Virtual Particles and the Science of ‘Nothingness’ (Quantum Field Theory)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle was formulated in 1927 – but scientific thinking has not stood still since then. Heisenberg stated that it is impossible to simultaneously accurately fix (or measure) the position and momentum of a sub-atomic particle. This means that it is impossible to simultaneously fix (measure) or define time and energy. In the vacuum state, conventional logic dictates that there should be no sub-atomic particles existing in this quantum state (i.e. exactly zero energy at all times). On occasion, enough energy seems to be present to apparently ‘create’ a virtual sub-atomic particle as if ‘out of nothing’. These entities are known as ‘virtual particles’ and can theoretically possess any mass and move at any speed – even faster than light. This observation implies that virtual particles could travel backwards in time. Virtual particles exist in the interval between the measurements of real (or ‘observable’) particles, and this is why they can only be said to exist when not being observed. If they could be observed, then they would not be virtual particles. However, although some scientists think that virtual particles only exist in theory, since 1947 (Lamb and Rutherford), and in various experiments after this date, the ‘effect’ of vacuum particles upon the material universe has been observed. Furthermore, there is a theory which states that virtual particles may well be directly related to dark energy and the expansion of the universe. The point is that in an apparent vacuum that should possess ‘zero energy’ – small amounts of energy have been observed, and the presence of virtual particles is a mathematical inference from this observation. In other words, there is something there – even though it seems that there is nothing there. Virtual particles appear not to be bound by the laws of physics that govern the macro-universe, but even so, it is believed that their behaviour represents a ‘higher’ scientific understanding not yet realised by the human-mind. This is why sub-atomic particles may appear to both ‘exist’ and ‘non-exist’ at the same moment. This is not a metaphysical statement or position, but is rather a mathematical probability derived from exact calculation. This is simply a matter of observational position in relation to the sub-atomic universe. It seems as if Heisenberg is not saying that virtual particles ‘do not exist’, but rather that their existence lies in the gaps between ‘observable’ sub-atomic particle activity. This could imply that the ‘virtual’ nature of these particles actually represents a ‘gap’ in current human perception, and that when human scientific understanding advances beyond its current state, what was once thought to be ‘virtual’ particles will be understood in a new light. Of course, such a development in human faculties might well render Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle obsolete.

Alchemy and Hermeticism as the Basis of Progressive Civilisation

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Alchemy and Hermeticism, in its purest and most logical form, is the nearest Western teaching to that of Chinese transformative Daoism, particularly Alchemy and Hermeticism has many general and specific similarities to the ‘neidan’ teachings found within the Daoist Philosophical School (Daojia). It represents the material and immaterial development of the human-being, and the perfection of consciousness, body and environment. The material and immaterial realms are not different but represent two frequencies of exactly the same energy expression. Indeed, Sir Isaac Newton – the British genius who single-handedly invented modern science – was a very spiritual person, and an argument can be made that his knowledge of Alchemy and Hermeticism led directly to his ability to isolate, observe and measure material reality. Underlying this reality for Newton was a profound spirituality which university-led mainstream science has played-down, and expunged from the observable record. The policy of which was designed to permanently ‘separate’ religion (immateriality), from scientific processes (materiality). Chinese science does not do this, and neither does Alchemy and Hermeticism. Chinese science, of course, even in its most modern and progressive manifestation in the material realm, never loses sight of the ‘immaterial’ basis of human perception. Immateriality represents that world which cannot be perceived with the human senses unaided by technological innovation. In other words, the human senses (and the mind) may not be able to directly perceive everything that exists, but can, through the right kind of psychological and physical training, gain an intuitive understanding of these realities – which with regards to material science – can be confirmed as existing beyond the senses through the use of modern technology (such as the telescope and the microscope). Furthermore, the immaterial mind can envision realities beyond the senses through the use of mathematics and algebra. Even the most hardened materialist scientist has to admit that technology and mathematics has revealed realities beyond the ordinary sensory realm. It is an irony to consider that Newton spent much more of his life studying Alchemy and Hermeticism, than he did material science.

