So Dr. Mae-Wan Ho on Negentropy of Life:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m6u6j8NOBw&ab_channel=InstScienceInSociety Video excerpt of the RAINBOW worm (actually a daphnia in that excerpt)
"the opening shots are inside the Daphnia... heart pulsing and muscles contracting to the samba"
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Quantum Jazz...
Daphnia are members of the order Cladocera, and are one of the several small aquatic crustaceans commonly called water fleas because their saltatory swimming style resembles the movements of fleas.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3609844/
Establishing a new physics of life....Life, in the ideal, is a domain that captures and stores energy and mobilizes it quantum coherently in perfectly coupled cycles that generate no entropy. ...The nearest analogy to the quantum coherence of a living system is a laser that becomes coherent simultaneously in more than one frequency, and all the frequencies are coupled together."
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho on Negentropy:
"Schrödinger uses it to identify the remarkable ability of the living system, not only to avoid the effects of entropy production - as dictated by the second law - but to do just the opposite, to increase organization, which intuitively, seems like the converse of entropy. Szent-Györgi, on the other hand, alludes to both the notions of free energy and of organization in his use of the term. Both scientists have the right intuition - energy and organization are inextricably bound up with each other....
Perhaps, what they have failed to take account of is that the so-called information is already supplied by the special structure or organization of the system in which energy is stored. Biological membranes, in particular, are excitable structures poised for relaying and amplifying weak signals into the cell.... The processes, rather than constituting the system's 'memory' as we might think, are actually projections into the future at every stage."
https://www.i-sis.org.uk/negentr.php
So Professor Basil J. Hiley has tried to explain the noncommutative geometry math he is using - that captures this "projection into the future" at each stage. As the Noncommutative Geometry scientists have now stated - it means a DIFFERENT spacetime for each force of energy operating (gravity, electromagnetic, weak, strong). And so this "different spacetime" is in fact the noncommutative phase linking them. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho relied on Glauber using some kind of cross-correlated statistics so that each phase or stage had independent freedom but as a whole they are quantum coherent.
But in terms of the Ecological Crisis - if you look into it - then Entropy is defined as the Pollution or "externalities" (economics) of scientific technology. So typically science defines negentropy as creating order of information to produce energy and then the entropy is the random heat as noise that is a byproduct of the technology. But since Earth is a "closed system" in terms of biological life both creating and relying on the Earth's atmosphere as a heat balance (with a delay long enough in time to produce enough heat for life) - then Western science has actually created entropy as inherent to the technology ITSELF - not just the pollution created.
This is what is promoted as the "music logarithmic spiral" - as supposed "negentropy" when in fact it is ENTROPY - and in contrast - it is noncommutative phase as the future overlapping with the past (via negative time and superluminal frequency) that is the real Negentropy of Life on Earth.
So then Dr. Mae-Wan Ho cited Wolfram Schommers on time-energy uncertainty.
As that link shows - he is stating Time needs to be an OPERATOR - not an "outside parameter" as it is typically defined in science. Dr. Lee Smolin is emphasizing this same point. So when Time is an operator then it forces the noncommutative phase truth of reality that in fact REVERSES the role of entropy - such that Western technology is inherently entropy while wild life is inherently negentropy.
So then Wolfram Schommers is emphasizing - as we read down in the book - that the typical quantum physics still relies on a classical definition of time and hence their typical "time-frequency uncertainty" is still not correct.
As mentioned, the character of time remains unchanged when we go from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics, i.e. time is a simple parameter in quantum theory. This lack becomes obvious in particular in the case of relativistic formulation because there is no symmetry between space and time. This is however not in agreement with the most basic conceptions of the special theory of relativity. Louis de Broglie expressed this fact as follows: "The present quantum theory in all its versions takes time as the evolution parameter and therefore destroys the symmetry between space and time."
In quantum systems the principle of conservation of energy can be temporarily violated....This has far reaching consequences.Wolfram Schommers on Cosmic Secrets 2012 book
Wolfram Schommers, theoretical physicist and professor at The Research Center in Karlsruhe, Germany,
The problem with self-organizing processes is that we do not know what the structure can reorganize itself to, Schommers said. If these processes got out of control, they could spread unrestrainedly and ultimately change the Earth’s mass, he said.
