Entries Tagged with "Einstein"


Light Travels Backward and Faster than Light

Published on Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Managing Editor
posted: 18 May 2006
12:51 pm ET

It sounds nuts, but a scientist says his team has made light go backward. And this is not a simple trick of mirrors.

Previous work has slowed light to a crawl. But in the new research, a pulse of light is given a negative speed and—as if just to make your head spin—the researcher says the experiment made light appear to exceed its theoretical speed limit.

If you totally confused, don’t worry. This reporter doesn’t get it either. Nor do a lot of really smart scientists.

“I’ve had some of the world’s experts scratching their heads over this one,” says Robert Boyd, a professor of optics at the University of Rochester. “It’s weird stuff.”

The research was reported in the May 12 issue of the journal Science. Though not normally stated in news reports, Science is a peer-reviewed journal. That means some experts read Boyd’s paper and said it was good to publish.

We’re going to let Boyd do the explaining. And this next sentence is the crux of it all:

“We sent a pulse through an optical fiber, and before its peak even entered the fiber, it was exiting the other end. Through experiments we were able to see that the pulse inside the fiber was actually moving backward, linking the input and output pulses.”

“The pulse of light is shaped like a hump with a peak and long leading and trailing edges. The leading edge carries with it all the information about the pulse and enters the fiber first. By the time the peak enters the fiber, the leading edge is already well ahead, exiting. From the information in that leading edge, the fiber essentially ‘reconstructs’ the pulse at the far end, sending one version out the fiber, and another backward toward the beginning of the fiber.”

Faster than light

Let’s put that another way, verbatim from a statement issued by the University of Rochester:

“As the pulse enters the material, a second pulse appears on the far end of the fiber and flows backward. The reversed pulse not only propagates backward, but it releases a forward pulse out the far end of the fiber. In this way, the pulse that enters the front of the fiber appears out the end almost instantly, apparently traveling faster than the regular speed of light.”

What about Einstein, who said nothing can exceed light-speed?

“Einstein said information can’t travel faster than light, and in this case, as with all fast-light experiments, no information is truly moving faster than light,” Boyd said.

A spokesperson at the university’s communications department added this: “Everything that defines the pulse that enters, also defines the pulse that exits. But the energy of the light does not travel faster than light.”

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!


Tags:

EPR paradox

Published on Wednesday, March 15th, 2006

In quantum mechanics, the EPR paradox (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) is a thought experiment which demonstrates that the result of a measurement performed on one part of a quantum system can have an instantaneous effect on the result of a measurement performed on another part, regardless of the distance separating the two parts. Although this may seem incompatible with special relativity, which states that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light, this is not the case. “EPR” stands for Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, who introduced the thought experiment in a 1935 paper to argue that quantum mechanics is not a complete physical theory. It is sometimes referred to as the EPRB paradox for David Bohm, who converted the original thought experiment into something closer to being experimentally testable.

Although originally devised as a thought experiment that should expose quantum mechanics’ incompleteness, actual experimental results, carried out when technology later became available, do demonstrate the non-local effect, effectively retorting against the EPR trio’s original purpose. The “spooky action at a distance” that so disturbed EPR consistently occurs in numerous and widely replicated experiments. Einstein never really accepted quantum mechanics as a “real” and complete theory, struggling to the end of his career (and life) for an interpretation that could comply with his Relativity without implying “God playing dice”, as he condensed his dissatisfaction with QM’s intrinsic randomness and (still to be resolved) counter-intuitivity.

The EPR paradox is a paradox in the following sense: if one takes quantum mechanics and adds some seemingly reasonable conditions (referred to as “locality”, “realism”, and “completeness”), then one obtains a contradiction. However, quantum mechanics by itself does not appear to be internally inconsistent, nor — as it turns out — does it contradict relativity. As a result of further theoretical and experimental developments since the original EPR paper, most physicists today regard the EPR paradox as an illustration of how quantum mechanics violates classical intuitions, and not as an indication that quantum mechanics is fundamentally flawed.

Description of the paradox
The EPR paradox draws on a phenomenon predicted by quantum mechanics, known as quantum entanglement, to show that measurements performed on spatially separated parts of a quantum system can apparently have an instantaneous influence on one another. This effect is now known as “nonlocal behaviour” (or colloquially as “quantum weirdness”). In order to illustrate this, let us consider a simplified version of the EPR thought experiment due to Bohm.

Measurements on an entangled state
We have a source that emits pairs of electrons, with one electron sent to destination A, where there is an observer named Alice, and another is sent to destination B, where there is an observer named Bob. According to quantum mechanics, we can arrange our source so that each emitted electron pair occupies a quantum state called a spin singlet. This can be viewed as a quantum superposition of two states, which we call I and II. In state I, electron A has spin pointing upward along the z-axis (+z) and electron B has spin pointing downward along the z-axis (-z). In state II, electron A has spin -z and electron B has spin +z. Therefore, it is impossible to associate either electron in the spin singlet with a state of definite spin. The electrons are thus said to be entangled.

The EPR thought experiment, performed with electrons. A source (center) sends electrons toward two observers, Alice (left) and Bob (right), who can perform spin measurements.
Alice now measures the spin along the z-axis. She can obtain one of two possible outcomes: +z or -z. Suppose she gets +z. According to quantum mechanics, the quantum state of the system collapses into state I. (Different interpretations of quantum mechanics have different ways of saying this, but the basic result is the same.) The quantum state determines the probable outcomes of any measurement performed on the system. In this case, if Bob subsequently measures spin along the z-axis, he will obtain -z with 100% probability. Similarly, if Alice gets -z, Bob will get +z.

There is, of course, nothing special about our choice of the z axis. For instance, suppose that Alice and Bob now decide to measure spin along the x-axis. According to quantum mechanics, the spin singlet state may equally well be expressed as a superposition of spin states pointing in the x direction. We’ll call these states Ia and IIa. In state Ia, Alice’s electron has spin +x and Bob’s electron has spin -x. In state IIa, Alice’s electron has spin -x and Bob’s electron has spin +x. Therefore, if Alice measures +x, the system collapses into Ia, and Bob will get -x. If Alice measures -x, the system collapses into IIa, and Bob will get +x.

In quantum mechanics, the x-spin and z-spin are “incompatible observables”, which means that there is a Heisenberg uncertainty principle operating between them: a quantum state cannot possess a definite value for both variables. Suppose Alice measures the z-spin and obtains +z, so that the quantum state collapses into state I. Now, instead of measuring the z-spin as well, Bob measures the x-spin. According to quantum mechanics, when the system is in state I, Bob’s x-spin measurement will have a 50% probability of producing +x and a 50% probability of -x. Furthermore, it is fundamentally impossible to predict which outcome will appear until Bob actually performs the measurement.

Incidentally, although we have used spin as an example, many types of physical quantities — what quantum mechanics refers to as “observables” — can be used to produce quantum entanglement. The original EPR paper used momentum for the observable. Actual experimental realizations of the EPR scenario often use the polarization of photons, because it is easy to prepare and to measure.

Reality and completeness
We will now introduce two concepts used by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, which are crucial to their attack on quantum mechanics: (i) the elements of physical reality and (ii) the completeness of a physical theory.

The authors did not directly address the philosophical meaning of an “element of physical reality”. Instead, they made the assumption that if the value of any physical quantity of a system can be predicted with absolute certainty prior to performing a measurement or otherwise disturbing it, then that quantity corresponds to an element of physical reality. Note that the converse is not assumed to be true; there may be other ways for elements of physical reality to exist, but this will not affect the argument.

Next, EPR defined a “complete physical theory” as one in which every element of physical reality is accounted for. The aim of their paper was to show, using these two definitions, that quantum mechanics is not a complete physical theory.