Within the Chinese language, Alchemy and Hermeticism is written as ‘炼金术’ (Lian Jin Shu), or ‘Refining Gold Technique’. Chinese language sources report that alchemy and Hermeticism has existed in many different countries throughout time, including ancient Egypt, ancient India, ancient Greece, Rome, South America, North America, China, Japan, Korea, Persia and the later Islamic civilisation. It is thought that teachings from ancient Egypt are observable in the philosophical works of the Greek philosopher Democritus in the 1st century CE, and that this demonstrates a transmission of the teachings of Alchemy and Hermeticism from ancient (Black) Egypt into the Western minds of the Greeks. This process eventually led to the work of Sir Isaac Newton and the founding of modern science. There is also a school of thought which suggests that perhaps ‘logical thinking’ arrived in ancient Greece from Egypt, and facilitated an outpouring of rational thought the like of which is considered unique in the world. Just as Newton separated Alchemy from material science, some ancient Greeks also separated logic and reason from Alchemy, effectively creating a new tradition of thought and use of the mind. If this is correct, then the entire edifice of Western civilisation rests upon the teachings of Alchemy and Hermeticism. This may even be true for the theology of Judeo-Christianity, which represents a splitting away from an all-embracing original teaching.

There is an ongoing debate as to whether ancient Africa had direct contact with ancient China, with Chinese scholars being very much in favour of this idea. Which way the culture and information flowed is also a matter of great debate. Did China’s ancient developmental culture influence the development of African understanding, or did advanced African thinking influence China’s development? No one is sure, but it is obvious that ancient Africa possessed a rich tapestry of progressive and advanced understandings. Of course, there could well have been an ‘equal’ transmission and appreciation. There are some Chinese scholars who believe that Black African travelers visited and settled in China thousands of years ago, and that their DNA (and culture) is now part of the ‘Chinese’ genotype. Perhaps this is also true of ancient ‘Han’ Chinese people traveling to Africa and settling on that great continent, before integrating with the indigenous population. Whatever the historical case may be, another name for Chinese Alchemy is ‘黄白术’ (Huang Bai Shu), or ‘Yellow White Technique’. This refers to a technical language that talks of ‘smelting’ gold and silver, but this is not to be taken literally, but rather as a ‘coded’ instruction that only a truly initiated master already knows and can explain. Smelting gold and silver refers to specific psychological and physical processes that are transformed through the great heat associated with an intense meditative process. Chinese Alchemy is also referred to as ‘炼丹家’ (Lian Dan Jia), or ‘Cultivation Energy Field Family’. This refers to the three ‘energy centres’ or ‘dan’ that exist in the mind and body, and their opening and transformation through seated meditative practice, and various methods of ‘moving’ meditation (such as through the techniques of profound martial arts practice).

Chinese Language References:

https://baike.baidu.com/item/黄白术

https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/炼金术

The Big Bang Reconsidered (E=MC2)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Einstein’s general theory of relativity has not only been proven correct time and time again, but has had implicit in it, ideas that Einstein himself disagreed with on a personal level. This must be properly understood, as this fact is often misused within popular science, as a means to undermine the genius of Einstein. To be clear – E=MC2 is absolutely correct and is not wrong in any way. As a formula, it contributes to, and does not contradict the thinking behind quantum physics. Therefore, it logically follows that Einstein was entirely ‘correct’ when he worked-out that energy equals mass – times the speed of light (squared). This is exactly the same formula that Heisenberg used to formulated his ‘uncertainty theory’, and which Georges Lemaitre used to mathematically work-out that the universe had a definite beginning. Given that this is the case, why is Einstein often portrayed as ‘wrong’ within popular science? This is because Einstein did not personally agree with many of the implications of his own theory, a fact that demonstrates that Einstein managed to ‘think’ beyond his own limited viewpoints. It some of Einstein’s personal opinions that are at odds with his own formula – and not his formula that is ‘wrong’. Many popular scientific narratives conflate Einstein’s personal opinions with his formula, and give the false impression that his formula (and not his opinions) is at odds with the thinking of quantum theory. This is bad science, and one is left wondering what lies behind this obvious attack on Einstein’s genius.

