Merkabah

[Skarekrow]

Dark-matter? Not a chance, it must be space-time foam, quantum gravity, or quantum loop gravity. And if you propose some string theory nonsene you may be as dumb as those string theorists that dont do real physics with the standard model.

I don’t think much can be ruled out at this point.
Both theories can work together...perhaps they are all just parts of the radio...need to be assembled.

You know I like dark matter/energy and the implications it makes too...it’s all theoretical mental entertainment!

 

[Ifur]

I don’t think much can be ruled out at this point.
Both theories can work together...perhaps they are all just parts of the radio...need to be assembled.

String theory deals with geoemtrically defined objects that have not discernable properties other than what can be called "vibration" that creates particles.

The problem with this that it's kind of like putting thermodynamics back into particle physics by going....
--Can you feel the heat moving?
--Yes, heat is movement, making it a form of kinetic energy, but it is also thermal or better yet, infrared radiation.
--Have you understood nothing from thermodynamics and clasical mechanics?
--Thermodynamics is causing these things, its heat and has nothing to do with movement, cant you feel it?
--Sure dude, take your theory to you office over there, the bouncy castle equipped with crayons.

String theory are complex mathematical objects requiring what now?
They also use much of the same mathematics as used in general relativity and extend it to to deal with matter as geomtrical objects and fields.
So it can be said to be all out "poppy cock" or "limp dick" as for a physical theory and full on propellar caps and helmets playing with strings and claim to have worked out the entire Universe, they just need more time to get the strings to come out right.

space-time foam as cocked up from quantum gravity and other alternatives are not far removed from saying the exact oposite like, "no no, we cannot have properties in empty space unless it at the very least is *foam* or *virtual particles*".

Common among all the leading theories is that they want to get rid of the mutual enemy that is general relativity by any and all means.

If you have the intelligence required to lift an abstraction and relate a concept to others and compare them with logical principles and semantics. One starts to suspect that the world of physics REQUIRE that this gets beaten out of students until they cry.

 

[Skarekrow]

Particles are only mathematical models of forces. What is projected on the monitors of complicated detection devices is just a processed image. It is not the actual thing. THis has lead to many misconceptions about nature. Since people see a sine wave on an oscilloscope, they think that it actually looks like that, when it is just the result of the processing of the equipment.

I will never believe in the particle, mainly because it does not change the math, nor does it affect the cost of tea in China.

You are right that there are some that are considered “force carriers” and I would agree with you that they are more a measurement of force.
There are basically two types of “particles”, those that make up matter and then particles that carry force...Fermions and Bosons.

 

[Skarekrow]

String theory deals with geoemtrically defined objects that have not discernable properties other than what can be called "vibration" that creates particles.

The problem with this that it's kind of like putting thermodynamics back into particle physics by going....
--Can you feel the heat moving?
--Yes, heat is movement, making it a form of kinetic energy, but it is also thermal or better yet, infrared radiation.
--Have you understood nothing from thermodynamics and clasical mechanics?
--Thermodynamics is causing these things, its heat and has nothing to do with movement, cant you feel it?
--Sure dude, take your theory to you office over there, the bouncy castle equipped with crayons.

String theory are complex mathematical objects requiring what now?
They also use much of the same mathematics as used in general relativity and extend it to to deal with matter as geomtrical objects and fields.
So it can be said to be all out "poppy cock" or "limp dick" as for a physical theory and full on propellar caps and helmets playing with strings and claim to have worked out the entire Universe, they just need more time to get the strings to come out right.

space-time foam as cocked up from quantum gravity and other alternatives are not far removed from saying the exact oposite like, "no no, we cannot have properties in empty space unless it at the very least is *foam* or *virtual particles*".

Common among all the leading theories is that they want to get rid of the mutual enemy that is general relativity by any and all means.

Sorry but I am not going to make the assumption that I know how the universe functions.
Have at it.
Far too dismissive.

 

[Ifur]

Sorry but I am not going to make the assumption that I know how the universe functions.
Have at it.
Far too dismissive.

Satire on the things they say, what they focus on and what they ignore.
And ideologically speaking, those working with one theory or model hate all others such that the fundamental principles of discussion around philosophical concepts and definitions in natural language aren't possible.

Can even be said that the world of theoretical physics have engaged in a war over words and definitions to defend their models by using names that remove a function common use and intuition.