“Even though it is at a nano level, it can be a horror scenario,” he said.
The relationship between mind and reality is usually perceived as an event that takes place in reality and producing simultaneously an internal image in the mind. So it takes place twice, so to speak, and there is a one-to-one correspondence between the two events. Within this conception, matter is embedded in space and time, and can be designated as "container-principle." This monograph emphasizes that the well-known philosopher Immanuel Kant denied this principle and he stated that reality is principally not recognizable to a human being, and modern biological evolution seems to lead exactly to Kant's point of view. Within the theory of evolution, man's image about reality in mind does not have to be complete and true in the sense of a precise reproduction, and it is relatively easy to recognize that even space and time should not be elements of reality outside. Within this conception, only a certain part of reality, which the human being needs for mastering life, is projected onto space and time, and we come to the so-called "projection principle." Then, spacetime defines the window to reality, leading to a number of exciting and essential questions, some of which are discussed in this monograph.
As is known, current physics is mainly based on the container-principle. But this monograph proposes that the projection principle is obviously more suitable and could help to solve open-ended questions as, for example, in connection with the nature of time, the particle-wave duality, the cosmological constant, etc. Regarding the statistical behavior of matter, Einstein's statement "God does not play dice" has to be seen in a new light, but also Feynman's general viewpoint on quantum theory that it cannot be understood by man. However, conventional quantum theory is obviously not a consistent framework as per the projection principle. The term "world equation" is critically probed in this monograph.
https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Reality-Space-Time-Wolfram-Schommers/dp/9814556777
- Publisher : Wspc (September 22, 2014)
Wolfram Schommers:
The world before us appears spontaneously without any intellectual help. We consider this “world view” as independent from the observer. This is obviously not the case and is particularly demonstrated by the following experiment: A human being who puts on goggles equipped with inverting lenses sees the entire world upside down, not forever but only initially. After a certain time the entire visual field of the observer flips over and the objects are seen as they had been before the goggles were put on. The process takes place without (conscious) action of the subject. This simple experiment distinctly reveals that the world we experience spontaneously is not independent ofthe human observer. The brain ignores the goggles although it belongs to the reality outside. We may in particular conclude that the brain of the subject manipulates the impressions that we have from the outside world, i.e., it is obviously a “constructed world”. How can we understand these facts? (p. vi)
The relatively new notions like “dark matter”, “dark energy”, “Big Bang theory” and all the other conceptions concerning the basic nature of the universe become therefore uncertain or even useless when we try to recognize absolute standards, i.e., they are only of limited value. This level corresponds to a world view, which is confined by the reality in front of us (its picture) and how we interpret and assess it, but it is by no means an “ultimate conception”. (ix)
Due to the effect of evolution, the world view is dependent on the biological system. The philosopher Immanuel Kant thought in this direction, and was firmly convinced that the impressions in front of a human being in everyday life are essentially influenced by his brain. In fact, modern behavior research supports that. We have as many world views as there are different species, varying in their biological structure. (ix-x)
An empty space (Fig. 5b) is principally not observable, and a space with only one body (Fig. 5c) is also not a realistic configuration because it is also not observable. (pp. 13-14)
If space and time would be physically real quantities, we come to an essential question: Are these basic quantities, i.e., x, y, z and τ, accessible to empirical tests? This is definitely not possible… We definitely cannot see, hear, smell, or taste single elements x, y, z and τ of space and time, that is, the basic elements of space and time, characterized by x, y, z and τ, are not accessible to our senses. (p. 20)
“Since we are principally not able to “observe” the basic elements of space and time (i.e., x, y, z and τ), space and time should never be the source for physically real effects as, for example, inertia. “Non-observable” here means “non-existent” as a physical and real entity. (pp. 2-21) “As we found out, it is made of nothing because it cannot be the source of physically real effects. This in particular means that the elements of space and time, characterized by x, y, z and τ, are not observable. Such a space-time block cannot have any physically real
existence. It is nothing!” (p. 23)