Let us see how these concepts apply to the above thought experiment. Suppose Alice decides to measure the value of spin along the z-axis (we’ll call this the z-spin.) After Alice performs her measurement, the z-spin of Bob’s electron is definitely known, so it is an element of physical reality. Similarly, if Alice decides to measure spin along the x-axis, the x-spin of Bob’s electron is an element of physical reality after her measurement.

We have seen that a quantum state cannot possess a definite value for both x-spin and z-spin. If quantum mechanics is a complete physical theory in the sense given above, x-spin and z-spin cannot be elements of reality at the same time. This means that Alice’s decision — whether to perform her measurement along the x- or z-axis — has an instantaneous effect on the elements of physical reality at Bob’s location. However, this violates another principle, that of locality.

Locality in the EPR experiment
The principle of locality states that physical processes occurring at one place should have no immediate effect on the elements of reality at another location. At first sight, this appears to be a reasonable assumption to make, as it seems to be a consequence of special relativity, which states that information can never be transmitted faster than the speed of light without violating causality. It is generally believed that any theory which violates causality would also be internally inconsistent, and thus deeply unsatisfactory.

It turns out that quantum mechanics violates the principle of locality without violating causality. Causality is preserved because there is no way for Alice to transmit messages (i.e. information) to Bob by manipulating her measurement axis. Whichever axis she uses, she has a 50% probability of obtaining “+” and 50% of obtaining “-”, completely at random; according to quantum mechanics, it is fundamentally impossible for her to influence what result she gets. Furthermore, Bob is only able to perform his measurement once: there is a fundamental property of quantum mechanics, known as the “no cloning theorem”, which makes it impossible for him to make a million copies of the electron he receives, perform a spin measurement on each, and look at the statistical distribution of the results. Therefore, in the one measurement he is allowed to make, there is a 50% probability of getting “+” and 50% of getting “-”, regardless of whether or not his axis is aligned with Alice’s.

However, the principle of locality appeals powerfully to physical intuition, and Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen were unwilling to abandon it. Einstein derided the quantum mechanical predictions as “spooky action at a distance”. The conclusion they drew was that quantum mechanics is not a complete theory.

It should be noted that the word locality has several different meanings in physics. For example, in quantum field theory “locality” means that quantum fields at different points of space do not interact with one another. However, quantum field theories that are “local” in this sense violate the principle of locality as defined by EPR.

Resolving the paradox

Hidden variables
There are several possible ways to resolve the EPR paradox. The one suggested by EPR is that quantum mechanics, despite its success in a wide variety of experimental scenarios, is actually an incomplete theory. In other words, there is some as-yet-undiscovered theory of nature to which quantum mechanics acts as a kind of statistical approximation (albeit an exceedingly successful one). Unlike quantum mechanics, the more complete theory contains variables corresponding to all the “elements of reality”. There must be some unknown mechanism acting on these variables to give rise to the observed effects of “non-commuting quantum observables”, i.e. the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Such a theory is called a hidden variable theory.

To illustrate this idea, we can formulate a very simple hidden variable theory for the above thought experiment. One supposes that the quantum spin-singlet states emitted by the source are actually approximate descriptions for “true” physical states possessing definite values for the z-spin and x-spin. In these “true” states, the electron going to Bob always has spin values opposite to the electron going to Alice, but the values are otherwise completely random. For example, the first pair emitted by the source might be “(+z, -x) to Alice and (-z, +x) to Bob”, the next pair “(-z, -x) to Alice and (+z, +x) to Bob”, and so forth. Therefore, if Bob’s measurement axis is aligned with Alice’s, he will necessarily get the opposite of whatever Alice gets; otherwise, he will get “+” and “-” with equal probability.

Assuming we restrict our measurements to the z and x axes, such a hidden variable theory is experimentally indistinguishable from quantum mechanics. In reality, of course, there is an (uncountably) infinite number of axes along which Alice and Bob can perform their measurements, so there has to be an infinite number of independent hidden variables! However, this is not a serious problem; we have formulated a very simplistic hidden variable theory, and a more sophisticated theory might be able to patch it up. It turns out that there is a much more serious challenge to the idea of hidden variables.

Bell’s inequality
In 1964, John Bell showed that the predictions of quantum mechanics in the EPR thought experiment are actually slightly different from the predictions of a very broad class of hidden variable theories. Roughly speaking, quantum mechanics predicts much stronger statistical correlations between the measurement results performed on different axes than the hidden variable theories. These differences, expressed using inequality relations known as “Bell’s inequalities”, are in principle experimentally detectable. For a detailed derivation of this result, see the article on Bell’s theorem.

After the publication of Bell’s paper, a variety of experiments were devised to test Bell’s inequalities. (As mentioned above, these experiments generally rely on photon polarization measurements.) All the experiments conducted to date have found behavior in line with the predictions of standard quantum mechanics.

However, the book is not completely closed on this issue. First of all, Bell’s theorem does not apply to all possible “realist” theories. It is possible to construct theories that escape its implications, and are therefore indistinguishable from quantum mechanics, though these theories are generally non-local — they are believed to violate both causality and the rules of special relativity. Some workers in the field have also attempted to formulate hidden variable theories that exploit loopholes in actual experiments, such as the assumptions made in interpreting experimental data. However, no one has ever been able to formulate a local realist theory that can reproduce all the results of quantum mechanics.

Implications for quantum mechanics
Most physicists today believe that quantum mechanics is correct, and that the EPR paradox is only a “paradox” because classical intuitions do not correspond to physical reality. Several different conclusions can be drawn from this, depending on which interpretation of quantum mechanics one uses. In the old Copenhagen interpretation, one concludes that the principle of locality does not hold, and that instantaneous wavefunction collapse really does occur. In the many-worlds interpretation, locality is preserved, and the effects of the measurements arise from the splitting of the observers into different “histories”.

The EPR paradox has deepened our understanding of quantum mechanics by exposing the fundamentally non-classical characteristics of the measurement process. Prior to the publication of the EPR paper, a measurement was often visualized as a physical disturbance inflicted directly on the measured system. For instance, when measuring the position of an electron, one imagines shining a light on it, thus disturbing the electron and producing the quantum mechanical uncertainties in its position. Such explanations, which are still encountered in popular expositions of quantum mechanics, are debunked by the EPR paradox, which shows that a “measurement” can be performed on a particle without disturbing it directly, by performing a measurement on a distant entangled particle.

Technologies relying on quantum entanglement are now being developed. In quantum cryptography, entangled particles are used to transmit signals that cannot be eavesdropped upon without leaving a trace. In quantum computation, entangled quantum states are used to perform computations in parallel, which may allow certain calculations to be performed much more quickly than they ever could be with classical computers.


Tags: , ,

Unified Field Theory and The Theory of Everything

Published on Tuesday, January 31st, 2006

Unified Field Theory

In physics, unified field theory is an attempt to unify all the fundamental forces and the interactions between elementary particles into a single theoretical framework. The term was coined by Einstein who attempted to reconcile the general theory of relativity with electromagnetism in a single field theory. His quest proved elusive and a unified field theory, sometimes grandiosely referred to as the Theory of Everything (TOE, for short), has remained the holy grail for physicists, the long-sought theory which would explain the nature and behavior of all matter.

In physics, the forces between objects can be described as mediated by fields. Current theory says that at subatomic distances, these fields are replaced by quantum fields interacting according to the laws of quantum mechanics. Alternatively, using the particle-wave duality of quantum mechanics, fields can be described in terms of exchange particles that transfer momentum and energy between objects. Crudely speaking, objects interact as they emit and absorb exchanged particles, in effect playing a subatomic game of “catch”. The essential belief of a unified field theory is that the four fundamental forces (see below) as well as all matter are simply different manifestations of a single fundamental field.