If only a theory could unify "higgs field, space-time foam and virtual particles".
These are the terms used in standard model pysics however, while those mainly working with general relavitiy and its methods and maths are busy with strings.

This could called "dark-matter" studies where one applies methods from string theory to unify properties that would make a coherent model of dark-matter and this strange effects, as it seems realted, this higgs field, space-time foam and virtual particles.

 

[Skarekrow]

Satite on the things they say, what they focus on and what they ignore.
And ideologically speaking, those working with one theory or model hate all others such that the fundamental principles of discussion around philosophical concepts and definitions in natural language aren't possible.

I get the satire.
I would rather though we leave the hate between the concepts out of this thread please.
I understand how the “scientists” can be with one another.
It’s very competitive for funding and results - for more funding.

I don’t find the idea of a wave of vibrational energy unable to exist with dark matter/energy.
We already transfer information via such means.
Perhaps on some fundamental level the dark matter is the matrix for the information waves to give rise to matter and consciousness in this universe.
I mean...you have some very intelligent folk who follow some very far out ideas of what this universe and reality is.
The electric universe theory is another that is similar to Indra’s Net - it does’t mean I believe or disbelieve in EU theory.
They are all fun to ponder and perhaps one day we will see something really amazing come out of one or several of them!
Even Einstein had the idea of strings...
It’s not crazy to think they could find some kind of Unified theory...that is the great prize anyhow right?
To marry QM with GR?
Cheers!

 

[Ifur]

I don’t find the idea of a wave of vibrational energy unable to exist with dark matter/energy.
We already transfer information via such means.
Perhaps on some fundamental level the dark matter is the matrix for the information waves to give rise to matter and consciousness in this universe.
I mean...you have some very intelligent folk who follow some very far out ideas of what this universe and reality is.

Ignoring parts of this, as the amounts of routes to take this conversations into given how fundamental this is both metaphysically and that there almost are no steps that seperate physics with information and conciousness as it deals with existence and the logical necessity.

Now I have my own philosophy and theory here, and am convinced that it may be doable, as in working mathematical physics that doesn't start with number theory.

Can methods used in string theory and lattice be applied in ways that conceptually makes sense along the lines of using:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_model_(physics)

And having it be "dark-matter" and the overlap between normal space-time, so space-time and foam.
Where virtual particles are strings from this lattice that act as background in space-time.

Call this a theory from philosophy of physics rather than maths.
Not unreasonable to try and unify many of these things that relate to "higss field, space-time foam, virtual particles and dark-matter".

 

[Skarekrow]

Ignoring parts of this, as the amounts of routes to take this conversations into given how fundamental this is both metaphysically and that there almost are no steps that seperate physics with information and conciousness as it deals with existence and the logical necessity.

Now I have my own philosophy and theory here, and am convinced that it may be doable, as in working mathematical physics that doesn't start with number theory.

Can methods used in string theory and lattice be applied in ways that conceptually makes sense along the lines of using:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_model_(physics)

And having it be "dark-matter" and the overlap between normal space-time, so space-time and foam.
Where virtual particles are strings from this lattice that act as background in space-time.

Call this a theory from philosophy of physics rather than maths.
Not unreasonable to try and unify many of these things that relate to "higss field, space-time foam, virtual particles and dark-matter".

Yes, my own views can be more philosophical in nature as I am definitely NOT a math genius haha.

I mean....what difference does it make if you go into a space/time manifold as opposed to a “foam” which is not really the right word to use.
It’s a tangle of black holes and wormholes opening and closing - maybe the manifold and “foam” are BOTH apertures for the transfer of information from another deeper “signal” that exists in dark matter/energy?
Bubbles of “foam”/information from the collective consciousness?

 

[Ifur]

Yes, my own views can be more philosophical in nature as I am definitely NOT a math genius haha.

I mean....what difference does it make if you go into a space/time manifold as opposed to a “foam” which is not really the right word to use.
It’s a tangle of black holes and wormholes opening and closing - maybe the manifold and “foam” are BOTH apertures for the transfer of information from another deeper “signal” that exists in dark matter/energy?
Bubbles of “foam”/information from the collective consciousness?

When it comes to math and physics and consciousness there are very little to take from, and it's pretty much only Sir Roger Penrose that doesn't make assumptions and are able to deal with both the abstractions and the stringent logical constraints of maths.

Definitions in maths can be tremendously terse, they have exactness, so one have to look at what the words are names for.

