagued by an inexplicable noise. According to a researcher at Fermilab in BataviaIllinois, the noise is a holographic , and leads to the conclusion of a holographic universe. [16]
Vortex theories
“Vortex” ideas of particles in natural philosophy were explored in the 17th century by Kepler, Descartes, Leibniz, and Huygens, in the 18th by Swedenborg and Boeković, and in the 19th by Ampere, Fresnel, Kelvin, Rankine, Tait, and many others. Ampere visualized the ultimate particles as tiny electrical circuits. [17] When the luminiferous æther fluid was not detected in the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887, vortex theory went out of vogue. [18]
Swedenborg’s singularity
Emanuel Swedenborg lived from 1688-1772, and claimed to have received extensive instruction in philosophical, spiritual, and theological knowledge from the “other side” after his “inner sight was opened” in his 50s.
Edward Sylvia argues that ES’s theory of creation starts not with one singularity, like the Big Bang, but with an infinite number of them filling the prenatal universe. Since only one singularity rules out a quantum mechanical beginning, Steven Hawking has also surmised that the universe could contain an infinite number of singularities.
ES’s prenatal (structureless) universe is very similar to the quantum vacuum. According to Sylvia, ES’s pre-geometric singularities merge to form a spiral vortex that has spatial extension; an inside and outside, and thus becomes physically manifest.
According to Sylvia, David Bohm and Michael Heller believe that the Cartesian geometric description of space must be challenged; that it is too rigid and inadequate for uncovering new and hidden orders of reality. In harmony with this concept, ES’s singularity is background independent; it creates its own space, and offers structured or differential spaces based on dynamic functions. A space could be described as a mental or spiritual action as well as a physical action.
Sylvia also argues that ES’s singularity meets Lee Smolin’s criterion for a theory of quantum gravity. Gravity can not only be described as discrete units (quanta), but also qualitatively distinct units of flux that operates in different “kinds” of spaces and under different geometrical principles. [19]
Anu, the Ultimate Atom
Anu, the ultimate atom, described by Theosophists Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, also may be described as a spiral vortex. [see PSN papers electron models.doc, gunify.doc, Grand Unification.doc. etc.]
alternative electron models
Some alternative physicists are returning to the idea of 3-D vortex electron models. Several of these recent models capture some but not all of the electron’s known physical characteristics:
The Spinning Charged Ring model [20] is based on classical electrodynamics, and is consistent with the electron’s spin and its magnetic moment (to the second order approximation). This extremely thin charged ring (its main radius is the Compton wavelength divided by 2 pi and its ring radius is about 10 –200 meters [21] spins at the speed of light. This model is missing a major characteristic of the electron–its experimentally observed deBroglie wavelength.
The Compton Radius Vortex model [22] describes the electron as a relativistic vortex rotating at the speed of light, whose radius is the Compton wavelength. In this model there is a physically inaccessible region at a radius less than the Compton wavelength within the electron vortex where there are virtual particles traveling at superluminal velocities, while on a sphere of radius equal to the Compton wavelength there are massless ‘particlets’ travelling at the speed of light. The electron is considered a quantum black hole [23]. This model has the electron’s spin and magnetic moment (to first order) but also does not account for the deBroglie wavelength.
The Space Resonance model [24] is also related to the Compton wavelength by incoming and outgoing spherically symmetric scalar waves to and from the electron model’s center. This model has the electron’s spin, 720 deg rotational symmetry and deBroglie wavelength but not its magnetic moment.
Connections of Bohm’s/ holographic ideas andspiraling singularities
Bohm’s interpretation of quantum mechanics, which allows for the holographic model of the universe, evokes the quantum potential, which is useful in Sidharth’s Compton radius vortex model of the electron. This model of the electron has been represented by a theosophic image of Anu, the ultimate atom. Anu has a seven layered fractal structure, allowing for other theosophic concepts, such as layers of aura. As noted above, the spiraling Anu is similar to Swedenborg’s singularity. This series of associations suggests that Bohm’s holographic model, and the varying versions of spiraling micro particles, are compatible.
Life and Consciousness
Oxford Scholar Roger Penrose notes: “A scientific world-view which does not profoundly come to terms with the problem of conscious minds can have no serious pretensions of completeness. Consciousness is part of our universe, so any physical theory which makes no proper place for it falls fundamentally short of providing a genuine description of the world.”
Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine, and refers to himself as an atheist. In the film A Brief History of Time, however, he said, "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along – it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it."[25]