Einstein believed that the universe existed in a ‘steady state’, and was not the product of a sudden creation event. Lemaitre – using Einstein’s formula – proved that Einstein’s personal opinion was at odds with the mathematical implications of his formula. Einstein checked Lemaitre’s mathematical work and agreed that it did suggest that the universe had a definite beginning. Not only this, but Lamaitre’s work suggested that the universe was expanding, and that it emerged from a tiny cosmic egg (or ‘super atom’). Einstein agreed with Lemaitre’s mathematics, but disagreed with his physics. Edwin Hubble, during the 1920’s, worked out that the universe was huge, that it was expanding, and was billions of years old (although his assessment of 2 billion years was wrong). Hubble’s genius was that he scientifically proved that the universe was billions of light years across, and not just hundreds of thousands of light years, as previously thought. Indeed, Fred Hoyle – like Einstein – believed that the universe was eternal and that it already contained hydrogen and helium. In 1949, Fred Hoyle coined the derogatory term ‘Big Bang’ to refer to what he thought was a religiously premised pseudo-science. The eminent Soviet cosmologist George Gamov disagreed with the strong-willed Hoyle – and instead agreed with Lemaitre’s idea of a ‘Big Bang’. Even within the Soviet scientific system (that produced many great scientists), George Gamov was considered a genius in his own right (being elected at the young age of just 28, to being a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR). He was an expert in radioactivity, and nuclear fusion, but despite the privileged life he experienced in the USSR, he decided to defect to the West in the early 1930’s – thus betraying his homeland. Whilst building on Soviet expertise and scientific innovation, Gamov exported his knowledge to the USA, where his contribution to science is acknowledged but played-down (Gamov was of the opinion that all hydrogen and helium was suddenly created during the Big Bang).

Although the universe is now known to be 13.8 billion years old, it is considered not old enough for its heat content to be distributed evenly everywhere – as is the case. This is where Alan Guth’s theory of ‘inflation’ comes into play. He stated that although Einstein was right to assume that nothing could travel faster than light, prior to the creation of the universe, this reality did not yet apply. Just before the Big Bang, when the four forces of nature were still a singularity, a certain uniformity of temperature was locked-in to the entire system, before its rapid expansion or ‘inflation’.  Guth premised that the universe originated from a tiny volume, and when the universe was both young and small, its heat content spread evenly, which was retained as space expanded faster than light. Subsequent photographs of the universe just after the Big Bang have subsequently confirmed that the Big Bang happened. Less than one billionth of a second after the Big Bang, a tiny bubble (smaller than a fraction of an atom) with a very high temperature was formed. This contained as of yet the undifferentiated four forces of nature – gravity, electromagnetism, and weak and strong nuclear forces. This is considered a combined superforce. Gravity suddenly split-off from this superforce as the universe rapidly expanded. As the universe expanded, it cooled, triggering a burst of energy which initiated the hyper-inflation of the universe. At this point (perhaps just a second since its beginning), the superforce collapsed into its four constituent natural forces, and eventually light was emitted. As light slowed down, matter was formed, which was then acted upon by gravity (generating spherical shapes). All this was fore-seen in Einstein’s E=MC2. The Big Bang is very much a work in progress within the realm of human science, and could be displaced if new knowledge is discovered or revealed through further research.

The Case for a Mind-Generated Existence

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Everything a human being ‘senses’ is the product of bio-chemical electricity traversing the neural network that connects the brain with the spine, and the spine with the body. The body, of course, serves as a mediation-point between the physical environment and the brain-spine nexus. A very real problem exists in the form of the gathering and interpretation of sensory data. Admittedly, this is not so much of a problem if the existence of an external, material world is taken for granted. However, the existence of an external, material world – as a distinct and separate entity to the mind-body that perceives it – is simply a philosophical interpretation of reality, entirely premised upon the agency of personal ‘choice’.  If a thought community accepts without question the existence of an independent, external world, then it follows that all scientific and philosophical speculation and development will unfold ‘a priori’ from that theoretical location. The issue here, is that this ‘theoretical location’, because it has been selected as the ‘preferred’ model of reality, is raised to the status of concretised ‘certainty’, and is taken to exist as a matter of common-sense. In this model of reality, the notion of ‘materialism’ becomes the ‘new’ orthodoxy, and all advances in scientific understanding are assumed to ‘hang’ from it, like clothing on a washing-line.