Here is a quick overview of the maths involved in string theory.
Centrally important are tensors that are defined as follows:
https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae168.cfm

A tensor may be defined at a single point or collection of isolated points of space (or space-time), or it may be defined over a continuum of points. In the latter case, the elements of the tensor are functions of position and the tensor forms what is called a tensor field. This just means that the tensor is defined at every point within a region of space (or space-time), rather than just at a point, or collection of isolated points.
A tensor may consist of a single number, in which case it is referred to as a tensor of order zero, or simply a scalar. For reasons which will become apparent, a scalar may be thought of as an array of dimension zero (same as the order of the tensor).
An example of a scalar would be the mass of a particle or object. An example of a scalar field would be the density of a fluid as a function of position. A second example of a scalar field would be the value of the gravitational potential energy as a function of position. Note that both of these are single numbers (functions) that vary continuously from point-to-point, thereby defining a scalar field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity

Most modern approaches to mathematical general relativity begin with the concept of a manifold. More precisely, the basic physical construct representing gravitation - a curved spacetime - is modelled by a four-dimensional, smooth, connected, Lorentzian manifold. Other physical descriptors are represented by various tensors, discussed below.
The rationale for choosing a manifold as the fundamental mathematical structure is to reflect desirable physical properties. For example, in the theory of manifolds, each point is contained in a (by no means unique) coordinate chart, and this chart can be thought of as representing the 'local spacetime' around the observer (represented by the point). The principle of local Lorentz covariance, which states that the laws of special relativity hold locally about each point of spacetime, lends further support to the choice of a manifold structure for representing spacetime, as locally around a point on a general manifold, the region 'looks like', or approximates very closely Minkowski space (flat spacetime).
The idea of coordinate charts as 'local observers who can perform measurements in their vicinity' also makes good physical sense, as this is how one actually collects physical data - locally. For cosmological problems, a coordinate chart may be quite large.

Local versus global structure

An important distinction in physics is the difference between local and global structures. Measurements in physics are performed in a relatively small region of spacetime and this is one reason for studying the local structure of spacetime in general relativity, whereas determining the global spacetime structure is important, especially in cosmological problems.
An important problem in general relativity is to tell when two spacetimes are 'the same', at least locally. This problem has its roots in manifold theory where determining if two Riemannian manifolds of the same dimension are locally isometric ('locally the same'). This latter problem has been solved and its adaptation for general relativity is called the Cartan–Karlhede algorithm.

Tensors in general relativity
Further information: Tensor
One of the profound consequences of relativity theory was the abolition of privileged reference frames. The description of physical phenomena should not depend upon who does the measuring - one reference frame should be as good as any other. Special relativity demonstrated that no inertial reference frame was preferential to any other inertial reference frame, but preferred inertial reference frames over noninertial reference frames. General relativity eliminated preference for inertial reference frames by showing that there is no preferred reference frame (inertial or not) for describing nature.
Any observer can make measurements and the precise numerical quantities obtained only depend on the coordinate system used. This suggested a way of formulating relativity using 'invariant structures', those that are independent of the coordinate system (represented by the observer) used, yet still have an independent existence. The most suitable mathematical structure seemed to be a tensor.

For example, when measuring the electric and magnetic fields produced by an accelerating charge, the values of the fields will depend on the coordinate system used, but the fields are regarded as having an independent existence, this independence represented by the electromagnetic tensor .

Mathematically, tensors are generalised linear operators - multilinear maps. As such, the ideas of linear algebra are employed to study tensors.

Not a trick question, but when are you dealing with the physics of space-time and when are you dealing strictly with particles?
Find an exact distinction and definition.

Tensor calculus and lie groups are central, doesn't matter if you talk string theory or particle physics.
Then you just OCD the shit out of it and give it a name, the less coherent the central concepts are, the easier it is to just follow the rules and apply a random name that sounds plausible. Eventually you get to say things like:

If string theory is correct, then we have no direct contact with hyperspatial dimensions, since they are too tiny for atoms to enter. But consider this: our universe is a bubble of some sort, and it is expanding, and we live on the skin of this bubble. This is the Big Bang theory. But string theory says there is actually a multiverse of universes, like a bubble bath, with bubbles colliding and fissioning all the time. So Big Bangs are happening all the time somewhere in the multiverse. This multiverse is the hyperspace of 11 dimensions. --Michio Kaku on reddit/r/IAmA

And here Michio Kaku goes all out propellar cap space cowboy on how the universe is a bubble made of strings, so be careful, or you may loop your face to the back of your head if you stare too far.

