Perceptions updateIndex of PerceptionsPerceptions site mapsearch Perceptions
UEF Theory
comment + criticism welcome
`Perceptions' ITEM
Copyright © 2012 Ray Dickenson
Welcome - Chinese Peace - Arabic
Dream - Russian Soul Duty - Sanskrit

What's happened to Physics?

Smolin On Physics

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 01:33:29 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 12:57:33 -0500
Subject: Smolin On Physics

Hello List,

Last night Lee Smolin was interviewed on Radio 3 (BBC 21:45 programme) about his book `The Trouble With Physics' and, despite the setting he got two points across.

a - Physics is still in a Newtonian mind-set. E.g 'atoms of any given element are identical and self-defined' - that's a Newtonian concept still held by most physicists today;

b - He then said "We know no more than we did in 1975 - and that's not good" - implying physics is stuck in a dead-end.

Or maybe that real physics is now secret?

Ray D

Re: Smolin On Physics

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:58:06 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:42:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Smolin On Physics


Off-List chat says maybe some of the dots need joining up.

If we're expected to accept 'scientific' statements that certain things are impossible, then it seems advisable to be sure of the science.

Smolin is doing some thinking and Halton Arp is doing some finding - like why are some redshifts partly quantized?  Present science has no explanation.  Present science daren't even consider that fact because it shakes the 'standard model' of the Universe.  So it's suppressed.  And Alain Aspect got some dangerous experimental results - which are even now being ignored by scared mainstreamers.

Here's a double quote which seems undeniable -

"Entanglement: demands a field or force acting instantaneously over arbitrary distance, perhaps universe-wide;

Half-life: demands that each particle in the universe be informed of the existence and action of each other particle in the universe, most probably by way of that instantaneous force or field."
End of double quote

[Maybe try Wiki for Quantum_entanglement and also for Radioactive_decay#Radioactive_decay_rates, there's some good stuff there]

I'm sure Listers can see that many Ufology arguments of the past need to be re-visited in the light of those two conclusions alone.

How many more 'dangerous' conclusions have been hidden in dusty files by mainstream science?

Ray D

Re: Defending The Indefensible

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:53:45 -0000
Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:40:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Defending The Indefensible

Martin Shough and Mike Good are at opposite ends of a see-saw called 'the popular view of science' - and, for a couple of reasons, I think Martin is sitting on the complacent, slightly over-reverential end.

1 - Over-all the science community's attitude could be said to be in even worse shape than implied by Planck's saying - "The Old Theories only die out when the Old Professors die out".  Most so-called scientists aren't at the leading-edge and don't even understand or know about it; they qualified by memorizing the obsolete laws in text-books.

The mind-sets of even the leading edge boys are dictated primarily by those text books.  Martin Rees - a few decades ago a rising star and a young Turk of theoretical astro-physics - recently confessed he's not confident of anything after Newton.

Yet we know that Newtonian atomism is a delusion: matter is not made from identical, self-defined and self-sufficient particles.  [B]ut 'atomism' remains the fall-back for most physicists - Rees and later others.  Most of science's present generation are still informed by a false world-view.

2 - Scientists, like most of us, cling to what they think they "know".  Which usually means firm statements about physical reality.  Let's ignore problems above in (1) and agree that 'physics', as its name implies, concentrates on the attributes of observable matter - [supposedly] about 5% of the stuff of the universe.  Yet for more than a hundred years well informed folk have tried to point out that matter is not what it seems, and they've been ignored.

[Leibniz], Wallace, Jeans, Planck and Einstein all expressed their opinions - or forebodings in Einstein's case - that matter might not exist as we think it does, constant and reliable.  Maybe Einstein's fears got close to the real future of physics - that matter is probably a shifting, inconstant and ephemeral 'construct', created and maintained by a presently unknown force or field.

Refs: Wallace - 'matter is essentially force, and nothing but force';  Einstein - 'I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures.  In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.'

This is too scary for most physicists and so they've retreated to denial and repetition of old mantras.  Which is why Lee Smolin says 'we know no more than we did in 1975'  and, more recently 'science needs both craftspeople and seers'.

Progress is made by conquering fears of the unknown and this List catalogues the present battle, which could be the most important one.