The ‘real’ world is assumed to be composed of observable and measurable matter, with the inner world relegated to the status of ‘immeasurable’ and ‘unreliable’ psychological processes and fleeting emotionally. All the mind creates is endless thought-patterns (of varying quality) that traverse its psychological fabric, interspersed with often ‘irrational’ islands of ‘feeling’. This is the status of the ‘modern’ mind, which is viewed very much as an extension of matter, or the accidental by-products of biological responses to physical conditions. Neuroscience, for instance, claims that the human-brain evolved merely as a means for early humans to effectively traverse their evolutionary (physical) environments, and that the ability to ‘think’ and to ‘feel’ are the left-over attributes associated with this successful function. However the edifice of this ‘certainty’ is punctured if the existence of a separate, material world is not taken for granted. In such a scenario, how can it be known that an ‘external’ environment independently exists, when its presence is apparently known only from the ‘inner’ biological processes associated with bodily ‘sensation’? The structure and texture of an apparently external, (material) world is in reality only the product of bio-electrical energy flowing through nerve-fibres throughout the human-body (and brain). Through a process that is still not fully understood, ‘consciousness’ is generated, and from this, the abilities to ‘sense’, ‘cognise’ and ‘interpret’.

In a sense, this model of a bio-chemical, bio-electrically generated world within the brain is an alternative ‘materialist’ interpretation that replaces a concrete ‘external’ world with an equally ‘concrete’ internally generated world. The materialistic goal-posts have been moved. Nothing for certain can be known about any theoretical ‘external’ world, because there is no way of gaining truly ‘independent’ or ‘objective’ information about such a world. As matters stand, humanity is perceiving the inner processes associated with its own biological functionality, and mistaking this ‘subjective’ data for a ‘true’ and ‘genuine’ reflection of an ‘external’ and ‘independently’ functioning world. The human-brain is a physical organ that has apparently ‘evolved’ due to environmental pressure, and yet this entire process cannot be known to reliably exist outside of the mind that perceives it. All of this interpretation exists firmly within the material realm, but relocates ‘reality’ within the human-brain, rather than being external to the human-body. If this is correct, then the human-brain ‘generates’ reality through the agency of ‘perception’, whereby nothing truly exists until it is internally ‘generated’ through the processing of sensory-data. An external world only appears to exist as a necessary means to fit-in to the trap of limited human perception. An independently functioning ‘external’ world cannot be known to reliably ‘exist’ outside of the sensory processes that assume its presence.

What of metaphysics? A brain can generate many different kinds of realities if the concrete (material) world is not a priori assumed to independently exist. These models do not necessarily have to be religious, but the idea of religion is obviously not excluded. A mind does not have to be associated with a god-concept, but neither is there any reason for it not to be. Deciding on a ‘mind’ or a ‘god’ is simply moving the metaphysical goal-posts, as in reality, existence is interpreted as being ‘non-material’ in essence. Of course, religious dogma can get in the way of interpreting reality, just as scientific dogma can hinder in exactly the same manner. Is ‘perception’ responsible for reality, or is material existence the product of a ‘divine will’? When the edifice of a separate (material) reality is rejected, then any and all ideas become of an equal validity in essence, and only differ in practical manifestation. Obviously, a religious or ideological fanaticism is problematic for the over-all survival humanity, but for those stuck in this dogmatic reality, the often violent and intolerant structures afford a certain ‘advantage’ over other fellow human-beings, despite the inherent injustices associated with such mindless violence and bigotry. It must be stressed, however, that just as much destruction has been wreaked upon the world by countries that pursue a strictly ‘scientific’ and ‘materialist’ agenda, as has been inflicted by any religiously minded regime. The point here, is the freedom to place one’s awareness exactly where it is needed to generated the maximum ‘meaningfulness’ for each individual (and communal) existence, free of anger and aggression, whilst being full of love and compassion for the entirety of existence. If a mind-generated existence is not motivated by the highest ideals envisioned by humanity, then what is the point of such a reality?