A unified field theory aims to reconcile the four fundamental forces (or fields) of nature, namely:
• Strong force: Force responsible for holding quarks together to form neutrons and protons, and holding neutrons and protons together to form nuclei. The exchange particles that mediate this force are gluons.
• Electromagnetic force: It is the familiar force that acts on electrically charged particle. The photon is the exchange particle for this force.
• Weak force: Responsible for radioactivity, it is a repulsive short-range interaction that acts on electrons, neutrinos and quarks. It is governed by the W boson.
• Gravitational force: A long-range attractive force that acts on all particles. The exchange particles have been postulated and named gravitons.

History
Historically, the first unified field theory was developed by James Clerk Maxwell. In 1831, Michael Faraday made the observation that time-varying magnetic fields could induce electric currents. Until then, electricity and magnetism had been thought as unrelated phenomena. In 1864, Maxwell published his famous paper on a dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field. This was the first example of a theory that was able to encompass previous theories (namely electricity and magnetism) to provide a unifying theory of electromagnetism. However, today we know that the classical electrodynamics developed by Maxwell eventually breaks down near the quantum limit (for large momentum and energy transfer). A complete quantum description of the electromagnetic force was achieved in the 1940s, a theory known as quantum electrodynamics (QED). This theory represents the interactions of charged particles mediated by force carriers named photons. The theory is based on a space-time symmetry of the field called gauge (really phase) symmetry. The theory was so successful that the principle of continuous gauge symmetry was soon adopted for all forces.

In 1967, two Americans Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg and a Pakistani Abdus Salam proposed independently a theory unifying electromagnetism and the weak nuclear forces. They found that in seeking a quantum gauge field theory of the weak forces they were forced to introduce an additional force. They demonstrated that the gauge field from the weak interaction was structurally identical to the electromagnetic field. Quantum electrodynamics is then a consequence of a spontaneous symmetry breaking in a theory in which initially the weak and electromagnetic interactions are unified. This unified theory was governed by the exchange of four particles: the photon for electromagnetic interactions, and a neutral Z particle and two charged W particles for weak interaction. As a result of the spontaneous symmetry breaking the weak force becomes short range and the Z and W bosons acquire masses of the order of 90 GeV / c2. Their theory was given experimental support by the discovery, in 1983, of the Z and W bosons at CERN by Carlo Rubbia’s team. For their insights, Glashow, Weinberg and Salam were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979. Carlo Rubbia and Simon van der Meer received the Prize in 1984.

The next logical step towards the unification of the fundamental forces of nature was to include the strong interaction with the electroweak forces in a theory called the Grand Unified Theory (GUT). A quantum theory of the strong force had been developed in the 1970s under the name of Quantum Chromodynamics. The strong interaction acts between quarks via the exchange of particles called gluons. There are eight types of gluons, each carrying a color charge and an anti-color charge. Based on this theory, Sheldon Glashow and Howard Georgi proposed the first grand unified theory in 1974, which applied to energies above 1000 GeV. Since then there have been several proposals for GUTs, although none is currently universally accepted. A major problem for experimental tests of such theories is the energy scale involved, which is well beyond the reach of current accelerators. However, there are some falsifiable predictions that have been made for low energy processes that do not involve accelerators. One of these predictions is that the proton is unstable and can decay. It is at present unknown if the proton can decay although experiments have determined a lower bound of 1035 years for its lifetime. It is therefore uncertain, at the present time, whether any GUT can provide an accurate description of matter.

Gravity has yet to be included in a theory of everything. Theoretical physicists have been so far incapable of formulating a consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics. The two theories have proved to be incompatible and the quantization of gravity remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics. In recent years the quest for a unified field theory has largely focused on string theory. Much hope has been put on one of its offshoots known as M-theory (M. Kaku, B. Greene). Others theories that attempt to explain the quantization of gravity are twistor theory (R. Penrose and W. Rindler), Noncommutative geometry (A. Connes, J. Madore) and loop quantum gravity (L. Smolin, R. Gambini and J. Pullin).
See also dynamic theory of gravity, generalized theory of gravitation.

Unifications in physics
• electricity + magnetism = electromagnetism (due to Maxwell (1860s))
• electromagnetism + weak interaction = electroweak interaction (due to Glashow, Salam and Weinberg (1960s))
• electroweak interaction + strong interaction = grand unified theory (none yet verified)
• grand unified theory + general relativity = unified field theory (none yet known)

Reductionism
There is much debate about the intrinsic value of searching for a possibly successful unified field theory. Besides the argument that such a theory may not exist, some have argued that finding the final theory, that is the ultimate foundation of nature, will not unlock the mystery of the universe. This is the view that the understanding of the ultimate particles will not yield a complete knowledge of the behaviour of atoms and molecules or some higher level structure. Some physicists (e.g P.W. Anderson) have argued that large structures undergo collective behaviors which are not most usefully described in terms of the behavior of their constituents and therefore there is no reason to label the lower-level behaviors as more fundamental.

Amateur theories
Many amateur theories have been proposed. These are often couched in cryptic language with numerous neologisms apparently intended to impress or obscure meaning. These attempts are for the most part ill-conceived and devoid of merit. Such theories typically contain little in the way of falsifiable results or predictions; and, for the most part, have not been through a process equivalent to peer-review.
The unified field theory must be consistent, explain all previously known aspects of gravity on a large scale, and of quantum mechanics on the subatomic level, in a single framework while making new and falsifiable predictions.

Theory of Everything

A theory of everything (TOE) is a theory of theoretical physics and mathematics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena. Initially, the term was used with an ironic connotation to refer to various overgeneralized theories. For example, a great-grandfather of Ijon Tichy — a character from a cycle of Stanisław Lem’s science fiction stories of 1960s — was known to work on “General Theory of Everything” (Polish: “Ogólna Teoria Wszystkiego”). Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of quantum physics to describe a theory that would unify the theories of the four fundamental interactions of nature.

There have been numerous theories of everything proposed by theoretical physicists over the last century, but as yet none has been able to stand up to experimental scrutiny or there is tremendous difficulty in getting the theories to produce even experimentally testable results. The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity propose radically different descriptions of the universe, and straightforward ways of combining the two lead quickly to the renormalization problem in which the theory does not give finite results for experimentally testable quantities.

Mainstream physics
Albert Einstein was the first well-known scientist who spent most of his life trying to find a TOE; he believed that the only task was to unify general relativity and electromagnetism.

Current mainstream physics concepts require that a TOE unify the four fundamental interactions of nature: gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force; it should also explain the spectrum of elementary particles. There has been progress toward a TOE in unifying electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force in an electroweak unified field theory and in unifying all of the forces except for gravity (which in the present theory of general relativity is not a force) in the grand unification theory. One missing piece in a theory of everything involves combining quantum mechanics and general relativity into a theory of quantum gravity.

The only mainstream candidate for a theory of everything at the moment is superstring theory / M-theory; current research on loop quantum gravity may eventually play a fundamental role in a TOE, but that is not its primary aim. These theories attempt to deal with the renormalization problem by setting up some lower bound on the length scales possible. Also, early 21st century theories of everything tend to suppose that the universe actually has more dimensions than the easily observed three of space and one of time. The motivation behind this approach began with the Kaluza-Klein theory in which it was noted that adding one dimension to general relativity would produce the electromagnetic Maxwell’s equations. This has led to efforts to work with theories with large number of dimensions in the hopes that this would produce equations which are similar to known laws of physics. The notion of extra dimensions also helps to resolve the hierarchy problem which is the question of why gravity is so much weaker than any other force. The common answer involves gravity leaking into the extra dimensions in ways that the other forces do not.

In the late 1990s, it was noted that one problem with several of the candidates for theories of everything was that they did not constrain the characteristics of the predicted universe. For example, many theories of quantum gravity can create universes with arbitrary numbers of dimensions or with arbitrary cosmological constants. One bit of speculation is that there may indeed be a huge number of universes, but that only a small number of them are habitable, and hence the fundamental constants of the universe are ultimately the result of the anthropic principle rather than a consequence of the theory of everything. Max Tegmark has taken this principle to its logical conclusion with his “Ultimate Ensemble”, whose only postulate is that “all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically”. In this theory, certain mathematical structures are complex enough to contain self aware substructures, who subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically real world.