Ray D

Re: Defending The Indefensible

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:14:29 -0000
Subject: Re: Defending The Indefensible

>From: Viktor Golubik
>Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:42:21 EDT
>Subject: Re: Defending The Indefensible


>Science simply uses models to characterize and predict events.
>The models shouldn't be mistaken for the literal truth. Yet, we
>must admit that we certainly have confidence in many and we've
>come a long way. Hopefully, closer to understanding some of our


Hi Viktor,

While I'd like to agree with the tone of your message, the more we examine our `science' the more it appears to be made up of circular arguments.  Like "apples fall from trees due to the Law of Gravity"  - No they don't.  The so-called Law of Gravity is merely a mathematical description of the event, not a "law" at all;  science actually knows of no explanation for "gravity".  We tend to confuse our mathematics, which is necessarily all tautology, and our technology, which is the result of trial and error, with `science'.

"It has been speculated that, of all groups, scientists and engineers might be the most devastated by the discovery of relatively superior creatures, since these professions are most clearly associated with the mastery of nature rather than with the understanding and expression of man ... Advanced understanding of nature might vitiate all our theories at the very least, if not also require a culture and perhaps a brain inaccessible to earth scientists".

That someone would make such a statement is maybe only realistic, but it's somewhat scary all the same.

Ray D

Re: Defending The Indefensible

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 17:22:45 -0000

>From: Martin Shough
>Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:31:06 -0000


We should discriminate between the science establishment which, in the words of Nigel Calder "amounts to a systematic resistance to discovery", and abstract science - the method of asking meaningful questions and accepting only meaningful answers.

[Google "badsci.txt" for Calder's reported statement, which looks sensible to me]

Calder's "what the scientists say now is likely to be false" is a logical conclusion, more politely expressed by Wallace as "there is no law of nature yet known to us but may be apparently contravened by the action of more recondite laws or forces".

Some inferences from the Brookings quote -
1 - the Gov't, usually selfish, myopic and dilatory  (see our non-existent asteroid protection)  had to have a compelling reason to want the Committee to advise on `alien contact'.  That still seems to be a secret.

2 - the Committee thought it probable that `all our theories' would be proved incomplete (or even baseless) by contact.

3 - the Committee expected the response of scientists and engineers to alien contact to be a negative one - that they would be `devastated', by loss of face or some such thing.

Well, that last might be true of hierarchical scientists, who Calder thinks are "wilfully resisting pursuing certain lines of inquiry", but I don't think it's true of most of us.

Ray D

`Science' doesn't understand `half-life' or `entanglement' which it has no explanations for.
`Science' also fails with gravity, matter, mass and inertia.
Inertia - a.k.a `momentum' - is the central secret of `mass'.
Inertia controls gyros & pendula, Coriolis, `centrifugal & centripetal force', all `angular momentum' & dynamics - I.e. all of Physics.
Inertia, with its shadow - `gravity', is the biggest stumbling-block of both Relativity and Quantum.

Re: Defending The Indefensible

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 23:24:42 +0100

>From: Martin Shough
>Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 22:17:24 +0100

>It would be, wouldn't it! I can hardly wait either, you make the
>future sound so very exciting. And it will be exciting, whether
>it resembles your a priori expectations or not. In fact I dare
>predict that it will be the more exciting in proportion as it
>tends away from the old unhelpful quantum mysticism and towards
>some shape that our present-day minds - whether focused or
>"blown" - can't presently visualise.

Have to apologize for not having followed this thread for a while - but see some words above that chime with present developments.

At least half a dozen big-thinkers are speaking out in favour of a `paradigm shift' being necessary if we are to surmount the apparent block on progress described by Smolin recently [above], himself being joined by Penrose, Barrow and others, because the situation is, as Nick Herbert described it - "The Great Quantum Dilemma ... the hidden skeleton in the physicist's closet."

Personally don't think of `quantum' as mystical at all, provided your mind can stretch to a universe-wide field, conferring `inertia' and enabling communication (of a kind) between every particle of matter in the universe - instantaneously.

Quoting Roger Penrose  - "Can such a hidden-variable theory be consistent with all the observational facts of quantum physics?  The answer seems to be yes, but only if the theory is, in an essential way, non-local, in the sense that the hidden parameters must be able to affect parts of the system in arbitrarily distant regions instantaneously!  That would not have pleased Einstein."
(`The Emperor's New Mind')

And already Barbara Shipman, a mathematician at the University of Rochester, is writing of a discovery  - flag manifold `quantum field signaling' being used by bees, which have brains that are way too small to do the calculations that they evidently _do_ do.*

[UPDATE 25 Oct 2010 - Shipman's hypothesis is backed up by latest research (text) `Bees are quicker than computers at maths']

Only just found out the A.A.A.S. began as a geological society riven by arguments, and revolutions of lonely dissidents.  My own little experience in that area was as an 11 yr old kid seeing first wall-map of the Earth, and blurting out "They all fit together!", unknowingly repeating Wegener's `unacceptable' thesis of 50 yrs earlier.  For that I got severely shouted at by a dogmatic geography teacher who was obviously clinging to an earlier paradigm.  In science, paradigms are temporary models, not life-belts - we shouldn't have to cling to them  (and we shouldn't shout at kids for thinking for themselves).

So what do the observed facts tell us is within our theoretical and technological horizons?  Quite a bit.  From all above we should soon anticipate `instantaneous communication' and, with `inertial shielding' then f.t.l propulsion is easy - with no mass effect consequences.  Once you've conquered `inertia' then Relativity is dead.**  (No wonder Einstein wouldn't have been pleased.)

That's all within our horizons - we now know the means, just got to work out the ways.  And on the edge?  Matter transfer, as discussed by Barrow, Smolin, Penrose et al, is only going to be `difficult' if you want to keep the matter alive.  So don't bother:  transfer a complete powered-up, switched-on robot or android and have it run by a VR operator - with no time-lag, because you'll be able to use `instant comms'.

Even over-the-edge stuff is already hinted at by the observations  - transfer of `consciousness', maybe even into energy entities.

Actually, it's all so clearly shown and so close to our reach I'd be very surprised if others haven't been doing that stuff for centuries, or millennia.

Certainly many reports hint something like that's been happening somewhere near you for quite a while.

Ray D

* Experiments - by Duggins et al - seem to have established that `perception' and perhaps `consciousness' (site ref) itself is determined by non-local quantum field:  "the microconsciousness does not exist".  That is, `perception' does not occur at a discrete brain component but in quantum field space
Later addition re: bees' use of quantum field - same quantum access found for plants' activities

** Re: `Relativity', its implied `limits' - the prohibitive increase in mass / inertia with increase toward relativistic speeds - would no longer apply

Probablity of Life

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:42:22 +0100

Hello List

Just realized there was a mention of `others' in last message [above] - but forgot to do estimate of probability of life - on Earth or anywhere.

Recently read that carbon element is 12th in abundance on Earth (carbon is what Earth life is made of) - but that's now.  Records say that carbonaceous and other meteorites have been falling on Earth for billions of years ref1 so we know that carbon must have been rarer on Earth in the past.  How much rarer?  Let's conservatively say a few times rarer - so random events had smaller chances of involving carbon molecules.

[We know non-organic mixtures can produce `organic' molecules (urea and suchlike) in the lab - first done by Miller (Chicago) in 1953]

Yet from John Gribbin's `Stardust' we learn that the mnemonic for the most common elements in the wider Universe, is CHON - Carbon, Hydrogen (& Helium), Oxygen and Nitrogen (not in that order);  he also describes the giant clouds of organic molecules, up to and including DNA / RNA precursors, that are being detected in deep space.

Even phosphorus, needed for RNA / DNA build, is about 20 times more common ref2 in the Cosmos than in Earth's oceans, where life is `assumed' to have begun.

We can see at a glance the probability is that life began elsewhere long before it had a chance to start on Earth.  How much more likely?  Co-incidentally Asimov calculated that life was 9 times to 81 times more likely to have developed first around stars closer to Galactic center - just because they are older.  And we now find `dwarf galaxies' scattered around us which also turn out to be `metallic' and therefore much older than the Sun.

We could find that Asimov was not only right, but by an even larger ratio than he'd thought.

Ray D

40 x 106 kg per year material falls as dust and meteorites
Meteorites Supplied Earth Life with Phosphorus - Pasek

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:11:20 +0100
Subject: Re: Look for life not as we know it, U.S. report urges

----- Original Message -----
From: "T. Peter ***"

>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Extraterrestrial life may well be so
>weird we would not immediately recognize it, and scientists!
>looking for alien life should be seeking the unfamiliar as well
>as the familiar, experts advised on Friday.

>They said NASA'S current approach to "follow the water" works
>well if the assumption is that life everywhere is just like life
>is on Earth -- based on water, carbon and DNA.

>But the "life as we know it" approach could easily miss
>something exotic, the National Academy of Sciences panel


Thanks for that T Peter, and it's about time.  The narrow-minded pundits have been - and many still are, even in text-books - burying their heads in the sand on this issue for way too long.  Notable exceptions have been clear thinkers like Smolin, Cohen & Stewart, Gribbin and some significant others.

And, coincidentally or not, we're also now suddenly reading what looks like `war on terror' pre-briefings about ET!
"Meet the neighbours: Is the search for aliens such a good idea? We've been trying to make contact with aliens for years. Now the day is fast approaching when we might finally succeed. But will our extraterrestrial friends come in peace? Or will they want to eat us? Astronomer David Whitehouse explores the perils of a close encounter"

Ray D

From: "Ray D"
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:27:26 +0100
Subject: Re: Are We Food?

----- Original Message ----- From: <lainie121@***.net>
>I would love to know what Carl Sagan would said about this gory

Anybody think it's a bit strange that -

- for about sixty years we've had total gov't / media agreement that "there's no ET - visits / Space travel is out of the question";

- at the same time that the US and UK gov'ts have criminalized military folk who spoke about sightings or anomalies, and USA & UK gov'ts have gagged scientists (quote: "12.5% of professional astronomers making sightings") who since 1950's have been forced into silence and a pretended `skepticism' or else lose their jobs / pensions;

and now, suddenly, in one week / month we get firstly a world-wide story admitting that "Extraterrestrial life may well be so weird we would not immediately recognize it"

co-incidentally followed by - "any creatures out there [might be] malevolent or hungry"

which reads like a `war on terror' pre-briefing designed to swing pub-op to `approve' some military atrocity?


Re: E.S.A. Successfully Tests Real SETI Detector

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:01:57 +0100

>From: Martin Shough
>Date: Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:35:54 +0100

>>What the ESA release doesn't stress is that such a link might
>>give us instantaneous interstellar communications.

>The ESA story is about quantum cryptography, not FTL signalling.
>The entanglement link does not itself carry any information. It
>carries an encryption algorithm. Nonlocal entanglement is ideal
>for encrypted communications for the very reason that the
>entanglement itself contains zero information.

You're smart enough to see they can be the same thing, regardless of what you call them.

A quantum (entangled) link automatically comes with cryptographics as an optional extra.

Basic set-up is a source of entangled photons (they come in pairs) plus at least two 'receivers' - which can be telescopes fitted with 'detectors' or `demodulators'.

As a result of their experiment ESA now knows you can probably have two telescopes say sixty light-years apart and use a mid-way star as a source of entangled photons - stars generate them (in pairs) for free.

The beauty of such a quantum-link is that one terminal can 'modulate' received photons and instantly the other terminal - sixty light years away - can 'read' the change.

Of course if you wanted two-way real-time conversation you'll need a slightly different set-up, involving two separated mid-way stars.

However broadcast is simplicity itself, and, given the sudden huge expansion of the Drake Equation, it's almost certainly permeating our galaxy at this time.

And we can do most of it (rather crudely) right now. The trick will be tweaking our 'demodulator' to detect all potential signaling.  As always 'sensitivity', 'selectivity' and 'mode' will be the big challenges.

I suspect that's being worked on right now - would you want to bet?

And, just thinking about this - if astronomers focused on a star at the 'edge of the universe' (the visible universe that is) there are some even more intriguing implications.

Ray D

[new window]

20th Cent.

Cover-up Situation

Early Truth



[ Google ]

Perceptions MAIL

can we

take off the blindfolds?

Visit W3Schools
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a Site - Open Directory Project - Become an Editor


struggling editor ?



broken link? - please tell
mail Perceptions

Copyright © 2012 Ray Dickenson

this page

Share This