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Prior to the scientific work of Physicist Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976), it was thought that the location and momentum of a particle could be precisely measured in time and space. However, all this changed in 1927, when Heisenberg published his work now known as the ‘Uncertainty Principle’, ‘Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle’, or ‘Heisenberg’s Indeterminacy Principle’. From this point of time onwards, it was understood that the location and momentum of a particle (such as an electron) could not be precisely measured. The scientific universe experienced a paradigm shift which suggested that the world of matter at the atomic or sub-atomic level, could not be ‘known’ through the use of conventional science. Why is this thought to be the case? It is thought to be the case because a particle can not be a) ‘observed’, b) ‘measured’ and c) ‘predicted’. The so-called ‘quantum theory’ of reality suggests that the principles of material science – which rely upon observation, measurement and the prediction related to repeated experimentation – does not, and cannot be applied to low-level physics, despite the fact that such methods continue to function in high-level physics, and remain valid for the macro-world of ordinary, or everyday observable phenomena.

If Heisenberg’s ‘uncertainty principle’ is correct, why does the macro-world remain determinate and apparently ‘certain’? In other words, why has logic and reason, (and the development of modern science), all emerged from the apparent ‘certainty’ of the world of observable matter? Today, all school children are taught that an electron is both a ‘particle’ and a ‘wave’. Through the ‘double slit’ experiment (whereby a stream of light is fed through an ever narrowing slit), it can be demonstrated that when the slit is ‘wide’, light behave as if it consisted of particles, but when the slit is narrowed – there is a point where the light beam narrows – but then suddenly expands outwards into a wave-like formation. This being the case, why doesn’t the macro-world experience terminal ‘indeterminacy’? Whilst Louis De Broglie (1892-1987) was re-assessing Albert Einstein’s famous equation of E=MC2, he discovered that a particle wavelength is inversely related to its momentum. Waves are not observable in the macro-world, because Planck’s Constant (h) is so small, and the momentum of macro-objects so large, that any wavelength possessed by a macro-object is infinitesimally small. However, as sub-atomic particles possess very small momentum (again, interpreted through Planck’s Constant) , the wavelengths of sub-atomic particles are more readily observable. Therefore, the material world as it appears to the human senses, manifests as a ‘real’ and ‘constant’ construct. Gravity operating on the ‘mass’ of the macro-world might well generate the conditions for a material world appearing to be ‘stable’ to human perception. Of course, the physical environment is the arena of evolution through natural selection, and so the human senses correspond directly to the sense-objects that they are designed to ‘sense’. As the human brain evolved to make sense of this ‘immediate’ environment, it did not develop the ability to ‘sense’ or ‘see’ the micro-world. The human brain evolved for the purpose of generating meaningful movement through the evolutionary environment – with ‘thought’ being a by-product of this development. Although human-beings have had to develop technology to peer into the sub-atomic world, nevertheless, the human-mind has been able (through mathematics) to ‘infer’ the likelihood of a quantum reality.

The macro-world behaves through strict physical laws – laws which are used everyday in the production and maintenance of advanced and progressive science and technology. Particles are measurable and their location clearly known. Heisenberg mathematically discovered that the micro-world did not behave like this. Albert Einstein contributed greatly to modern science, but did not think quantum reality was correct. Many today state that Albert Einstein was wrong, but I disagree with this. Albert Einstein – being a great scientist – simply tried to prove quantum theory ‘wrong’, as a means to confirm its validity. After-all, his theory of relatively greatly advanced the ‘science’ of quantum understanding. More to the point, despite Heisenberg’s breakthrough, it could be ‘wrong’ because humanity is currently viewing the situation through the rubric of false assumptions and interpretations. How can a material universe be built on an immaterial foundation? Furthermore, quantum theory cannot, and does not explain the existence of the macro-world. As it is the macro-world that humanity exists within, and has built the edifice of its science and spirituality upon, it should be the quantum physicists who should be trying to explain why it is that their view of the world cannot explain material reality. Whatever the case, in reality, Heisenberg arrived at his interesting observation through the practice of a strict material mathematics and science. In the sense of good and reliable research – as Heisenberg would agree – ‘certainty’ of logical methodology is of the greatest importance. It was by observing the nature of material reality that Heisenberg arrived at his famous ‘uncertainty principle’.