No one knows. But one possibility is that the universe is a bubble of some sort. We live on the skin of the bubble. If you travel in one direction far enough, you come back to where you started. So the farthest object is the back of your head. In this way, this bubble universe is infinite in two dimensions, since you never hit the end, but finite in three dimensions, since its just a bubble. Likewise, our universe might be infinite in 3D, without boundaries, but finite in 4D, because it is a hypersphere. Sadly, our data is not developed enough to determine if our universe is finite or infinite. But the leading theories (e.g. inflation) seem to indicate that the universe is infinite. But in inflation, our bubble universe can have big bangs all the time, so baby universes can peel off our universe. In other words, we live in a bubble bath of universes, the multiverse.

Michio can always get me to laugh by some of the ways he tries to explain the math and what the consequences can be for physics, because it's so absurd I have to pinch my arm.

Here he goes full on Dragonball Z, string theory could lead to a knowledge of the allpowerful and allknowing cosmos, just need to find a way to channel it for the physical reality and picking the right one:

Any theory has its ebbs and flows. String theory is so advanced and sophisticated mathematically that we physicists are still trying to find its ultimate form. So string theory continued to dominate the agenda of physics conferences and physics publications, but there are no sensational results that can generate popular headlines. The problem is that the theory is not in its final form, so it has many, many solutions, each one a universe, giving us a multiverse of universes. Which one is our universe? String theory can predict our universes, but it also predicts parallel universes as well. But I personally feel that once string theory is in its final form, we will understand whether or not there is a multiverse of universes.

 

[Skarekrow]

So....win-win?

New trails to tumble down. Yay!

That's how it feels to me.

Actually, I recently bumped into it in a pretty neutral way, and at this life moment, it spoke to me. Indra's net does feel connected/intertwined with other religious/spiritual concepts, but not in a bad way. No sorrow needed.

Thanks for the thoughts!!!

I don’t know if it IS how anything really is per say...just something to ponder.
It seems to be a good representation for many different thoughts and ideas which in itself is interesting before you even go “tumbling” down the various rabbit holes.

Now I wonder where exactly I was when I went OOB?
Was I floating in the soup of dark matter?
Maybe the only way to connect is mental in nature?

Hope you are doing well?
Glad to see you around and thanks for being so kind.

 

[Skarekrow]

When it comes to math and physics and consciousness there are very little to take from, and it's pretty much only Sir Roger Penrose that doesn't make assumptions and are able to deal with both the abstractions and the stringent logical constraints of maths.

Definitions in maths can be tremendously terse, they have exactness, so one have to look at what the words are names for.

Here is a quick overview of the maths involved in string theory.
Centrally important are tensors that are defined as follows:
https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae168.cfm



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_of_general_relativity





Not a trick question, but when are you dealing with the physics of space-time and when are you dealing strictly with particles?
Find an exact distinction and definition.

Tensor calculus and lie groups are central, doesn't matter if you talk string theory or particle physics.
Then you just OCD the shit out of it and give it a name, the less coherent the central concepts are, the easier it is to just follow the rules and apply a random name that sounds plausible. Eventually you get to say things like:



And here Michio Kaku goes all out propellar cap space cowboy on how the universe is a bubble made of strings, so be careful, or you may loop your face to the back of your head if you stare too far.

Thanks Ifur, I know the basics of both and think I have a fairly good grasp on the theories.
There is always something of use to glean though.

Well now you are talking about the observer effect...and a Japanese team has caught a nice image of the state of neither particle or wave, but a melange of both...let me look....
(particle wave duality)

Anyhow, just as our colleague pointed out - these are our own representations of what they actually look like or are.
Should keep a grain of salt.

I have posted extensively on the Penrose OR orch theories and find them fascinating.
Especially since they imply that the brain is not necessarily the source of mind.
We shall see what the future finds out!

And yes, I also understand the idea of looping back to the point you left from in our universe....branes....etc.
And the multiverse theory fits in quite well with the idea of Indra’s Net if anything....that and it makes for good sci-fi stories.
Wouldn’t it be something to have a big picture of the universe!?
Not just the deep field images and maps we have drawn thus far (which also look oddly like connected neurons) but a real view...
One can dream.
Perhaps when we transcend this form...?

Cheers!

 

[Ifur]

I have posted extensively on the Penrose OR orch theories and find them fascinating.
Especially since they imply that the brain is not necessarily the source of mind.
We shall see what the future finds out!