Unsolved problems in physics: Is string theory, superstring theory, or M-theory, or some other variant on this theme, a step on the road to a “theory of everything”, or just a blind alley?

There is also a philosophical debate within the physics community as to whether or not a “theory of everything” should be seen as the fundamental law of the universe. One view is the hard reductionist view that the TOE is the fundamental law of the universe and that all other theories of the universe are a consequence of the TOE. Another view is that there are laws which Steven Weinberg calls free floating laws which govern the behavior of complex systems, and while these laws are related to the theory of everything, they cannot be seen as less fundamental than the TOE. Some argue that this explanation would violate Occam’s Razor if a completely valid TOE were formulated.

Other possibilities which may frustrate the explanatory capacity of a TOE may include sensitivity to the boundary conditions of the universe, or the existence of mathematical chaos in its solutions, making its predictions precise, but useless.

There have been several attempts to advance the general theory of relativity as a theory of everything. As mentioned above, Einstein was responsible for one of these: in collaboration with with Rosen he attempted to model particles as tiny wormholes, hence the term Einstein-Rosen Bridge. Wormholes have also been proposed at various times (for instance, by Shimony and by Durand [1]) to explain Bell violations not as superluminal influences but influences that take a shortcut through a wormhole. Such theories face a number of hurdles: the creation of wormholes changes the topology of spacetime by creating a new “handle” which implies violations of causality (see Hadley [2]), and the general theory of relativity predicts its own breakdown at a Gravitational singularity by theorems of Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. A recent effort to surmount this hurdle notes that the equivalence principle can be applied along curves rather than at a single point (Iliev [3]), which would imply that time dilation of (1 − v2) − 1 / 2 is indistinguishable locally (along the curve) from a relative velocity v and the unbounded time dilation observed as an event horizon emerges at the center of a collapsing star implies that the center is in reality as well as appearance receding at a velocity approaching the speed of light, producing a bubble-like local inflation of the star’s interior (Monroe [4]). This approach skirts the trapped surface assumption of the theorems of Hawking and Penrose.

Where the Standard Model comes up short
The Standard Model of physics is among the most successful theories in history, but it fails to explain everything. It doesn’t explain the origins of the universe before the big bang or the cause of that event. There are 18 arbitrary constants and several dozen elementary particles in the Standard Model. Why are there so many? The Standard Model also fails to explain over 90% of the apparent mass-energy of the universe. The existence of dark matter and dark energy, although never observed directly, is all but guaranteed if current theory is correct.

Why is so much of the universe invisible? What is the state of matter within a black hole? Is spacetime curved, or is it flat? How many dimensions of space and time are there? What is the origin of matter and energy? What is the reason for them at all? Are some particles the “most fundamental”? What happens beyond Planck scales? Why is momentum quantized? Is the speed of light the fastest speed in the universe? These are among the many questions left unanswered by the most modern theories in physics. A successful TOE would explain each of these questions and provide solutions to every situation which could exist in the universe.

Other efforts
Attempts to create theories of everything are common among people outside the professional physics community. Some are created by amateurs, and their theories are often criticised on the basis of inability to make quantifiable and/or falsifiable predictions. For example, a theory of everything would provide some insight into the relative strength of forces, and predictions of particle lifetimes and cross sections. It would need to be shown to explain all known universal phenomena. Unlike professional physicists, who are generally aware that their proposed theory is incomplete, untested, and likely to be wrong and who are aware of the huge difficulties and challenges involved in creating a TOE, amateurs who create TOE’s tend to be unaware of what work has already been done, the mechanisms for testing scientific theories and the fact that most proposed theories are wrong.

Burkhard Heim and quantised general relativity
Burkhard Heim’s theory of quantised general relativity purports to be a TOE but this theory, begun in the 1950s and still under development, had until recently sunk into obscurity. A sign that it is undergoing a renewal of interest is that a paper by Droescher and Haeuser on aerospace applications of Heim Theory was published by the AIAA in 2005 and was awarded the prize for best paper of the year by the Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion Technical Committee. Supporters claim that Heim’s six dimensional theory can predict the masses of some fundamental particles with considerable accuracy, which no established theory has yet been able to do. Heim’s theory bears a resemblance to loop quantum gravity in that Heim’s network of metrons is similar to the spin networks of LQG, and predates them by several decades.

Eino Kaila
The prolific Finnish philosopher Eino Kaila attempted to construct a theory of everything based on the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics in the 1950s. His attempt did not get much attention outside Finland, and he only managed to write the first part of what he planned on making an extensive study on the subject. “Terminalkausalität als die Grundlage eines unitarischen Naturbegriffs” (”terminal causality as the foundation of a unitarian notion of nature”), published in 1956, formulated a new type of causality and was meant to be followed by similar works on psychology and biology.

Time Cube
Gene Ray’s Time Cube concept is an example of an amateur TOE that is quite well-known, although this is mainly due to entertainment value rather than its scientific merit. Mr. Ray claims to explain all known universal phenomena through the postulate that “Time is cubic, not linear”. See list of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. Like many similar theories, it is regarded as pseudoscience.

Expansion Theory
Expansion Theory purports to offer a theory of everything in which all physical phenomena are explained by universal accelerating expansion. Author Mark McCutcheon described the theory in the book The Final Theory: Rethinking our Scientific Legacy, in 2002, although the theory itself is much older. The theory argues that current scientific theory is inconsistent and incomplete in that it predicts yet doesn’t explain Action at a distance, violates its own conservation laws, and fails to live up to experimental data or concur with the laws of common sense. Under expansion theory, Classical Mechanics, General Relativity, Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics are discarded and replaced with an atomic expansion that, according to the author, accounts for phenomena like magnetism, light, gravity, and atomic forces. [5]

Expansion Theory holds little to no acceptance within the scientific community. Many of the predictions of the theory don’t hold empirically, and the theory doesn’t explain any anomalous data. Like other purported theories of everything, many regard the theory to be a form of pseudoscience.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Unified Field Theory and The Theory of Everything” .


Tags: , , , , , ,

Quantum electrodynamics (QED)

Published on Tuesday, December 13th, 2005

Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is a quantum field theory of electromagnetism. QED describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of the electromagnetic force and has been called “the jewel of physics” for its extremely accurate predictions of quantities like the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, and the Lamb shift of the energy levels of hydrogen.

Physical interpretation of QED
It is a well-known classical fact that light takes the quickest path between two points, but how does light `know where it’s going’? That is, if you know the start and end points, you can figure out the path that will take the shortest time, but when light is emitted it doesn’t have a fixed end point, so how is it that it always takes the quickest path? The answer is provided by QED. Light doesn’t know where it is going, and it doesn’t always take the quickest path. In fact, according to QED, it takes EVERY possible path between the start and end points. Each path is assigned a probability (interestingly, this is a complex number-valued probability) and the actual path we observe is the weighted average of all of the paths. This average path is the one that the classical theory predicts, the quickest path between the two points. A very nice exposition from this point of view of QED is provided in Feynman’s classic: QED: The strange theory of light and matter (see below).

Physically, QED describes charged particles (and their antiparticles) interacting with each other by the exchange of photons. The magnitude of these interactions can be computed using perturbation theory; these rather complex formulas have a remarkable pictorial representation as Feynman diagrams [1]. QED was historically the theory to which Feynman diagrams were first applied. These diagrams had been invented from Lagrangian mechanics.

History
In 1900, Max Planck introduced the idea that energy is quantized, in order to derive a formula for the observed frequency dependence of the energy emitted by a black body. In 1905, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect by postulating that light energy comes in quanta called photons. In 1913, Bohr explained the spectral lines of the hydrogen atom, again by using quantization. In 1924, Louis de Broglie put forward his theory of matter waves.

These theories, though successful, were strictly phenomenological: there was no rigorous justification for quantization. They are collectively known as the old quantum theory. The phrase “quantum physics” was first used in Johnston’s Planck’s Universe in Light of Modern Physics.

Modern quantum mechanics was born in 1925, when Heisenberg developed matrix mechanics and Schrödinger invented wave mechanics and the Schrödinger equation. Schrödinger subsequently showed that the two approaches were equivalent.

Heisenberg formulated his uncertainty principle in 1927, and the Copenhagen interpretation took shape at about the same time. Starting around 1927, Paul Dirac unified quantum mechanics with special relativity. He also pioneered the use of operator theory, including the influential bra-ket notation, as described in his famous 1930 textbook. During the same period, John von Neumann formulated the rigorous mathematical basis for quantum mechanics as the theory of linear operators on Hilbert spaces, as described in his likewise famous 1932 textbook. These, like many other works from the founding period still stand, and remain widely used.

The field of quantum chemistry was pioneered by Walter Heitler and Fritz London, who published a study of the covalent bond of the hydrogen molecule in 1927. Quantum chemistry was subsequently developed by a large number of workers, including the American chemist Linus Pauling.

Beginning in 1927, attempts were made to apply quantum mechanics to fields rather than single particles, resulting in what are known as quantum field theories. Early workers in this area included Dirac, Pauli, Weisskopf, and Jordan. This area of research culminated in the formulation of quantum electrodynamics by Feynman, Dyson, Schwinger, and Tomonaga during the 1940s. Quantum electrodynamics is a quantum theory of electrons, positrons, and the electromagnetic field, and served as a role model for subsequent quantum field theories.

The theory of quantum chromodynamics was formulated beginning in the early 1960s. The theory as we know it today was formulated by Politzer, Gross and Wilzcek in 1975. Building on pioneering work by Schwinger, Higgs, Goldstone and others, Glashow, Weinberg and Salam independently showed how the weak nuclear force and quantum electrodynamics could be merged into a single electroweak force.

QED was the first quantum field theory in which the difficulties of building a consistent, fully quantum description of fields and creation and annihilation of quantum particles were satisfactorily resolved. Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, Julian Schwinger and Richard Feynman received the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics for its development, their contributions involving a covariant and gauge invariant prescription for the calculation of observable quantities. Feynman’s mathematical technique, based on his diagrams, initially seemed very different from the field-theoretic, operator-based approach of Schwinger and Tomonaga, but was later shown to be equivalent. The renormalization procedure for making sense of some of the infinite predictions of quantum field theory also found its first successful implementation in quantum electrodynamics


Tags: , , , , ,

Intelligence vs. The Open Mind

Published on Saturday, July 9th, 2005

Main Entry: in•tel•li•gent
Pronunciation: in-’te-l&-j&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin intelligent-, intelligens, present participle of intelligere, intellegere to understand, from inter- + legere to gather, select — more at LEGEND
1 a : having or indicating a high or satisfactory degree of intelligence and mental capacity b : revealing or reflecting good judgment or sound thought : SKILLFUL
2 a : possessing intelligence b : guided or directed by intellect : RATIONAL
3 a : guided or controlled by a computer; especially : using a built-in microprocessor for automatic operation, for processing of data, or for achieving greater versatility — compare DUMB 7 b : able to produce printed material from digital signals
- in•tel•li•gen•tial /-”te-l&-’jen(t)-sh&l/ adjective
- in•tel•li•gent•ly /-’te-l&-j&nt-lE/ adverb
synonyms INTELLIGENT, CLEVER, ALERT, QUICK-WITTED mean mentally keen or quick. INTELLIGENT stresses success in coping with new situations and solving problems
. CLEVER implies native ability or aptness and sometimes suggests a lack of more substantial qualities . ALERT stresses quickness in perceiving and understanding . QUICK-WITTED implies promptness in finding answers in debate or in devising expedients in moments of danger or challenge .

I wanted to get past the proper definition of intelligence, since there are varying ideas about what, exactly, constitutes intelligence. I especially like the synonyms for intelligence, like the words clever, alert, and quick witted. Does intelligence, however, suggest the presence of an open mind? Surely we all know people of vast intellectual capacity who are one-sided and completely closed minded on certain subjects and in certain areas. Having witnessed this in my own field of human observation, I’ve come to the conclusion that intelligence and an open mind do not necessarily go hand in hand. Skillful, rational, and alert people may be more capable of seeing things from different perspectives, but to truly have an open mind, means to see everything from a multidimensional point of view. Once this has been accomplished, then one is able to choose how and what to think about something. One would think, to be of greater intelligence would mean to know how to explore the variables and see all from differing points of view. This, unfortunately, does not always occur.

The intellectualization of our world has produced some of the greatest minds of our age. Still, are all these great minds as well as the average intelligent being on the planet open to all possibilities? What is it exactly, that creates the intelligent mind? Some traits of true intelligence are curiosity, expansiveness, and awareness.

Many wish they were more intelligent. They look at life and think they would be more of whatever it is they are wishing for if they were smarter. These same wishful thinkers are the very ones who can make huge differences in their lives, as well as the lives of others, by simply being curious or passionate about what it is they are doing. I’m quite certain there are multitudes of people who have been extremely successful in their work who couldn’t get past a C in school. These very people are proof that intelligence is not measured by grades, tests, or cleverness. We all know “clever” people who get into trouble all the time. So then, what is intelligence?

It is easy to use the dictionary and thesaurus to get the worldly meanings of intelligence, (and there are many), but it’s so much more. It’s the freedom to think creative thought and put it to use. It’s seeing the possibilities in every day of one’s life. Its passion and fervor. It’s the sense to be here now and always in the present. It’s to know you are spirit and your spirit is free to be and inquire. It’s to not be so serious when life is challenging, and accept the challenge. It’s to know that it’s ok to be childlike without being childish. It’s to feel the flow of life and be a part of it, instead of apart from it. True intelligence is knowing that you don’t know all there is to know, and not pretending you do, while keeping an open mind.

“We should take care not to make the intellect our God; it has of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.”___Albert Einstein

©Myswizard ‘05 all rights reserved


Tags: , , ,

The Holographic Universe

Published on Wednesday, June 29th, 2005

The Universe as a Hologram
Author unknown
Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm?3 SUNS

In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect’s name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn’t matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein’s long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect’s findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect’s findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser. To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears. The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole. The “whole in every part” nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts.

A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes. This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect’s discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration.
Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium’s front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.

This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect’s experiment. According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality.

Such particles are not separate “parts”, but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these “eidolons”, the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.

In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected. The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky. Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.

In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order. At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past. What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be — every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of “All That Is.”

Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a “mere stage” beyond which lies “an infinity of further development”. Bohm is not the only researcher who has found evidence that the universe is a hologram. Working independently in the field of brain research, Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram has also become persuaded of the holographic nature of reality.

Pribram was drawn to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories are stored in the brain. For decades numerous studies have shown that rather than being confined to a specific location, memories are dispersed throughout the brain.

In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat’s brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious “whole in every part” nature of memory storage. Then in the 1960s Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram. Pribram’s theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little space. It has been estimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information during the average human lifetime (or roughly the same amount of information contained in five sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage–simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information. Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word “zebra”, you do not have to clumsily sort back through some gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like “striped”, “horselike”, and “animal native to Africa” all pop into your head instantly. Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information–another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with every other portion, it is perhaps nature’s supreme example of a cross-correlated system.

The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram’s holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions. Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions. An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram’s theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists.

Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability. Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism.

Pribram’s belief that our brains mathematically construct “hard” reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support. It has been found that each of our senses is sensitive to a much broader range of frequencies than was previously suspected. Researchers have discovered, for instance, that our visual systems are sensitive to sound frequencies, that our sense of smell is in part dependent on what are now called “osmic frequencies”, and that even the cells in our bodies are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies. Such findings suggest that it is only in the holographic domain of consciousness that such frequencies are sorted out and divided up into conventional perceptions. But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram’s holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm’s theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is “there” is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality?

Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion.

We are really “receivers” floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram. This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram’s views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature.

Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many para-psychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm. In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level. It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual ‘A’ to that of individual ‘B’ at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolved puzzles in psychology. In particular, Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness.

In the 1950s, while conducting research into the beliefs of LSD as a psychotherapeutic tool, Grof had one female patient who suddenly became convinced she had assumed the identity of a female of a species of prehistoric reptile. During the course of her hallucination, she not only gave a richly detailed description of what it felt like to be encapsuled in such a form, but noted that the portion of the male of the species’s anatomy was a patch of colored scales on the side of its head. What was startling to Grof was that although the woman had no prior knowledge about such things, a conversation with a zoologist later confirmed that in certain species of reptiles colored areas on the head do indeed play an important role as triggers of sexual arousal. The woman’s experience was not unique. During the course of his research, Grof encountered examples of patients regressing and identifying with virtually every species on the evolutionary tree (research findings which helped influence the man-into-ape scene in the movie Altered States). Moreover, he found that such experiences frequently contained obscure zoological details which turned out to be accurate. Regressions into the animal kingdom were not the only puzzling psychological phenomena Grof encountered. He also had patients who appeared to tap into some sort of collective or racial unconscious. Individuals with little or no education suddenly gave detailed descriptions of Zoroastrian funerary practices and scenes from Hindu mythology. In other categories of experience, individuals gave persuasive accounts of out-of-body journeys, of precognitive glimpses of the future, of regressions into apparent past-life incarnations.

In later research, Grof found the same range of phenomena manifested in therapy sessions which did not involve the use of drugs. Because the common element in such experiences appeared to be the transcending of an individual’s consciousness beyond the usual boundaries of ego and/or limitations of space and time, Grof called such manifestations “transpersonal experiences”, and in the late ’60s he helped found a branch of psychology called “transpersonal psychology” devoted entirely to their study. Although Grof’s newly founded Association of Transpersonal Psychology garnered a rapidly growing group of like-minded professionals and has become a respected branch of psychology, for years neither Grof or any of his colleagues were able to offer a mechanism for explaining the bizarre psychological phenomena they were witnessing. But that has changed with the advent of the holographic paradigm. As Grof recently noted, if the mind is actually part of a continuum, a labyrinth that is connected not only to every other mind that exists or has existed, but to every atom, organism, and region in the vastness of space and time itself, the fact that it is able to occasionally make forays into the labyrinth and have transpersonal experiences no longer seems so strange.

The holographic prardigm also has implications for so-called hard sciences like biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Virginia Intermont College, has pointed out that if the concreteness of reality is but a holographic illusion, it would no longer be true to say the brain produces consciousness. Rather, it is consciousness that creates the appearance of the brain — as well as the body and everything else around us we interpret as physical. Such a turnabout in the way we view biological structures has caused researchers to point out that medicine and our understanding of the healing process could also be transformed by the holographic paradigm. If the apparent physical structure of the body is but a holographic projection of consciousness, it becomes clear that each of us is much more responsible for our health than current medical wisdom allows. What we now view as miraculous remissions of disease may actually be due to changes in consciousness which in turn effect changes in the hologram of the body.

Similarly, controversial new healing techniques such as visualization may work so well because in the holographic domain of thought images are ultimately as real as “reality”. Even visions and experiences involving “non-ordinary” reality become explainable under the holographic paradigm. In his book “Gifts of Unknown Things,” biologist Lyall Watson discribes his encounter with an Indonesian shaman woman who, by performing a ritual dance, was able to make an entire grove of trees instantly vanish into thin air. Watson relates that as he and another astonished onlooker continued to watch the woman, she caused the trees to reappear, then “click” off again and on again several times in succession. Although current scientific understanding is incapable of explaining such events, experiences like this become more tenable if “hard” reality is only a holographic projection. Perhaps we agree on what is “there” or “not there” because what we call consensus reality is formulated and ratified at the level of the human unconscious at which all minds are infinitely interconnected.

If this is true, it is the most profound implication of the holographic paradigm of all, for it means that experiences such as Watson’s are not commonplace only because we have not programmed our minds with the beliefs that would make them so. In a holographic universe there are no limits to the extent to which we can alter the fabric of reality. What we perceive as reality is only a canvas waiting for us to draw upon it any picture we want. Anything is possible, from bending spoons with the power of the mind to the phantasmagoric events experienced by Castaneda during his encounters with the Yaqui brujo don Juan, for magic is our birthright, no more or less miraculous than our ability to compute the reality we want when we are in our dreams. Indeed, even our most fundamental notions about reality become suspect, for in a holographic universe, as Pribram has pointed out, even random events would have to be seen as based on holographic principles and therefore determined. Synchronicities or meaningful coincidences suddenly makes sense, and everything in reality would have to be seen as a metaphor, for even the most haphazard events would express some underlying symmetry. Whether Bohm and Pribram’s holographic paradigm becomes accepted in science or dies an ignoble death remains to be seen, but it is safe to say that it has already had an influence on the thinking of many scientists. And even if it is found that the holographic model does not provide the best explanation for the instantaneous communications that seem to be passing back and forth between subatomic particles, at the very least, as noted by Basil Hiley, a physicist at Birbeck College in London, Aspect’s findings “indicate that we must be prepared to consider radically new views of reality”.

Considered together, Bohm and Pribram’s theories provide a profound new way of looking at the world: Our brains mathematically construct objective reality by interpreting frequencies that are ultimately projections from another dimension, a deeper order of existence that is beyond both space and time: The brain is a hologram folded in a holographic universe. For Pribram, this synthesis made him realize that the objective world does not exist, at least not in the way we are accustomed to believing. What is “out there” is a vast ocean of waves and frequencies, and reality looks concrete to us only because our brains are able to take this holographic blur and convert it into the sticks and stones and other familiar objects that make up our world. How is the brain (which itself is composed of frequencies of matter) able to take something as insubstantial as a blur of frequencies and make it seem solid to the touch? “The kind of mathematical process that Bekesy simulated with his vibrators is basic to how our brains construct our image of a world out there,” Pribram states. In other words, the smoothness of a piece of fine china and the feel of beach sand beneath our feet are really just elaborate versions of the phantom limb syndrome.

According to Pribram this does not mean there aren’t china cups and grains of beach sand out there. It simply means that a china cup has two very different aspects to its reality. When it is filtered through the lens of our brain it manifests as a cup. But if we could get rid of our lenses, we’d experience it as an interference pattern. Which one is real and which is illusion? “Both are real to me,” says Pribram, “or, if you want to say, neither of them are real.”

This state of affairs is not limited to china cups. We, too, have two very different aspects to our reality. We can view ourselves as physical bodies moving through space. Or we can view ourselves an a blur of interference patterns enfolded throughout the cosmic hologram. Bohm believes this second point of view might even be the more correct, for to think of ourselves as a holographic mind/brain looking at a holographic universe is again an abstraction, an attempt to separate two things that ultimately cannot be separated.

Do not be troubled if this is difficult to grasp. It is relatively easy to understand the idea of holism in something that is external to us, like an apple in a hologram. What makes it difficult is that in this case we an not looking at the hologram. We are part of the hologram.

The difficulty is also another indication of how radical a revision Bohm and Pribram are trying to make in our way of thinking. But it is not the only radical revision. Pribram’s assertion that our brains construct objects pales beside another of Bohm’s conclusions: that we even construct space and time. The implications of this view are just one of the subjects that will be examined as we explore the effect Bohm and Pribram’s ideas have had on the work of other fields.

The Undivided Wholeness of All Things

As soon as Bohm began to reflect on the hologram he saw that it too provided a new way of understanding order. Like the ink drop in its dispersed state, the interference patterns recorded on a piece of holographic film also appear disordered to the naked eye. Both possess orders that are hidden or enfolded in much the same way that the order in a plasma is enfolded in the seemingly random behavior of each of its electrons. But this was not the only insight the hologram provided.

The more Bohm thought about it the more convinced he became that the universe actually employed holographic principles in its operations, was itself a kind of giant, flowing hologram, and this realization allowed him to crystallize all of his various insights into a sweeping and cohesive whole. He published his first papers on his holographic view of the universe in the early 1970s, and in 1980 he presented a mature distillation of his thoughts in a book entitled _Wholeness and the Implicate Order_. In it he did more than just link his myriad ideas together. He transfigured them into a new way of looking at reality that was as breathtaking as it was radical.

Enfolded Orders and Unfolded Realities

One of Bohm’s most startling assertions is that the tangible reality of our everyday lives is really a kind of projection, like a holographic image. Underlying it is a deeper order of existence, a vast and more primary level of reality that gives birth to all the objects and appearances of our physical world in much the same way that a piece of holographic film gives birth to a hologram. Bohm calls this deeper level of reality the Implicate (which means “enfolded”) order, and he refers to our own level of existence as the explicate, or unfolded, order.

He uses these terms because he sees the manifestation of all forms in the universe as the result of countless enfoldings and unfoldings between these two orders. For example, Bohm believes an electron is not one thing but a totality or ensemble enfolded throughout the whole of space. When an instrument detects the presence of a single electron it is simply because one aspect of the electron’s ensemble has unfolded, similar to the way an ink drop unfolds out of the glycerine, at that particular location. When an electron appears to be moving it is due to a continuous series of such unfoldments and enfoldments.

Put another way, electrons and all other particles are no more substantive or permanent than the form a geyser of water takes as it gushes out of a fountain. They are sustained by a constant influx from the implicate order, and when a particle appears to be destroyed, it is not lost. It has merely enfolded back into the deeper order from which it sprang. A piece of holographic film and the image it generates are also an example of an implicate and explicate order. The film is an implicate order because the image encoded in its interference patterns is a hidden totality enfolded throughout the whole. The hologram projected from the film is an explicate order because it represents the unfolded and perceptible version of the image.

The constant and flowing exchange between the two orders explains how particles, such as the electron in the positronium atom, can shapeshift from one kind of particle to another. Such shiftings can be viewed as one particle, say an electron, enfolding back into the implicate order while another, a photon, unfolds and takes its place. It also explains how a quantum can manifest as either a particle or a wave. According to Bohm, both aspects are always enfolded in a quantum’s ensemble, but the way an observer interacts with the ensemble determines which aspect unfolds and which remains hidden. As such, the role an observer plays in determining the form a quantum takes may be no more mysterious than the fact that the way a jeweller manipulates a gem determines which of its facets become visible and which do not. Because the term hologram usually refers to an image that is static and does not convey the dynamic and ever active nature of the incalculable enfoldings and unfoldings that moment by moment create our universe, Bohm prefers to describe the universe not as a hologram, but as a holomovement.”

The existence of a deeper and holographically organized order also explains why reality becomes nonlocal at the subquantum level. As we have seen, when something is organized holographically, all semblance of location breaks down. Saying that every part of a piece of holographic film contains all the information possessed by the whole is really just another way of saying that the information is distributed nonlocally. Hence, if the universe is organized according to holographic principles, it, too, would be expected to have nonlocal properties.

The Undivided Wholeness of All Things

Most mind-boggling of all are Bohm’s fully developed ideas about wholeness. Because everything in the cosmos is made out of the seamless holographic fabric of the implicate order, he believes it is as meaningless to view the universe as composed of “parts,” as it is to view the different geysers in a fountain as separate from the water out of which they flow. An electron is not an “elementary particle.” It is Just a name given to a certain aspect of the holomovement. Dividing reality up into parts and then naming those parts is always arbitrary a product of convention, because subatomic particles, and everything else in the universe, are no more separate from one another than different patterns in an ornate carpet.

This is a profound suggestion. In his general theory of relativity Einstein astounded the world when he said that space and time are not separate entities, but are smoothly linked and part of a larger whole he called the space-time continuum. Bohm takes this idea a giant step further. He says that everything in the universe is part of a continuum. Despite the apparent separateness of things at the explicate level, everything is a seamless extension of everything else, and ultimately even the implicate and explicate orders blend into each other.

Take a moment to consider this. Look at your hand. Now look at the light streaming from the lamp beside you. And at the dog resting at your feet. you are not merely made of the same things. You are the same thing. One thing. Unbroken. One enormous something that has extended its uncountable arms and appendages into all the apparent objects, atoms, restless oceans, and twinkling stars in the cosmos.

Bohm cautions that this does not mean the universe is a giant undifferentiated mass. Things can be part of an undivided whole and still possess their own unique qualities. To illustrate what he means he points to the little eddies and whirlpools that often form in a river. At a glance such eddies appear to be separate things and possess many individual characteristics such as size, rate, and direction of rotation, et cetera. But careful scrutiny reveals that it is impossible to determine where any given whirlpool ends and the river begins. Thus, Bohm is not suggesting that the differences between “things” is meaningless. He merely wants us to be aware constantly that dividing various aspects of the holomovement into “things” is always an abstraction, a way of making those aspects stand out in our perception by our way of thinking. In attempts to correct this, instead of calling different aspects of the holomovement “things,” he prefers to call them “relatively independent subtotalities.”

Indeed, Bohm believes that our almost universal tendency to fragment the world and ignore the dynamic interconnectedness of all things is responsible for many of our problems, not only in science but in our lives and our society as well. For instance, we believe we can extract the valuable parts of the earth without affecting the whole. We believe it is possible to treat parts of our body and not be concerned with the whole. We believe we can deal with various problems in our society such as crime, poverty, and drug addiction, without addressing the problems in our society as a whole, and so on. In his writings Bohm argues passionately that our current way of fragmenting the world into parts not only doesn’t work, but may even lead to our extinction.

THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE_ by Michael Talbot

Consciousness as a More Subtle Form of Matter

In addition to explaining why quantum physicists find so many examples of interconnectedness when they plumb the depths of matter, Bohm’s holographic universe explains many other puzzles. One is the effect consciousness seems to have on the subatomic world. As we have seen, Bohm rejects the idea that particles don’t exist until they are observed. But he is not in principle against trying to bring consciousness and physics together. He simply feels that most physicists go about it the wrong way, by once again trying to fragment reality and saying that one separate thing, consciousness, interacts with another separate thing, a subatomic particle.

Because all such things are aspects of the holomovement, he feels it has no meaning to speak of consciousness and matter as interacting. In a sense, the observer is the observed. The observer is also the measuring device, the experimental results, the laboratory, and the breeze that blows outside the laboratory. In fact, Bohm believes that consciousness is a more subtle form of matter, and the basis for any relationship between the two lies not in our own level of reality, but deep in the implicate order. Consciousness is present in various degrees of enfoldment and unfoldment in all matter, which is perhaps why plasmas possess some of the traits of living things. As Bohm puts it, “The ability of form to be active is the most characteristic feature of mind, and we have something that is mindlike already with the electron.”

Similarly, he believes that dividing the universe up into living and nonliving things also has no meaning. Animate and inanimate matter are inseparably interwoven, and life, too, is enfolded throughout the totality of the universe. Even a rock is in some way alive, says Bohm, for life and intelligence are present not only in all of matter, but in “energy,” “space,” “time,” “the fabric of the entire universe,” and everything else we abstract out of the holomovement and mistakenly view as separate things.

The idea that consciousness and life (and indeed all things) are ensembles enfolded throughout the universe has an equally dazzling flip side. Just as every portion of a hologram contains the image of the whole, every portion of the universe enfolds the whole. This means that if we knew how to access it we could find the Andromeda galaxy in the thumbnail of our left hand. We could also find Cleopatra meeting Caesar for the first time, for in principle the whole past and implications for the whole future are also enfolded in each small region of space and time. Every cell in our body enfolds the entire cosmos. So does every leaf, every raindrop, and every dust mote, which gives new meaning to William Blake’s famous poem:

To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour.
The Energy of a Trillion Atomic Bombs in Every Cubic Centimeter of Space

If our universe is only a pale shadow of a deeper order, what else lies hidden, enfolded in the warp and weft of our reality? Bohm has a suggestion. According to our current understanding of physics, every region of space is awash with different kinds of fields composed of waves of varying lengths. Each wave always has at least some energy. When physicists calculate the minimum amount of energy a wave can possess, they find that every cubic centimeter of empty space contains more energy than the total energy of all the matter in the known universe!

Some physicists refuse to take this calculation seriously and believe it must somehow be in error. Bohm thinks this infinite ocean of energy does exist and tells us at least a little about the vast and hidden nature of the implicate order. He feels most physicists ignore the existence of this enormous ocean of energy because, like fish who are unaware of the water in which they swim, they have been taught to focus primarily on objects embedded in the ocean, on matter. Bohm’s view that space is as real and rich with process as the matter that moves through it reaches full maturity in his ideas about the implicate sea of energy. Matter does not exist independently from the sea, from so called empty space. It is a part of space. To explain what he means, Bohm offers the following analogy: A crystal cooled to absolute zero will allow a stream of electrons to pass through it without scattering them. If the temperature is raised, various flaws in the crystal will lose their transparency, so to speak, and begin to scatter electrons. From an electron’s point of view such flaws would appear as pieces of “matter” floating in a sea of nothingness, but this is not really the ease. The nothingness and the pieces of matter do not exist independently from one another. They are both part of the same
fabric, the deeper order of the crystal.

Bohm believes the same is true at our own level of existence. Space is not empty. It is full, a plenum as opposed to a vacuum, and is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves. The universe is not separate from this cosmic sea of energy, it is a ripple on its surface, a comparatively small “pattern of excitation” in the midst of an unimaginably vast ocean. “This excitation pattern is relatively autonomous and gives rise to approximately recurrent, stable and separable projections into a three-dimensional explicate order of manifestation,” states Bohm. In other words, despite its apparent materiality and enormous size, the universe does not exist in and of itself but is the stepchild of something far vaster and more ineffable. More than that, it is not even a major production of this vaster something but is only a passing shadow, a mere hiccup in the greater scheme of things.

This infinite sea of energy is not all that is enfolded in the implicate order. Because the implicate order is the foundation that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it also contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be; every configuration of matter, energy, life, and consciousness that is possible, from quasars to the brain of Shakespeare, from the double helix, to the forces that control the sizes and shapes of galaxies. And even this is not all it may contain. Bohm concedes that there is no reason to believe the implicate order is the end of things. There may be other undreamed of orders beyond it, infinite stages of further development.

THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE _Michael Talbot

“We have to begin to view the Universe as ultimately constituted not of matter and energy, but of pure information!” - Michael Talbot

Meaning is Simultaneously Both Mental and Physical

Our current worldview does not provide us with a context with which to understand PK (psychokinesis ). Bohm believes viewing the universe as a holomovement does provide us with a context. To explain what he means he asks us to consider the following situation. Imagine you are walking down a street late one night and a shadow suddenly looms up out of nowhere. Your first thought might be that the shadow is all assailant and you are in danger. The information contained in this thought will in turn give rise to a range of imagined activities, such as running, being hurt, and fighting. The presence of these imagined activities in your mind, however, is not a purely “mental” process, for they are inseparable from a host of related biological processes, such as excitation of nerves, rapid heart beat, release of adrenaline and other hormones, tensing of the muscles, and so on. Conversely, if your first thought is that the shadow is just a shadow, a different set of mental and biological responses will follow. Moreover, a little reflection will reveal that we react both mentally and biologically to everything we experience.

According to Bohm, the important point to be gleaned from this is that consciousness is not the only thing that can respond to meaning. The body can also respond, and this reveals that meaning is simultaneously both mental and physical in nature. This is odd, for we normally think of meaning as something that can only have an active effect on Subjective reality, on the thoughts inside our heads, not something that can engender a response in the physical world of things and objects. Meaning can thus serve as the link or ‘bridge’ between these two sides of reality,” Bohm states. “This link is indivisible in the sense that information contained in thought, which we feel to be on the ‘mental’ side, is at the same time a neurophysiological, chemical, and physical activity, which is clearly what is meant by this thought on the ‘material’ side.”

Bohm feels that examples of objectively active meaning can be found in other physical processes. One is the functioning of a computer chip. A computer chip contains information, and the meaning of the information is active in the sense that it determines how electrical currents flow through the computer. Another is the behavior of subatomic particles. The orthodox view in physics is that quantum waves act mechanically on a particle, controlling its movement in much the same way that the waves of the ocean might control a Ping-Pong ball floating on its surface. But Bohm does not feel that this view can explain, for example, the coordinateddance of electrons in a plasma any more than the wave motion of water could explain a similarly well-choreographed movement of Ping-Pong balls if such a movement were discovered on the ocean’s surface. He believes the relationship between particle and quantum wave is more like a ship on automatic pilot guided by radar waves. A quantum wave does not push an electron about any more than a radar wave pushes a ship. Rather, it provides the electron with information about its environment which the electron then uses to maneuver on its own.

In other words, Bohm believes that an electron is not only mindlike, but is a highly complex entity, a far cry from the standard view that an electron is a simple, Structureless point. The active use of information by electrons, and indeed by all Subatomic particles, indicates that the ability to respond to meaning is a characteristic not only of consciousness but of all matter. It is this intrinsic commonality, says Bohm, that offers a possible explanation for PK. He states, “On this basis, psychokinesis could arise if the mental processes of one or more people were focused on meanings that were in harmony with those guiding the basic processes of the material systems in which this psychokinesis was to be brought about.”

It is important to note that this kind of psychokinesis would not be due to a causal process, that is, a cause-and-effect relationship involving any of the known forces in physics. Instead, it would be the result of a kind of nonlocal “resonance of meanings,” or a kind of nonlocal interaction similar to, but not the same as, the nonlocal interconnection that allows a pair of twin photons to manifest the same angle of polarization which we saw in chapter 2 (for technical reasons Bohm believes mere quantum nonlocality cannot account for either PK or telepathy, and only a deeper form of nonlocality, a kind of “super”nonlocality”, would offer such an explanation).

Extract from:
THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE_ by Michael Talbot

In Part Two of _The Holographic Universe_, “Mind and Body,” Michael Talbot discusses the psychological aspects of the holographic model. According to Bohm, “In a universe in which all things are infinitely interconnected, all consciousnesses are also interconnected. Despite appearances, we are beings without borders. Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one.” (p. 60) The holographic theory, according to the author, can explain many psychological phenomena. Some of these include psychic phenomena, the ability to see “auras”, psychosis, the power of the mind to heal using visualization techniques, effects of placebos on healing, lucid dreaming and altered states of consciousness. The power of the mind is awesome and remains untapped. The author believes that by understanding the holographic model we can learn to access these powers. “In the implicate order, as in the brain itself, imagination and reality are ultimately indistinguishable, and it should therefore come as no surprise to us that images in the mind can ultimately manifest as realities in the physical body.”

Holographic Universe


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


WordPress database error: [Table './myswizard_blog/wp_mys_slim_stats' is marked as crashed and should be repaired]
INSERT INTO wp_mys_slim_stats ( `remote_ip`, `language`, `country`, `referer`, `domain`, `searchterms`, `resource`, `platform`, `browser`, `version`, `dt` ) VALUES ( "644595556", "en-us", "us", "", "", "", "/tag/Einstein", "-1", "34", "", "1268484126" )