The Multi-Frequency Reality of Todd Acamesis

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The purpose of this blog is the exercise of freedom of thought in the guise of ‘critical thinking’. Of course, anyone is free to interpret reality through a ‘non-critical’ mind-set, but that is different to the point being made here. People are also free to view reality as a projection of the mind, and use this ‘idealism’ to set the interpretive agenda. Again, this is different to what is being investigated through this ‘Institute of Inner Science’, but it is an interesting alternative to the view that material reality possesses a type of ‘reality’ all of its own. People cannot be ‘forced’ out of the particular reality they inhabit in their mind and body, but their ability to ‘see more’ can be encouraged through progressive education, and dialectical learning. This is the point of this blog. A challenge to all those who adhere to an ‘idealistic’ view of reality, and accept ideas not grounded in material reality, must consider the following facts:

a) If you do not have access to money – you cannot access any service, facility or leisure resource of the society within which you exist.

b) If you do not have access to food – you will eventually die of starvation.

c) If you do not have shelter – you will eventually die of cold (or exposure) to the elements.

d) If you do not have access to medical care – you will eventually die of illness or injury.

e) If you do not have access to legal protection – you will live in a world of oppression.

These issues are practical or material realities – and no amount of positive thought will change these conditioned pathways. Ignoring practical reality is foolish because it is the basis of a core reality (regardless of the mind’s ability to ‘imagine’ or apparently ‘traverse’ to different realities). A demonstration of this material reality can be seen in the ‘Austerity’ measures of sudden and rapid cuts in NHS care and Welfare Support in the UK, initiated by the Tories and LibDems since 2010 (and which is ongoing). Oxford University has recently calculated that as of January, 2015, around 30,000 in the UK died of causes directly related to the material changes generated through this ‘Austerity’ process, which has attacked and destroyed the most vulnerable populations living within British society. In 2016, the Tories and LibDems were found Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity by the United Nations (UN) – for the death of at least 10,000 disabled people (since 2010). The point is that material reality really does matter, and to ignore ts presence or purpose is a foolish use of the human-mind. obviously, those who possess the preferred skin-colour, class, education, gender and financial category, tend to be insulated from the harsher realities of material existence, and are free to use their ‘leisure’ time to exercise the ‘imagination’ capacity of their mind. As usual, think for yourself and make your own decisions. I am not judging Todd Acamesis, nor am I advocating his interpretation of reality, but I am presenting his interesting lecture here, as food for alternative thought strategies.

 

 

The Brain Evolved to Affect Movement

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

It is no secret that the greater the extent that young children ‘play’ in a diverse educational environment, the greater their dexterity of mind and body. If a young child is deprived of this sensory experience, then the psychological and physical growth of that child is adversely affected. This suggests that positive sensory stimulation experienced in the environment, generates a healthy and robust inner psychological world, that is fully adapted to ‘survive’ in the evolutionary environment. This will obviously produce different stratagems for survival that are distinct and relevant for different historical epochs. A child during the Stone Age, for example, had to use play as a means of learning a range of survival behaviours in a potentially dangerous environment. A child from an affluent middle class background living in the 21st century, by way of comparison, has to develop learning strategies within ‘safe’ playing environments. Although generally speaking, the child in the latter example is not in danger, the blatant (and fear-orientated) need to survive, is replaced with the enjoyable requirement to learn ‘new’ tasks, for which the child receives positive reinforcement from both parents and teachers. According to neuroscientist Daniel Wolpert, the brain has evolved simply to move the body through the evolutionary environment in a manner that efficiently enhances the chances of survival of the entire living organism. This suggests that the agencies of ‘thinking’ and ‘feeling’ are not the primary reasons the brain evolved, but are by-products designed to augment and facilitate ever greater and more useful movement strategies in the external world. Viewing the brain as being primarily a ‘thinking’ device, is then understood to be an inverted interpretation of reality. From a strictly evolutionary perspective, the brain moved the body first, before the mind was developed that was able to generate ‘thought’ about the movement. The confusion arises when the thinking process is fully developed and functional, and appears to exist in parallel to movement (as if the two systems are not inherently connected). The average human – until receiving a modern education – is unaware that movement preceded thought, and so mistakes the true order of evolutionary events. Within modern human societies, where many of the day to day survival needs for the population have been more or less removed, physical movement strategies to evade dangerous animals and traverse difficult environments are not obviously needed as much, and so thought appears to be more prominent, giving the false impression that its function is primary. Of course, as movement is good for the health of the brain, many people voluntarily take-up various exercise regimes to replicate the exertion of past times, with some people joining the military as a means to produce a self-fulfilling sense of ‘danger’, ‘urgency’ and ‘survival’ against the odds.