Another way of dealing with is comes from Deep Learning, recommend finding lectures by Hilton, and you get told that 50% noise makes it work better.
Putting is the "ebbs and flows" of the Universe as being important for consciousness, not just a spiritual notion.
There is so much information involved, and on still struggle with estimating the "raw omputational equivalent of a brain", but in excess of a exaflop can be assumed.
Low end of estimates is that at the very minimum, there is 38 Petaflops.
https://www.top500.org/list/2019/06/
These numbers are not useful, and is a poor comparison, likewise, much can be said of advantage and disadvantage of being "closer to nature" and "perfectly reproducible results".
But we are comparing a 28 Watt brain to a 10 GW supercomputer, where the biggest difference is biology being perfectly energy efficient, and not fastest or most reliable.

Wouldn’t it be something to have a big picture of the universe!?

Now, this would be along the lines of massive voids and little points.
Not leprechrons with polka dots blowing bubbles and threading strings (complex mathematical objects).

The bigger picture of the Universe to me is more like going into nature, making a bonfire and laughing at the fact that some of the carbon burned will be energy from the stars on the night sky.

 

[wiredandwound]

What do you guys think about the Planck units? Do you think they define the particle metric, or do you think it defines something else?

 

[Skarekrow]

Something to consider...
Fascinating implications.

Enjoy!

Is Life a Dream?
This age-old philosophical puzzle is more than an idle question.

​

One of the strange things about dreams is that, most of the time, we aren’t aware we’re dreaming.
Typically, our memory and our reflective ability are substantially limited within dreams (Fosse et al. 2003; Hobson et al. 1998), causing us not to notice incongruencies within the dream and to take for granted that what we experience is real.

It simply doesn’t occur to us to consider whether it might not be.

Perhaps even more strangely, even when we do on occasion become aware that we’re dreaming—and according to various surveys carried out around the world, anywhere from 26% to 92% of people have had at least one lucid dream (Stepansky et al. 1998; Erlacher et al. 2008; Palmer 1979; Yu 2008)—the “sensory” experiences of the dream can remain just as convincingly real.

I remember in one of my own dreams realizing that it was a dream and then marveling at how solid and real the cell phone in my hand still felt.

The ability of the dream world to appear real has led many thinkers—philosopher René Descartes (1641) being the most prominent Western example—to wonder whether the world we experience while awake might itself be a dream.

If the dream world feels just as real as the waking one (at least while we are in it), how can we know for sure that we’re not currently living in a dream—a dream from which we may one day wake up?

One way that philosophers have tried to dispel such worries is by appealing to differences between the dream world and the waking one.
For instance, our waking world has a coherence that the dream world often lacks. (For an example of a coherence-based argument against the skeptical hypothesis, see Norman Malcolm (1959).)

You may recall that, in the feature film Inception, the characters learn to recognize that they’re dreaming by asking themselves how they came to be in a certain situation, then realizing that they can’t remember, because the dream just dropped them there.

But does the coherence of our waking world guarantee that it’s real?

I believe the coherence of our waking world does give us evidence that it is not merely a figment of our imagination.
Specifically, it gives us evidence that, when we are awake, something is causing our experience that is independent of the experience itself.

For instance, the relative permanence of the objects and environments we experience in waking life would appear to be best explained by there being something real and enduring that our experiences are reflecting.

However, the relative permanence of the objects and environments we encounter in the waking world is no guarantee that the waking world is as real as it gets.

After all, a high degree of permanence is also found in the worlds of video games, in which the “environments” and “objects” one interacts with are merely the creations of computer code.

So, while perceived permanence does seem to point to there being something objective/enduring out there, the true nature of whatever is “out there” might resemble our experience of it as little as computer code resembles the images we see when we play a video game.

In fact, physics teaches us that the objects we experience as being solid are actually made up almost entirely of empty space.
And the results of quantum mechanical experiments indicate that, under certain conditions, the building blocks of matter do not behave as discrete particles at all, but rather as waves of probability.

If we nevertheless experience the world as full of enduring, solid objects, this is due to the usual way that our senses interact with it and to the way these interactions are represented in consciousness.

This means that there is, in fact, an important sense in which all of us do live constantly within a dream—that is, within a world created by our own minds.
It’s just that, when we’re awake, our minds conform our dreaming to a reliable set of patterns, which we assume to be determined by a reality that exists independently of our experience of it, though we have no way of knowing that reality except through the complex ways in which it affects our “dream.”