This kind of world is grasped within so-called “assumption-less observations” in everyday life, and this kind of reality is experienced by each human being in the same manner. A typical example is given in Fig. 1. This world, which we often call “material reality” and which is experienced by assumption-less observations, appears to be embedded in space. On this level reality is considered as a “container” in which the masses are positioned where the container itself is identical with that what we consider as space. Let us call this concept “container principle”. (p. 2)
Furthermore, one of the reasons for the introduction of the “projection principle” (and for the rejection of the “container principle”) is the phenomenon of biological evolution. Evolution obviously prevents a human being from recognizing what is often called “absolute or true reality”. In other words, our observed world in everyday life, which appears directly in front of us, cannot be the absolute truth. (p. 8)
“That is all what we can say about the world outside within the frame of the projection theory. We never can make statements about the basic, true reality that exists objectively, i.e., independent of human observers. Thus, within projection theory basic reality has to be considered as a “metaphysical system”. (p. 83)
However, instead of the conclusion by Krauss we may assume that the quantum field theoretical energy density of space is correct, but not the tenets of the General Theory of Relativity, in particular its space-time conception. In fact, the character of space-time can be absolute in the General Theory of Relativity (here the container principle is valid), and this has to be considered as a serious deficiency of the theory. How does this unacceptable peculiarity influence the theory itself? This is difficult to estimate. (More details in connection with the cosmological constant are pointed out in Appendix C.) The absolute space (space-time) is the source of inertia, that is, it is able to create physically real effects. (p. 19)
can observe space only if there are two bodies. “we can only observe “distances in connection with material bodies (masses)”, i.e., we need at least two bodies when we would like to make statements about space. Absolute space can therefore not be considered as a physically real something.” (p. 21)
“That is all what we can say about the world outside within the frame of the projection theory. We never can make statements about the basic, true reality that exists objectively, i.e., independent of human observers. Thus, within projection theory basic reality has to be considered as a “metaphysical system”. (p. 83)
In a nutshell, the absoluteness of space, which Newton has claimed, and which Einstein may have attempted to eliminate, is still contained in Einstein’s theory [6].” Willem de Sitter demonstrated in the year 1917 that Einstein’s field equations lead to the effect of inertia in the case of a lone body moving through space-time, that is, there is exactly that type of inertial motion which is defined within Newton’s mechanics. (p. 16) “Clearly, space-time and its basic elements x, y, z and τ can only appear in the inner world and they do not belong to the elements of the world outside. That is, the container principle is obviously an unrealistic conception. The coordinates x, y, z at time τ are exclusively the elements of a “fictitious net” which the observer intellectually puts over the image in front of him. Thus, space and time, constructed in this way, can never be the source of physically real effects.” (p. 44) “We never “observe” isolated space-time positions characterized by x, y, z and τ. At time τ we can only observe “distances” in connection with geometrical positions (Sec. 1.4.1), i.e., we need at least two bodies. We never observe the space-time positions of an empty space or the space-position of only one body; such situations are conceivable but not observable.” (p. 45) “It turned out that it is more realistic to assume that our direct optical impressions are ‘pictures of reality’ but not reality itself, i.e., the objects in space and time are geometrical figures and are not material objects.” (p. 59)
“In summary, the basic elements of space and time x, y, z and τ do not reflect physically real quantities and cannot be the source of physically real effects. From this point of view, an empty space-time should not exist because it is not observable and, from the point of view of science, only those entities which can lead to physically real effects are observable.” (p. 21) “Clearly, the basic elements of space and time, i.e., x, y, z and τ, cannot be identified with a ‘real something’ in analogy to matter.” (p. 22)
Only such kind of systems, represented in Fig. 9, are able to exist, because only such kind of systems can be defined, and—as we already remarked — the definition of a property is the presupposition for its observation. (p. 29)
Let us come back to what we have called above “interaction”. It is, as we have pointed out, necessary for the construction of a realistic physical reality. What kind of interaction is required? It must be an interaction that is not in effect between already existing elementary bodies, but it is an interaction which begets and produces the elementary bodies itself. In other words, body A produces body B and body B produces body A. Such an “existence-inducing” interaction is necessary because body A and body B cannot exist as free, non-interacting systems (Sec. 1.4.4). As a matter of fact, we need body A and body B for the definition of space-distances (see Eq. (2)).
In other words, in the opinion of C.G. Jung we have an “outside world” and we have simultaneously an “inside world”. What does it mean in detail? When we touch with our fingers certain objects (tree, car, etc.) we definitely feel them, i.e., the objects and the observer’s body interact with each other. Both, the objects as well as the observer,
are considered as physically real objects. We make this statement on the basis of the facts of the inside world, but there are no material objects within this inside world. This is however no problem because it is normally assumed that there is an exact “one-to-one correspondence” between the reality outside and the inner picture of it. (p. 36)
The basic reality should be considered as a “unified whole” and not as a large system consisting of separate things, which are qualitatively different from each other. All aspects experienced and/or defined by the human observer do not exist in a separated form in the basic reality. The various levels of reality are constructions by the human being and belong to the brain. All levels reflect certain features of the same world outside (basic reality). Thus, the basic reality should be considered as a “unified whole” without levels separated from each other. Separation is in particular also a peculiarity at the material level where the objects appear as geometrical objects in space and time. Here separation is a feature due to the existence in space and time, but in the basic reality there is no space and time and no such separation.
Mind, matter and what we often call the “soul” belong to specific aspects positioned on various levels of reality, but should not exist in this separate form in the basic reality. Instead the features such as mind, matter, soul, etc., should exist in the basic reality as one (unified) state. In the analysis of the structure of the basic reality a holistic view and not the separation into parts or levels would be appropriate if we were able to recognize details of the basic reality, but we are not… However, this unified block appears in the “observer’s world” as a system of various levels. This in particular means that this feature is dictated by the observer’s peculiarities. (p. 92)
We assumed that there is no interaction between the two bodies A and B. However, such a configuration may not exist. Therefore, we not only need the space coordinates xA, yA, zA, xB, yB, zB and the masses mA and mB of the two bodies, but there must in addition a “relation” between them, and such a relation is expressed by an interaction between body A and body B. This interaction leads to correlations between the coordinates, so that distances become
definable. If both elementary bodies interact, they are able to exist in space and a distance between them can be defined… What about the “interaction”? It is, as we have pointed out, necessary for the construction of a realistic physical reality. What kind of interaction is required? It is an interaction, which produces the elementary bodies itself, that is, body A produces body B and body B produces body A. It is an existence-inducing interaction, and must
be independent on the distance between the bodies. In a nutshell, “existence-inducing interactions” are necessary. This is a quite general statement and is independent of the conception, i.e., whether we work within the “container principle” or within the “projection principle”. (p. 105)
This is another way of saying noncommutative phase.
Fig 24. There is no information overlap between the human observer S and the other type of observer S’. A’ defines the material realty of S’, which is projected onto the frame with the elements a, b, c,…. A defines the material realty of S, which is projected onto the frame with the elements x, y, z and time τ. The large sphere C is the total information in the basic reality. (p. 123)
All the “products of mind” and the “products of phantasy” etc. do not appear in such images, but have to be considered as real as the images in front of us; both types of appearances are likewise states of the brain and reflect in particular certain facts of the basic reality. The products of mind also reflect certain features of the basic reality, but they are positioned on another level than the material objects and cannot be depicted within space and time. (p. 123)
Even when the “unconscious world view” is (almost) the same for all individuals, the “constructed world view” (extended world view) is in general different for different human beings, that is, it varies from individual to individual because each individual has his own world of ideas and thoughts, respectively. (p. 125)
Again, is the real world really embedded in space (space-time)? From the point of view of modern physics the vacuum (the space) has nothing to do with emptiness; just the opposite is the case: Empty space (vacuum) is a “hyperactive player, a prolific producer of jittering fields and virtual particles [8]. The vacuum is the most complex
substance in the universe. The biggest challenge for theorists of all may simply be emptying the vacuum of all the trappings it’s acquired over the past fifty years. “They have filled the vacuum with so much garbage, there isn’t room for the cosmological constant,” said Leon Lederman: “Einstein freed us from the ether. Now we need to get rid of (today’s version of ether) again. We need to sweep the vacuum clean [8].” No doubt, one possible solution for this problem is to work within the “projection principle” (Appendix F). In fact, here no physically real objects are embedded in space (space-time). (p. 216)
The statement that there can be no one-to-one correspondence is, on the one hand, against the realists and, on the other hand, it is simultaneously against the position of anti-realists because it is a statement about the true reality. (p. 222)
Within the projection theory we have in principal not only “one” material reality, but as many realities as there are different biological systems. Each species defines its own “material world”; the details have been pointed out in Sec. 2.2.3. Other biological systems experience a material world that is different from that of human beings, at least in principle. All is dependent on the information that an individual selects from the basic reality. Thus, the term “world equation” is not applicable here. Each species has its own “world equation”, which however can only reflect a certain part of the basic reality. (p. 261)
For the observation of the system _(r, t) by _ref (t) both systems must be coupled. In [1] realistic models have been proposed, and we came to the following result:
The states Ψ ∗ (r, t)_(r, t) of the system under investigation will be systematically scanned by Ψ∗ ref (τ −t)_ref (τ −t) and only those values of t which correspond with the reference time τ (see also Fig. F5) can be observed. This leads to an effect of motion. The sense of time τ is to select a certain configuration Ψ∗ (r, tk)_(r, tk) with tk = τ. Clearly, Ψ∗ (r, t)_(r, t) is a static function if it behaves stationary (see Sec. F.4, Fig. F1) and does not change in the course of time τ, and the effect of motion we experience in connection with Ψ∗ (r, t)_(r, t) is entirely
due to the “motion” of the reference time τ. (p. 269)
All these problems indicate that the interpretation of ψ∗ (x, y, z, τ) ψ(x, y, z, τ) in connection with a real material mass, which is embedded in space, seems to be an ill construction. This is the case for the conventional quantum theory, but the problems disappear when we enter the projection theory where no real material body is embedded
in space and time. (p. 275)
An observer, who is resting in the frame of reference S, is not able to observe the systems i and j; only the observers in the moving frames S’ and S’’ can give experimental statements about the systems i and j. (p. 278)
In summary, the quantities Δk,r and Δk,t jump statistically through (r, t)-space together with the space-time positions of the probability densities, defined by ψ∗ (r − Δk,r(τ), t − Δk,t(τ)) ψ (r − Δk,r(τ), t − Δk,t(τ)) , k = i, j, (F62) i.e., both structures jump arbitrarily through space and time. These jumps are independent from each other.
The projection of ψ (p,E)k, k = i, j, onto (r, t)-space leads to the wave functions ψ (r − Δk,r, t − Δk,t), k = i, j, and the geometrical structures (probability densities), given by Eq. (F62), should be considered as a definition of the forms (shapes) of the systems i and j; and, as we have outlined above, these geometrical structures jump arbitrarily relative to (r, t)-space. (p. 278-279)
The projection theory opens up the possibility for another kind of interaction in (p,E)-space, leading to correlations in (r, t)-space that are not dependent on space-time distances between the systems and are therefore “distance-independent”. In other words, there can be correlations—between two systems, say i and j—where the strength is not dependent on the space-time distances ri−rj, ti−tj. Such interactions define the form (shape) of a system. (p. 286)
conventional physics we also use certain forms for elementary systems: We have point-like particles, strings, branes etc. However, these specific forms had to be assumed in conventional physics and could not be derived. In contrast to these developments, projection theory opens up the possibility to explain (derive) certain elementary forms in nature by means of this new kind of interaction; it leads to distance-independent correlations and create the geometrical form (shape) of systems in (r, t)-space.
In Sec. F.11 we have treated two systems i and j which can interact via existence-inducing p, E-fluctuations in (p, E)-space that have the effect of “distance-independent” correlations in (r, t)-space, and the probability density ψ ∗ (r, t) ψ (r, t) defines the form of the systems.
Both systems i and j jump arbitrarily in (r, t)-space and their space-time distance at a certain time τ may be as large as the space-extension of the universe, where “large” really means with respect to the maximum space-extension as well as with respect to the maximum time-extension (that is, from the beginning to the end of time). Nevertheless, both systems i and j interact with a constant strength, even when the space-time distance takes the largest possible value. In other words, both systems interact, but this interaction is independent of the actual space-time positions of both systems. This property reflects the non-local character of the projection theory. (pp. 286-287)
Within the projection theory there cannot be such kind space-time connections since the interaction processes do not take place in (r, t)-space. As we have outlined above, within the projection theory we have “merely” r, t-correlations in (r, t)-space, and the real interaction processes are identified with p, E-fluctuations in (p, E)-space. (p. 289)
In summary, there is no possibility to explain by a mechanism how the mutual influence between two bodies comes into existence. The notion of “interaction” has therefore to be considered as an irreducible primary property of matter. (p. 293)
No comments:
Post a Comment