 

How the Big Bang Continues to Defines Human Existence

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The Universe Just 370,000 Years Old

The universe began from an event which human understanding knows to have happened, but which is difficult to define. Space and time suddenly emerged for reasons unknown, within a infinitesimally small area, and suddenly expanded, releasing immense light energy and heat (i.e. ‘inflation’). This process was not an explosion in the conventional sense, as an ordinary explosion requires a change of pressure. The above photograph shows the process of the ‘big bang’ from year 0 – 370,000 years (around 18.7 billion years ago). This is a hot ball of plasma, within which areas are beginning to cool and condense into solid matter. This process produces matter as light energy slows down. This matter has been thrust outward at tremendous speed, and over-time, has created the physical universe (the earth was formed around 4.9 billion years ago). When matter is formed, gravitational force is generated (as a side-effect) which pulls all galactic objects into a rounded shape (due to gravity operating in all directions). Gravitational pull generated by a sun, for instance, also sets the orbits for all the planets (and other objects) to circumnivigate through, in any given solar system. The entire universe appears to rotate around a theoretical centre-point at the heart of existence. As matters stand, human science does not know what caused the big bang, or what exists beyond the light horizon. As there is no data to analyse, or experiments that can be carried-out, everything beyond this point of understanding is purely speculative (with one theory being as valid as anyother). The big bang was probably not a ‘big bang’ – as nothing seemed to exist before this event – or exist in a manner that humanity can currently perceive and understand. Why and for what reasons the physical universe emerged are unknown, but one-day this will be known. There probably is something beyond the light horizon, and there was probably some kind of existence prior to the emergence of the physical universe. Or, it might be that concepts such as ‘existence’ and ‘non-existence’ have no ultimate meaning, and that humanity is looking at existence from an incorrect interpretive position, or utlilising a flawed logic. What is known, is that space at this current time is beginning to speed-up in its expansion rate, and that this expansion of space will continue forever, or what humanity perceives to be ‘forever’. If multiple universes exist, it could be that the universe that humanity inhabits is just one amongst many, with each having its origin through a ‘big bang’ event. As human science is premised upon immutable laws, its understanding is limited to the observation of light. If material (of whatever kind), exists beyond what humanity can see through the observation of ‘light’ (i.e. the ‘light cone’), then as long as human science remains focused upon the observation of light, any reality beyond the light horizon will remain beyond what can be observed and measured. The human universe can probably be defined as having a boundary – the true extent of which cannot be observed through the measuring of light – but it might also be true that the pattern of material universal existence could be repeated infinitely throughout reality, so that there could be many such universes. This feeds into the multi-verse theory and the idea of parallel universes. The point is that anything and everything could have happened before the big bang, but it has been the big bang that has served as the basis of the material reality within which humanity exists and has evolved.