But might there be an even deeper sense in which our waking life is a dream?

Just as we often wake from sleep to realize that what we were experiencing in the sleep state was not nearly as coherent and “real” as what we experience when awake, could there possibly come a day when we will emerge from the dream of waking reality to experience a world that is even more coherent and vividly real, a state in which we experience levels of knowledge, memory, and other cognitive function that vastly surpass those we experience in our current lives?

In fact, a rather startling number of people report having already had experiences like this.
That is, they report having had experiences that appear to them as even more real than those they have in their normal, waking state of mind.

For example, “realer than real” is a description often used by those who have had near-death experiences (Moody 1975; Thonnard et al. 2013; Palmieri et al. 2014), those who have used psychedelic drugs such as DMT (Strassman 2001), and those who, by various other means, have experienced non-ordinary states of consciousness.

Many near-death experiencers also report enhanced cognitive function and a sudden increase in knowledge (Owens et al. 1990; Greyson 2003).
This perception of enhanced cognitive function and increased knowledge is often dismissed as an illusion by those who are unfamiliar with the scientific literature on near-death experiences, but careful investigation has shown that concrete, verifiable information has been obtained in these states that was not available to the experiencer by way of their five senses (Rivas et al. 2016).

The experience of those who have tasted non-ordinary states of consciousness raises the possibility that the age-old question of whether “life is but a dream” is more than the idle worry of a few philosophers comfortably ensconced in their armchairs by the fire.

The answer to this question could very well have major empirical consequences, including startling implications for the types of experiences that are available to the human mind.

We have every reason to stay alert to this possibility as we continue to investigate the true nature of the world that we take ourselves to be living in.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/201907/is-life-dream​

References

Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy.

Erlacher, D., Schredl, M., Watanabe, T., Yamana, J., and Gantzert, F. (2008). The incidence of lucid dreaming within a Japanese university student sample. International Journal of Dream Research 1(2): 39–43.

Fosse, M. J., Fosse, R., Hobson, J. A., and Stickgold, R. J. (2003). Dreaming and episodic memory: a functional dissociation? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15(1): 1–9.

Greyson, B. (2003). Incidence and correlates of near-death experiences in a cardiac care unit. General Hospital Psychiatry 25(4): 269-76.

Hobson, J. A., Stickgold, R., and Pace-Schott, E. F. (1998). The neuropsychology of REM sleep dreaming. NeuroReport 9(3): R1-14.

Malcolm, N. (1959). Dreaming. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Moody, R. (1975). Life After Life: The Investigation of a Phenomenon—Survival of Bodily Death. New York: HarperOne.

Owens, J. E., Cook, E. W., and Stevenson, I. (1990). Features of “near-death experience” in relation to whether or not patients were near death. Lancet336(8724): 1175-77.

Palmer, J. (1979). A community mail survey of psychic experiences. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research 73(3): 221–251.

Palmieri, A., Calvo, V., Kleinbub, J. R., Meconi, F., Marangoni, M., Barilaro, P., Broggio, A., Sambin, M., and Sessa, P. (2014, June 19). “Reality” of near-death-experience memories: evidence from a psychodynamic and electrophysiological integrated study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00429

Rivas, T., Dirven, A., and Smit, R. H. (2016). The Self Does Not Die: Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences. Durham, NC: IANDS Publications.

Stepansky, R., Holzinger, B., Schmeiser-Rieder, A., Saletu, B., Kunze, M., and Zeitlhofer, J. (1998). Austrian dream behavior: results of a representative population survey. Dreaming 8(1): 23–30.

Strassman, R. (2001). DMT: The Spirit Molecule. Rochester: Park Street Press.

Thonnard, M., Charland-Verville, V., Brédart, S., Dehon, H., Ledoux, D., Laureys, S., and Vanhaudenhuyse, A. (2013). Characteristics of near-death experiences memories as compared to real and imagined events memories. PLoS ONE 8(3): e57620. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057620

Yu, C. K.-C. (2008). Dream intensity inventory and Chinese people’s dream experience frequencies. Dreaming 18(2): 94–111.

 

[Skarekrow]

What do you guys think about the Planck units? Do you think they define the particle metric, or do you think it defines something else?

Just as I posted previously...

"A modern treatment of Planck's work begins with the speed of light c, gravitational constant G, reduced Planck constant ħ, Coulomb constant k and Boltzmann constant kB.* By taking different combinations of these variables, one can find Planck units, which are truly universal. For instance, by taking √ ħG/c3 , one gets a length. This length is the Planck length, and it is 1.6 x 10-35 meters.

The beauty of the Planck units in general and the Planck length in particular is that no matter what units one chooses to make measurements, be it English, metric or Martian, everyone will determine the same Planck length. Planck himself said in his paper to the Prussian Academy of Sciences, "These necessarily retain their meaning for all times and for all civilizations, even extraterrestrial and non-human ones, and can therefore be designated as 'natural units.'"

They don’t define the size of particles....in fact it’s infinitesimally smaller than a hydrogen atom almost it’s so small.
But it seems to be a true constant of our observable universe at least.
If you don’t apply it to the math of GR you end up with incredible feats of theoretical math that would however be impossible in the actual world.

 

[Ifur]

What do you guys think about the Planck units? Do you think they define the particle metric, or do you think it defines something else?

Theoretical and mathematical physics doesn't need the exact value of gravity of earth our the conditions in our corner of the Universe.
Particle physics largely deals with values of 0 and 1, analogues to saying there is a thing, and there isn't.
And one can say it "blinks" by spinning in one direction or other, or it does not -- think this as the goal, as not having integer spins ended with a Nobel, explaining why perhaps another.
As to only deal with countable numbers, if everthing is 1 for these values, meaning no additional energy is gained from the conditions the measurement is done in.

Given how these values are gotten, there is also the other direction, everything is 1, and this implies some variables and properties are this where we are.
This being said, there is alot to them, and for some things I'm not so sure there is such a thing as "normalized to 1".
And the planck constant is more interesting in this context, the units I'm not so sure means anything or are important for anything outside of playing with math, theorizing and philosophizing within the models.

And one of the best physics jokes, "What sound does an electron make when it hits the floor?", "PLANCK!" (greater effect on a floor with planks/boards and stepping on one hard).

 

[Skarekrow]

@wiredandwound

It’s called the arbitrary line where even quantum mechanics no longer apply...gravity doesn’t apply....etc.

 

[Skarekrow]

Just to offer more to ponder (or confuse lol)..


"German physicist Werner Heisenberg developed the first equations of quantum mechanics using Matrix mathematics.
He deduced that space and time were pixelated into indivisible, 3-dimensional Planck length units (similar to the 2D pixels on your computer screen).
The mathematics indicated this, and there was no solid experimental evidence for smooth – in other words not pixelated – spacetime.

Smooth spacetime comes with the strange implication of an infinite amount of points between any two points.
The entertaining Zeno’s Dichotomy Paradox confronts this problem by suggesting that if you want to get from point A to point B, you first must get half way between those two points.
And to get there, you must get half way between those two points and so on ad infinitum.

Obviously, this paradox is silly because we usually do get to point B. however, if we do get to point B, this implies that reality is pixelated.
Heisenberg’s ideas of a pixelated reality were too radical for most scientists of his day except, notably, for Niels Bohr, who agreed with them.

Today, more scientists agree with this digital physics notion of a pixelated spacetime.
Many still do not, and believe spacetime is smooth, and without structure – not pixelated.

On the other hand, most agree that a length can be no shorter than the Planck length, which suggests that reality is pixelated.
So there is a good deal of confusion.

We believe that until a powerful quantum gravity theory of pixelated spacetime is discovered, the issue will remain confusing."

 

[wiredandwound]

They don’t define the size of particles.

Your post is very good. What I meant about being a metric, is that they are a natural unit, as you quoted, and can be applied as such.

I've thought a lot about Planck frequency, since I understand the concept of frequencies much easier. When I do the maths on the bandwidth and their fundamental frequency, I find that there has to be a smallest bandwidth before the fundamental becomes "unkowable". I see that this is also true for energy and the characteristics of a medium's permeability and permittivity (a medium's characteristic ability for the propagation of energy).

What I wanted to say on this is that there is a point where energy must be "unknowable" to be observed, but that it is also must still exists. This can be seen especially when using phasor relationships in complex math. I believe it to be a demarcation point. Does this sound correct?

 

[Skarekrow]

What I wanted to say on this is that there is a point where energy must be "unknowable" to be observed, but that it is also must still exists. This can be seen especially when using phasor relationships in complex math. I believe it to be a demarcation point. Does this sound correct?

It does sound correct and I believe you are - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_energy