The Limitations of Matter (Quantum Field Theory)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The human senses developed over very long periods of time, and were designed to ‘detect’ the physical environment. This was the unfolding of the evolutionary process through natural selection. Human-beings can only ‘sense’ that about the physical environment, which is required for the species to survive. In other words, the evolutionary process does not grant or furnish any extra or superfluous sensing abilities outside of the minimum data-reception required, for the species to successfully procreate and survive (from one generation to the next). As a consequence, as diverse as the human senses seem to be, in reality the data they receive represents only a very narrow scale of what is actually ‘out there’ in the universe. Human logic has historically developed to perceive reality in two broad categories – namely the ‘materialist’ and the ‘idealist’. The materialist method of gathering knowledge (about the human condition), pays attention to the observation of the external world (which can include the human body, when it is ‘objectified’ as is the case of modern medicine), and has developed many theoretical assumptions premised upon these observations. The materialist model assumes that the external world is ‘real’ and that its study serves as the doorway to true knowledge. The idealist method, on the other hand, states that the inner world of thought is far more important than the external world, and that consciousness, in one way or another, is responsible for the generation of the external world of matter. Idealism is closely associated with theistic religion, and maybe perceived as a ‘modern’ and ‘secular’ manifestation of religious thinking, often presented in scientific garb (as is seen in the various theories of psychology). It has historically transpired that humanity has scientifically progressed through the observation and measurement of material objects and material processes. As religious theology has lost ground in the secular West, material science has come to dominate (with the caveat that ‘psychology’ in its non material mode, might well represent a ‘new’ type of religious thinking). Through the development of technology, humanity has been able to ‘see more’ above and beyond the scope of its limited evolutionary senses. This has meant that the world of matter has been examined over greater distances, and to a greater depth, to the extent that beginning of the universe can now be seen, as can the constituent particles and sub-atomic particles of atoms. Through this process, it has become clear that ‘matter’ is not a solid wall of impenetrable ‘stuff’ that stands silent and still in front of the human senses. It has been discovered that atoms are not the ‘tiniest’ things that exist, and that quarks (which exist within the nucleus of an atom), probably possess constituent elements. In short, modern material science has revealed that the world of matter is not ‘solid’ and ‘opaque’, but is rather ‘translucent’ in nature, whilst existing in a state of constant ‘flux’. This suggests that light, ordinary (byronic) matter, dark matter and dark energy all emerge from at least 12 different quantum fields (and probably more). Understanding this reveals that matter is not what humanity’s limited evolutionary senses first thought it to be, but equally important, this reasoning has been discovered through the empirical study of what was once thought to be ‘solid’ matter. Although idealism has attacked materialism as being a theory premised upon an illusion, idealism (and religion) has not been able to develop a science to demonstrate and ‘prove’ this assertion to be correct. In a very real sense, materially based science has seen beyond its own limited methodology, and proven its original models of the physical universe to be redundant. Simply put, (and a point of argument correctly made by the idealists and religionists), matter is not what humanity thinks it is. However, where the idealists have ‘rejected’ matter out of hand, the materialists have embraced the physical stuff of the universe, and made its study the basis of modern science. It is now known that the idea of ‘matter’ being a solid and impenetrable wall, is a flawed concept, but that the idea that matter must be studied to progress human understanding, has turned-out to have been correct. As matters stand, the basis of existence consists of highly fluid quantum fields. As the universe pre-exists and post-exists each individual existence, a direct connection between human awareness and the external universe has yet to be proven, even though certain academics are engaged in this study. This does not mean that the human mind has no place in science, after-all, it has only been through logical thinking that material science has been developed and progressed. The following lecture from Professor David Tong (at the Royal Institute) places all this information into its correct scientific narrative.

The Oldest Light in the Universe and the Origins of Matter

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

here Did the First Light in the Universe Come From? Astrophysicists Now Know

This is a photograph showing the first light ever-present in the universe, taken by the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Planck Space Telescope in 2013. It is believed to show light from when the universe was just 370,000 years. In other words, this photograph presents the universe as it looked from the year zero to round 370,000 – 380,000 years old. This is a significant find, as the universe today is thought to be around 13.78 billion years old. This is essentially a photograph of what is called the ‘Cosmic Microwave Background’ (CMB), or to what is more commonly referred to as ‘background radiation’, which can be detected everywhere – including on earth. This is the residue of the ‘Big Bang’ that brought everything into being, the processes of which, eventually led to the formulation of planet earth (around 4.9 billion years ago), and through evolutionary processes, the emergence of all life (humans in their current evolutionary manifestation, are around 200,000 years old). One point that must be remembered is that light is older than matter, and that the dark patches in this photograph demonstrate areas where light is slowing down, and beginning to form matter – the physical stuff of the universe. Light is an electro-magnetic wave that travels through the vacuum of space, and which does not require any other medium to do so (the existence of dark matter and dark energy is known, because such entitles or ‘fields’ exercise an ‘attracting’ or ‘repulsing’ force respectively upon light as it travels through the apparently ’empty’ space). The following documentary conveys the ‘science’ of light, and humanity’s quest to study and understand its nature, covering operations with the naked eye, theoretical assumptions, telescopes, microscopes and mathematical equations, etc. British Professor Al-Khalili explains precisely how the physical universe emerged, and the scientific processes behind this emergence. When the early universe of hot, dense plasma ‘cooled’ and condensed, atoms were formed and trapped light energy released.

%d bloggers like this: