Leticia Corral, Mexican Astrophysicist, Recognized For Correcting Stephen Hawking’s Theory

Roger Penrose and the Big Bang Curvature​

Shiloh Za-Rah - Posted May 5th 2010

Hi Mike!
There are a number of points, which align Arp with the mainstream. Now I know you rather accept the prevailing cosmological standard models of the Big Bang Cosmology and the various attempts (barring the multiverses, the anthropic principle and related topics perhaps).
For about 20 years now, I have supported Alan Sandage's measurements of the Hubble Constant. He for long set it at the 55 km/Mpc.s mark and only recently, with the pressure of the WMAP data, has he 'relented' to somewhere around 65 km/Mpc.s.
In my decade long analysis and study of the cosmology, I found the following.

1. The standard model describes the thermodynamic evolution of the cosmos very accurately. So you can reanalyse the WMAP data in their description of the Cosmic Microwave Background BlackBody Radiation (CMBBR) and use this CMBBR as a basis for the emerging parameters of the cosmoevolution.

2. The standard model has 'misinterpreted' the Guth-inflation in the context of the now prevalent membrane physics of the spacetime metrics.
The standard model postulates the Big Bang singularity to become a 'smeared out' minimum spacetime configuration (also expressible as quantum foam or in vertex adjacency of Smolin's quantum loops). This 'smearing out' of the singularity then triggers the (extended) Guth-Inflation, supposedly ending at a time coordinate of so 10^-32 seconds after the Big Bang.
Without delving into technical details; the Guth-Inflation ended at a time coordinate of 3.33x10^-31 seconds and AT THAT coordinate, the Big Bang became manifest in the emergence of spacetime metrics in the continuity of classical general relativity and the quantum gravitational manifesto.
This means, that whilst the Temperature background remains classically valid, the distance scales for the Big Bang will become distorted in the standard model in postulating a universe the scale of a 'grapefruit' at the end of the inflation.
The true size (in Quantum Relativity) of the universe at the end of the inflation was the size of a wormhole, namely at a Compton-Wavelength (Lambda) of 10^-22 meters and so significantly smaller, than a grapefruit.
Needless to say, and in view of the CMBR background of the temperatures, the displacement scales of the standard model will become 'magnified' in the Big Bang Cosmology of the very early universe in the scale ratio of say 10cm/10 ^-20cm=10²¹ i.e. the galactic scales in meter units.
If you study the inflation cosmology more closely, you will find that many cosmologists already know, that the universe had to be 'blown up' to the Hubble Horizon instantaneously (so this is not popularised, as it contradicts the 'grapefruit' scale of Alan Guth).

3. A result of this is that the 'wormhole' of the Big Bang MUST be quantum entangled (or coupled) to the Hubble Horizon. And from this emerges the modular duality of the fifth class of the superstrings in the Weyl-String of the 64-group heterosis.
Again, without technical detail, the Big Bang wormhole becomes a hologram of the Hubble Horizon and they are dimensionally separated by the Scale-parameter between a 3-dimensional space and a 4-doimensional space. This is becoming more and more mainstream in the 5-dimensional spacetime of Kaluza-Klein-Maldacena in de Sitter space becoming the BOUNDARY for the 4D-Minkowski-Riemann-Einstein metrics of the classical cosmology. Of course the Holographic Universe of Susskind, Hawking, Bekenstein and Maldacena plays a crucial part in this, especially as M-Theory has proven, (YES PROVEN in scientific terms), the entropic equivalence of the thermodynamics of Black Holes in the quantum eigenstates of the classical Boltzmann-Shannon entropy.
So your 'speculative' status of string theory is a little 'out of date'. The trouble with the Susskind googolplex solutions is that they (if just Witten would have access to my data) fail to take into account the superstring selftransformations of the duality-coupled five classes. They think that all five classes manifest at the Planck-scale (therefore the zillions of solutions), they do not and transform into each other to manifest the Big Bang in a minimum spacetime configuration at the Weylian wormhole of class HE(8x8).
Roger Penrose has elegantly described the link of this to classical General Relativity in his "Weyl Curvature Hypothesis".
Quote from:'The large, the Small and the Human Mind"-Cambridge University Press-1997 from Tanner Lectures 1995"; page 45-46:

"I want to introduce a hypothesis which I call the 'Weyl Curvature Hypothesis'. This is not an implication of any known theory. As I have said, we do not know what the theory is, because we do not know how to combine the physics of the very large and the very small. When we do discover that theory, it should have as one of its consequences this feature which I have called the Weyl Curvature Hypothesis. Remember that the Weyl curvature is that bit of the Riemann tensor which causes distortions and tidal effects. For some reason we do not yet understand, in the neighbourhood of the Big Bang, the appropriate combination of theories must result in the Weyl tensor being essentially zero, or rather being constrained to be very small indeed.

The Weyl Curvature Hypothesis is time-asymmetrical and it applies only to the past type singularities and not to the future singularities. If the same flexibility of allowing the Weyl tensor to be 'general' that I have applied in the future also applied to the past of the universe, in the closed model, you would end up with a dreadful looking universe with as much mess in the past as in the future. This looks nothing like the universe we live in. What is the probability that, purely by chance, the universe had an initial singularity looking even remotely as it does?
The probability is less than one part in (10¹⁰)¹²³. Where does this estimate come from? It is derived from a formula by Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking concerning Black Hole entropy and, if you apply it in this particular context, you obtain this enormous answer. It depends how big the universe is and, if you adopt my own favourite universe, the number is, in fact, infinite.

What does this say about the precision that must be involved in setting up the Big Bang? It is really very, very extraordinary, I have illustrated the probability in a cartoon of the Creator, finding a very tiny point in that phase space which represents the initial conditions from which our universe must have evolved if it is to resemble remotely the one we live in. To find it, the Creator has to locate that point in phase space to an accuracy of one part in (10¹⁰)¹²³. If I were to put one zero on each elementary particle in the universe, I still could not write the number down in full. It is a stupendous number". End of Quote

4. Then of course I claim, that the Theory of Quantum Relativity represents a kind of 'Newtonian Approximation' to the 'Theory we have yet to find', mentioned by Roger Penrose in the above.
Then the 'phase spaced' de Broglie inflation is in moduar quantum entanglement with the Weyl-Wormhole of the Zero-Curvature of Roger Penrose's hypothesis and this solves the 'Riddle of Space' in somewhat the manner Allen Francom has postulated.
The Hubble-Universe consists of 'adjacent' Weyl-wormholes, discretisizing all physical parameters in holofractal selfsimilarity.
Penrose's Weyl-tensor is zero as the quasi-reciprocal of the infinite curvature of the Hubble Event Horizon - quasi because the two scales (of the wormhole and Hubble Universe) are dimensionally separated in the modular coupling of the 11D supermembrane boundary to the 10D superstring classical cosmology of the underpinning Einstein-Riemann-Weyl tensor of the Minkowski (flat) metric.

5. Finally then, the Hubble Law as applied in the standard model becomes a restricted case, applicable ONLY at the Node of the 11D asymptotic limit/boundary also BEING the Initial condition, Penrose writes of.
Then and there the Hubble Constant is truly Constant at 58.03 km/MPc.s; vindicating both Alan Sandage and Halton Arp, the latter in his questioning of the Hubble Law to characterise the cosmic distance scales.

6. Because of the duality coupling between the wormhole and the Hubble horizon, the Hubble-Horizon in 10D is always smaller than the Hubble Horizon in 11D (the first is defined in a 4D Minkowski spacetime and the second in a 5D Kaluza-Klein hypersphere). So the standard cosmology will measure an 'accelerating universe' where there is actually an 'electromagnetic intersection' of the 11D- Big Bang Light having reflected from the 11D boundary and recoupling with the 10D expansion.
Halton Arp's redshifts are also dual in that the special relativistic doppler formulation is absolutely sufficient to relate the cosmological redshift to cosmic displacement scales (and without the Hubble Law H_o=v_rec/D). So the redshift measurement is the true parameter and must then be correlated with the expansion factor of General Relativity to ascertain the lowerD coordinates of the observed phenpomena encompassed by the higherD coordinates (through the values of the expansion parameter).
Briefly, the expanding universe presently moves at 0.22c with a deceleration of about 0.01 nanometers per second squared. But because the Hubble Horizon ITSELF recedes presently at 0.22c particular 'redshift corrections' must be applied to the VALID measurements of the latter to ascertain the cosmological distance scales of the lightemitters.
John Shadow


--- In Christianity_Debate@yahoogroups.com, "MikeA" <atomicbohr@...> wrote:
--- In Christianity_Debate@yahoogroups.com, drcsanyi drcsanyi@ wrote:
It is you who do not recognize the vast difference between Arp and the "Big Bang" model.
[MIKE] I see Arp has been busy since he retired. This is what I gather. Arp disagrees as he has his whole career that quasars' redshifts are due to distance. He now apparently feels that they are being ejected from certain very active galaxies and that because of this the universe the Hubble constant should be about 55 not the 70 something it now is calculated to be. I should point out that there is nothing very unusual in this. Allan Sandage who took over Hubble's task when Hubble died thinks the number is closer to 55 than 70. And Thomas Matthews who discovered these ubiquitous quasars with Sandage has also found some quasars that are nearby. Please note I said some.
Arp is now of the opinion that Hoyle was right and is fooling with a cyclic steady state universe if that is not an oxymoron. From what i can discern one is going to get the same observations with either model for the forseeable future.



Post last edited May 5th 2010

 

shiloh


shiloh
Posts: 722
Join date: 2011-03-16
Age: 57
Location: Akbar Ra

• Post n°39

shiloh on Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:21 pm

shiloh wrote:

​

SUSAN - Posted Dec 1st 2010

Have Physicists Found Echoes From Before the Big Bang?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...icists-found-echoes-from-before-the-big-bang/
.

​

The Big Bang was not the beginning, Roger Penrose believes.

The eminent Oxford physicist has long advocated the wild idea of “conformal cyclic cosmology,” a cyclical universe without beginning or end in which the Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago was simply one of many. This month, Penrose pushed his idea further: His team says it has detected a pattern in the cosmic microwave background—radiation left over from just after the Big Bang—that represents the echo of events that occurred before the Big Bang itself.

Penrose examined the data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), the mission that just completed nine years of surveying the cosmic microwave background across the sky. His study points to concentric circular patterns in the WMAP data where he says he found something surprising:

The circular features are regions where tiny temperature variations in the otherwise uniform microwave background are smaller than average. Those features, Penrose said, cannot be explained by the highly successful inflation theory, which posits that the infant cosmos underwent an enormous growth spurt, ballooning from something on the scale of an atom to the size of a grapefruit during the universe’s first tiny fraction of a second.
Inflation would either erase such patterns or could not easily generate them. [Science News]
By Penrose’s thinking, those circles are the calling cards of something big that happened in the universe before our Big Bang and reverberated after it. Like the birth and death of previous universes.

From calculations made by Penrose, he believes that as each universe evolved, the catastrophic collisions between supermassive black holes (the black hole behemoths living in the centers of galaxies) would have generated gravitational waves within that universe’s lifetime.
When the next universe exploded into being, these gravitational waves were converted into energy, ensuring their “fingerprint” bled through to the next universe.
The pulse of energy caused by the transfer of gravitational waves from one universe to the next would have caused a kick to the distribution of dark matter, creating uniform, spherical patterns in the current universe. [Discovery News]
So what are we to make of this? I put it to cosmologist Paul Davies, who says the question rests with inflation.

“Penrose was always been a doubter of inflation,” Davies says. “It’s against the fashion of the moment, but that’s fine. (And) if you abandon inflation, what happened before the Big Bang could leave an echo.”
That’s because inflation would smooth out that echo. (Another possibility, he says, is idea of “incomplete inflation,” in which inflation could have existed but not been thorough enough to smooth out all echoes.
That theory wouldn’t require abandoning inflation to accommodate an echo in the microwave background.)
However, Davies says, even if the finding is correct, this explanation for it —a black hole smash-up from before the Big Bang leaving its fingerprint after the Big Bang —isn’t the only possibility. “People have been looking for concentric rings in the cosmic microwave background for a while,” he says, because such a finding could support several different ideas.
One of those alternate explanations plays on the idea of our universe being a “bubble” created by inflation; if two bubbles collided, he says, the result could leave a cosmic microwave echo.
Lastly, he says, the source of the study makes it a tad suspect.
“You’d expect people at the sharp end of the data to make an announcement like this.
You wouldn’t expect a mathematician.” So I asked Charles Barrett, who was the lead investigator of WMAP, and in his reply email he too expressed skepticism:
“Unfortunately, the paper does not provide the necessary detail on how they performed their calculations.
I am concerned that the noise properties and pattern of the WMAP instrumental sky sampling were not properly taken into account in their analysis.
If these are not handled correctly then spurious results are likely. In my opinion, the paper should have specified the data analysis steps in detail, but it did not.”

Penrose counters that he looked at not only WMAP but also data from a second mission, BOOMERang, which confirmed the pattern he saw.
At the moment, then, these huge claims about the nature of the universe are bogged down in competing calculations and critiques of calculations. The future of this question could lie with the Planck mission by the European Space Agency, which is presently mapping the cosmic microwave background in greater detail than WMAP.
In the meantime, we get to wonder. Says physicist Shaun Cole:
“It’s a revolutionary theory and here there appears to be some data that supports it.
In the standard Big Bang model, there’s nothing cyclic; it has a beginning and it has no end.
The philosophical question that’s sensible to ask is ‘what came before the Big Bang?’; and what they’re striving for here is to do away with that ‘there’s nothing before’ answer by making it cyclical.” [BBC News]


Shiloh - Posted Dec 2nd 2010

Roger Penrose, whose work I often use in Quantum Relativity; is basically on the right path of reconstructing the cosmogenesis.
However the cyclic universe is built on its own protoversal seed and the 'Big Crunches' are electromagnetic and not inertial.

This means, that there will be no gravitational contraction in a shrinking of the protoverse; but the electromagnetic lightpath becomes multidimensional and multivalued. One can so model this on a cyclic electromagnetic cosmology with a 'Hubble heartbeat' of a semibeat of so 16.9 Billion years. This also allows a cosmogenetic Black Hole-White Hole evolution, which resets the wormhole singularity every 4 trillion years or so to eschew any theorized 'heat death' of the universe, due to the stellar generations 'running out' of their nuclear fuel of the nucleosynthesis of the primordial elements, based on hydrogen, helium and lithium.

Indeed, the Inflation PRECEDED the Big Bang and this is the simple solution for the 'inflation paradoxes' as some might term it.

The WMAP data in the picture in this post actually is descriptive for the wavequark model in Quantum Relativity with an inner gluonic (anti)neutrino kernel or core, an Inner Mesonic (down quark) Ring and an Outer Leptonic (strange quark) Ring.

It is just the 'New Standard Model' of Unitary Symmetry for the quarkian waves as "matter waves". The smallest quantum as microcosmic reality written in the galactic sky of the macrocosm.


Discover Interview: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics
One of the greatest thinkers in physics says the human brain—and the universe itself—must function according to some theory we haven't yet discovered.

By Susan Kruglinski, Oliver Chanarin|Tuesday, October 06, 2009



http://discovermagazine.com/2009/se...ics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics/


Roger Penrose could easily be excused for having a big ego. A theorist whose name will be forever linked with such giants as Hawking and Einstein, Penrose has made fundamental contributions to physics, mathematics, and geometry. He reinterpreted general relativity to prove that black holes can form from dying stars. He invented twistor theory—a novel way to look at the structure of space-time—and so led us to a deeper understanding of the nature of gravity. He discovered a remarkable family of geometric forms that came to be known as Penrose tiles. He even moonlighted as a brain researcher, coming up with a provocative theory that consciousness arises from quantum-mechanical processes. And he wrote a series of incredibly readable, best-selling science books to boot.

And yet the 78-year-old Penrose—now an emeritus professor at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford—seems to live the humble life of a researcher just getting started in his career. His small office is cramped with the belongings of the six other professors with whom he shares it, and at the end of the day you might find him rushing off to pick up his 9-year-old son from school. With the curiosity of a man still trying to make a name for himself, he cranks away on fundamental, wide-ranging questions: How did the universe begin? Are there higher dimensions of space and time? Does the current front-running theory in theoretical physics, string theory, actually make sense?
Because he has lived a lifetime of complicated calculations, though, Penrose has quite a bit more perspective than the average starting scientist. To get to the bottom of it all, he insists, physicists must force themselves to grapple with the greatest riddle of them all: the relationship between the rules that govern fundamental particles and the rules that govern the big things—like us—that those particles make up. In his powwow with DISCOVER contributing editor Susan Kruglinksi, Penrose did not flinch from questioning the central tenets of modern physics, including string theory and quantum mechanics. Physicists will never come to grips with the grand theories of the universe, Penrose holds, until they see past the blinding distractions of today’s half-baked theories to the deepest layer of the reality in which we live.


You come from a colorful family of overachievers, don’t you?
My older brother is a distinguished theoretical physicist, a fellow of the Royal Society. My younger brother ended up the British chess champion 10 times, a record. My father came from a Quaker family. His father was a professional artist who did portraits—very traditional, a lot of religious subjects. The family was very strict. I don’t think we were even allowed to read novels, certainly not on Sundays. My father was one of four brothers, all of whom were very good artists. One of them became well known in the art world, Sir Roland. He was cofounder of the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London. My father himself was a human geneticist who was recognized for demonstrating that older mothers tend to get more Down syndrome children, but he had lots of scientific interests.


How did your father influence your thinking?
The important thing about my father was that there wasn’t any boundary between his work and what he did for fun. That rubbed off on me. He would make puzzles and toys for his children and grandchildren. He used to have a little shed out back where he cut things from wood with his little pedal saw. I remember he once made a slide rule with about 12 different slides, with various characters that we could combine in complicated ways. Later in his life he spent a lot of time making wooden models that reproduced themselves—what people now refer to as artificial life. These were simple devices that, when linked together, would cause other bits to link together in the same way. He sat in his woodshed and cut these things out of wood in great, huge numbers.


So I assume your father helped spark your discovery of Penrose tiles, repeating shapes that fit together to form a solid surface with pentagonal symmetry.
It was silly in a way. I remember asking him—I was around 9 years old—about whether you could fit regular hexagons together and make it round like a sphere. And he said, “No, no, you can’t do that, but you can do it with pentagons,” which was a surprise to me. He showed me how to make polyhedra, and so I got started on that.


Are Penrose tiles useful or just beautiful?
My interest in the tiles has to do with the idea of a universe controlled by very simple forces, even though we see complications all over the place. The tilings follow conventional rules to make complicated patterns. It was an attempt to see how the complicated could be satisfied by very simple rules that reflect what we see in the world.


The artist M. C. Escher was influenced by your geometric inventions. What was the story there?
In my second year as a graduate student at Cambridge, I attended the International Congress of Mathematicians in Amsterdam. I remember seeing one of the lecturers there I knew quite well, and he had this catalog. On the front of it was the Escher picture Day and Night, the one with birds going in opposite directions. The scenery is nighttime on one side and daytime on the other. I remember being intrigued by this, and I asked him where he got it. He said, “Oh, well, there’s an exhibition you might be interested in of some artist called Escher.” So I went and was very taken by these very weird and wonderful things that I’d never seen anything like. I decided to try and draw some impossible scenes myself and came up with this thing that’s referred to as a tri-bar. It’s a triangle that looks like a three-dimensional object, but actually it’s impossible for it to be three-dimensional. I showed it to my father and he worked out some impossible buildings and things. Then we published an article in the British Journal of Psychology on this stuff and acknowledged Escher.


Escher saw the article and was inspired by it?
He used two things from the article. One was the tri-bar, used in his lithograph called Waterfall. Another was the impossible staircase, which my father had worked on and designed. Escher used it in Ascending and Descending, with monks going round and round the stairs. I met Escher once, and I gave him some tiles that will make a repeating pattern, but not until you’ve got 12 of them fitted together. He did this, and then he wrote to me and asked me how it was done—what was it based on? So I showed him a kind of bird shape that did this, and he incorporated it into what I believe is the last picture he ever produced, called Ghosts.

Is it true that you were bad at math as a kid?
I was unbelievably slow. I lived in Canada for a while, for about six years, during the war. When I was 8, sitting in class, we had to do this mental arithmetic very fast, or what seemed to me very fast. I always got lost. And the teacher, who didn’t like me very much, moved me down a class. There was one rather insightful teacher who decided, after I’d done so badly on these tests, that he would have timeless tests. You could just take as long as you’d like. We all had the same test. I was allowed to take the entire next period to continue, which was a play period. Everyone was always out and enjoying themselves, and I was struggling away to do these tests. And even then sometimes it would stretch into the period beyond that. So I was at least twice as slow as anybody else. Eventually I would do very well. You see, if I could do it that way, I would get very high marks.

​

You have called the real-world implications of quantum physics nonsensical. What is your objection?
Quantum mechanics is an incredible theory that explains all sorts of things that couldn’t be explained before, starting with the stability of atoms. But when you accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics [in the macro world], you have to give up the idea of space-time as we know it from Einstein. The greatest weirdness here is that it doesn’t make sense. If you follow the rules, you come up with something that just isn’t right.


In quantum mechanics an object can exist in many states at once, which sounds crazy. The quantum description of the world seems completely contrary to the world as we experience it.
It doesn’t make any sense, and there is a simple reason. You see, the mathematics of quantum mechanics has two parts to it. One is the evolution of a quantum system, which is described extremely precisely and accurately by the Schrödinger equation. That equation tells you this: If you know what the state of the system is now, you can calculate what it will be doing 10 minutes from now. However, there is the second part of quantum mechanics—the thing that happens when you want to make a measurement. Instead of getting a single answer, you use the equation to work out the probabilities of certain outcomes. The results don’t say, “This is what the world is doing.” Instead, they just describe the probability of its doing any one thing. The equation should describe the world in a completely deterministic way, but it doesn’t.


Erwin Schrödinger, who created that equation, was considered a genius. Surely he appreciated that conflict.
Schrödinger was as aware of this as anybody. He talks about his hypothetical cat and says, more or less, “Okay, if you believe what my equation says, you must believe that this cat is dead and alive at the same time.” He says, “That’s obviously nonsense, because it’s not like that. Therefore, my equation can’t be right for a cat. So there must be some other factor involved.”


So Schrödinger himself never believed that the cat analogy reflected the nature of reality?
Oh yes, I think he was pointing this out. I mean, look at three of the biggest figures in quantum mechanics, Schrödinger, Einstein, and Paul Dirac. They were all quantum skeptics in a sense. Dirac is the one whom people find most surprising, because he set up the whole foundation, the general framework of quantum mechanics. People think of him as this hard-liner, but he was very cautious in what he said. When he was asked, “What’s the answer to the measurement problem?” his response was, “Quantum mechanics is a provisional theory. Why should I look for an answer in quantum mechanics?” He didn’t believe that it was true. But he didn’t say this out loud much.


Yet the analogy of Schrödinger’s cat is always presented as a strange reality that we have to accept. Doesn’t the concept drive many of today’s ideas about theoretical physics?
That’s right. People don’t want to change the Schrödinger equation, leading them to what’s called the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics.


That interpretation says that all probabilities are playing out somewhere in parallel universes?
It says OK, the cat is somehow alive and dead at the same time. To look at that cat, you must become a superposition [two states existing at the same time] of you seeing the live cat and you seeing the dead cat. Of course, we don’t seem to experience that, so the physicists have to say, well, somehow your consciousness takes one route or the other route without your knowing it. You’re led to a completely crazy point of view. You’re led into this “many worlds” stuff, which has no relationship to what we actually perceive.


The idea of parallel universes—many worlds—is a very human-centered idea, as if everything has to be understood from the perspective of what we can detect with our five senses.
The trouble is, what can you do with it? Nothing. You want a physical theory that describes the world that we see around us. That’s what physics has always been: Explain what the world that we see does, and why or how it does it. Many worlds quantum mechanics doesn’t do that. Either you accept it and try to make sense of it, which is what a lot of people do, or, like me, you say no—that’s beyond the limits of what quantum mechanics can tell us. Which is, surprisingly, a very uncommon position to take. My own view is that quantum mechanics is not exactly right, and I think there’s a lot of evidence for that. It’s just not direct experimental evidence within the scope of current experiments.


In general, the ideas in theoretical physics seem increasingly fantastical. Take string theory. All that talk about 11 dimensions or our universe’s existing on a giant membrane seems surreal.
You’re absolutely right. And in a certain sense, I blame quantum mechanics, because people say, “Well, quantum mechanics is so nonintuitive; if you believe that, you can believe anything that’s nonintuitive.” But, you see, quantum mechanics has a lot of experimental support, so you’ve got to go along with a lot of it. Whereas string theory has no experimental support.


I understand you are setting out this critique of quantum mechanics in your new book.
The book is called Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe. Each of those words stands for a major theoretical physics idea. The fashion is string theory; the fantasy has to do with various cosmological schemes, mainly inflationary cosmology [which suggests that the universe inflated exponentially within a small fraction of a second after the Big Bang]. Big fish, those things are. It’s almost sacrilegious to attack them. And the other one, even more sacrilegious, is quantum mechanics at all levels—so that’s the faith. People somehow got the view that you really can’t question it.


A few years ago you suggested that gravity is what separates the classical world from the quantum one. Are there enough people out there putting quantum mechanics to this kind of test?
No, although it’s sort of encouraging that there are people working on it at all. It used to be thought of as a sort of crackpot, fringe activity that people could do when they were old and retired. Well, I am old and retired! But it’s not regarded as a central, as a mainstream activity, which is a shame.


After Newton, and again after Einstein, the way people thought about the world shifted. When the puzzle of quantum mechanics is solved, will there be another revolution in thinking?
It’s hard to make predictions. Ernest Rutherford said his model of the atom [which led to nuclear physics and the atomic bomb] would never be of any use. But yes, I would be pretty sure that it will have a huge influence. There are things like how quantum mechanics could be used in biology. It will eventually make a huge difference, probably in all sorts of unimaginable ways.


In your book The Emperor’s New Mind, you posited that consciousness emerges from quantum physical actions within the cells of the brain. Two decades later, do you stand by that?
In my view the conscious brain does not act according to classical physics. It doesn’t even act according to conventional quantum mechanics. It acts according to a theory we don’t yet have. This is being a bit big-headed, but I think it’s a little bit like William Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of blood. He worked out that it had to circulate, but the veins and arteries just peter out, so how could the blood get through from one to the other? And he said, “Well, it must be tiny little tubes there, and we can’t see them, but they must be there.” Nobody believed it for some time. So I’m still hoping to find something like that—some structure that preserves coherence, because I believe it ought to be there.


When physicists finally understand the core of quantum physics, what do you think the theory will look like?
I think it will be beautiful.

[4:41:49 AM-Friday, October 4th, 2013 +10UCT]
[2:52:23 AM] Shiloh: Yes
[2:53:06 AM] Shiloh: yes and our job is done, so we are getting more 'normal' and irritated with all things including our own human stuff
[2:53:43 AM] Shiloh: In the timewarp, we were banned from Camelot around April 6th, 2011
[2:54:02 AM] Shiloh: This is October 1st, 2013
[2:54:29 AM] Shiloh: So we feeling the 'war' with them for the next month or so now
[2:54:38 AM] Sirius 17: oh i see
[2:55:04 AM] Shiloh: November 1st 2013 will be like March 5th, 2011
[2:55:10 AM] Sirius 17: yes too much time to feel and think about our own mortality
[2:55:58 AM] Shiloh: And so the Fukushima tsunami is mapping in the mirror of October 27th or so
[2:56:24 AM] Shiloh: We went there around February 22nd or so
[2:56:42 AM] Shiloh: This becomes around November 12th
[2:56:44 AM] Sirius 17: i kept thinking if the Logos wants me dead it should do it quicker lol, then of course i felt bad thinking this way and that i am not going to die, well not the way i think i guess
[2:56:53 AM] Sirius 17: hmmm wow that is interesting
[2:57:11 AM] Shiloh: I dont know; but I think by age 60 there must be some change in me
[2:57:24 AM] Shiloh: I dont see myself becoming an old man
[2:57:42 AM] Shiloh: Yes this Ison thing is here now
[2:57:47 AM] Sirius 17: yes
[2:58:00 AM] Sirius 17: and it is from outside our solar system
[2:58:12 AM] Sirius 17: i really think its means 'invasion' time
[2:58:20 AM] Shiloh: In many forms
[2:58:23 AM] Sirius 17: yes
[2:58:34 AM] Shiloh: Try to watch those videos with my last post
[2:58:49 AM] Sirius 17: i almost finished the nabs one about dulce
[2:58:56 AM] Shiloh: It drags on
[2:59:10 AM] Shiloh: Watch the shorter ones with Kaku and Hawking
[2:59:15 AM] Sirius 17: and while it did have some syncro it was pretty much BS of the highest order at about the half way point
[2:59:22 AM] Shiloh: Yes
[2:59:49 AM] Sirius 17: but i have seen clips and interviews about the same subject and years ago i did read the dulce papers
[2:59:59 AM] Sirius 17: but this reminds me of Bill's Serpo project
[3:00:09 AM] Sirius 17: they just make this shit up at will to make money
[3:00:22 AM] Sirius 17: sell books, create controversy you know
[3:00:32 AM] Sirius 17: spinning it all on half truths and rumors
[3:00:44 AM] Shiloh: Yes there is a big component of this and Nabsers like Carol cant see it; blaming Dacos instead
[3:00:48 AM] Sirius 17: like you said the human imagination is so powerful at weaving incredible stories
[3:01:30 AM] Shiloh: See the videos of the galaxies merging?
[3:01:33 AM] Sirius 17: yes well like we said before, she cannot get past the Dragon symbol and archetype
[3:01:40 AM] Shiloh: Idiotic
[3:01:48 AM] Shiloh: Proud and vain actually
[3:02:05 AM] Sirius 17: to her the mere mention of Draco conjures images of a horney horned Devil in her mind lol, forked tongue and all
[3:02:26 AM] Shiloh: http://www.themistsofavalon.net/t6759p30-the-factuals-versus-the-nabs
[3:02:29 AM] Shiloh: Yes
[3:02:51 AM] Shiloh: Mindfuc11ed most of the chicks there
[3:03:04 AM] Shiloh: This Jenetta is a nabser too
[3:03:08 AM] Shiloh: I like Sanicle though
[3:03:54 AM] Sirius 17: oh i like this milky way and andromeda merger
[3:04:15 AM] Sirius 17: looks like the triangulum galaxy comes into play too
[3:04:48 AM] Sirius 17: yeah i like Sanicle too, she seems at least open to logical discourse somewhat
[3:06:10 AM] Shiloh: Yes she is the sort of Nabs which i can accomodate as not being Nabs
[3:09:37 AM] Sirius 17: oh yeah the first video is better, explains the time factor
[3:09:51 AM] Shiloh: I found 3 of them
[3:10:02 AM] Sirius 17: lol billions and billions of years...."carl sagan's voice"
[3:10:04 AM] Shiloh: All relevant to my deeper exposition following
[3:10:37 AM] Shiloh: It includes the ET factor see
[3:10:44 AM] Shiloh: Kaku in the 3rd
[3:10:56 AM] Sirius 17: yes the eternal dance...you romantic devil
[3:11:06 AM] Shiloh: Well Abba and Baab
[3:11:12 AM] Shiloh: One day I will dance like that again
[3:11:26 AM] Sirius 17: yes you will
[3:11:41 AM] Shiloh: Young virile bodies for us dear
[3:11:56 AM] Shiloh: I am still virile lol but cant move like that
[3:12:21 AM] Shiloh: Amazing though, that noone appreciates those posts
[3:12:43 AM] Shiloh: Reading them must surely indicate it is well informed
[3:12:58 AM] Shiloh: So science lover-freak Carol has no words for it
[3:13:18 AM] Shiloh: Showing her fakeness in regards to science
[3:13:25 AM] Sirius 17: i know it is mind blowing that no one at least comments and says, wow Shiloh, this must of taken you quite some time and nice graphics ect ect...
[3:13:36 AM] Sirius 17: something
[3:13:44 AM] Sirius 17: no they fuc11ing hate it apparently
[3:13:51 AM] Shiloh: They are 'afraid' lol very afraid of what it means for them should it be true
[3:14:02 AM] Sirius 17: yes likely
[3:14:07 AM] Shiloh: I know they are
[3:14:26 AM] Shiloh: Why idiot 44 still tries to bring dragons into her BS
[3:14:52 AM] Sirius 17: she misses us lol
[3:14:58 AM] Sirius 17: can't get us out of her head
[3:15:46 AM] Shiloh: I dont know
[3:15:58 AM] Shiloh: i dont miss her babble though
[3:16:10 AM] Sirius 17: me neither
[3:16:51 AM] Sirius 17: but that last post where she mentions us as 'copy cats' was so incoherent that i just shook my head and wondered wtf is going on inside her brain
[3:17:35 AM] Sirius 17:
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uabNtlLfYyU#t=85[3:17:54
AM] Sirius 17: time marker 1:58 or so, curiosity killed the cats
[3:18:11 AM] Sirius 17: yes where the hell is the curiousity of the moabytes
[3:18:19 AM] Sirius 17: of the why and how
[3:18:56 AM] Shiloh: Lol
[3:19:20 AM] Shiloh: If it is above their head, like real science, they dismiss it as conspiracies
[3:20:02 AM] Shiloh: Other people labeled us as copycats and plagiarisers of others works remember?
[3:20:43 AM] Shiloh: As other people know better than Thuban, DD and Carol and lot then use their 'critical thinking' to make their 'choices'
[3:20:48 AM] Sirius 17: time marker 3.36...there it is, the solution is outside of time and space, so simple yet i doubt any of them even watched these videos
[3:20:59 AM] Sirius 17: yes i know, parrots we are
[3:21:28 AM] Sirius 17: and all your science papers that YOU wrote must be copied from elsewhere....where i wonder lol
[3:21:47 AM] Shiloh: Yes how often did we say space and time are required for physicality
[3:21:57 AM] Sirius 17: god forbid you actually wrote something on your own Tony....its unthinkable
[3:22:20 AM] Shiloh: Oh yes, I am too stupid to create anything by myself
[3:22:47 AM] Shiloh: So I am deceiving people as evil draco in stealing other human's ideas
[3:22:59 AM] Shiloh: Lawlessline said this or such
[3:23:42 AM] Shiloh: But you see in all 3 videos that at the end they have no answers
[3:23:51 AM] Shiloh: So I gave the answers
[3:23:56 AM] Sirius 17: yes
[3:24:16 AM] Shiloh: For our testimony not for human judgements on it
[3:24:40 AM] Shiloh: This is the last thing to do imo
[3:24:58 AM] Shiloh: Just to put it there for their bebafflements and ignorance
[3:25:19 AM] Shiloh: This Penrose pic is nice
[3:25:34 AM] Shiloh: It is just the New Standard Model of the quarkian waves
[3:25:38 AM] Shiloh: Matter waves
[3:26:04 AM] Shiloh: The smallest quantum written in the galactic sky
[3:26:58 AM] Sirius 17:
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wHHz4mB9GKY#t=75

[3:27:01 AM] Sirius 17: 1:15 lol
[3:27:20 AM] Sirius 17: relativity is perfectly intelligible to anyone who is able to think
[3:29:47 AM] Shiloh: Not many apparently
[3:31:57 AM] Sirius 17: i am watching the kaku video now
[3:32:31 AM] Shiloh: Yes he mentions the ET civilisations as a consequence of evolution
[3:43:30 AM] Sirius 17: hahaha Bambie vs Godzilla
[3:43:36 AM] Sirius 17: oh dear
[3:49:34 AM] Sirius 17: god kaku is so smart, i really like this guy and his rationality
[3:50:38 AM] Shiloh: He is ok yes
[3:50:45 AM] Shiloh: I added Penrose to the message
[3:50:50 AM] Shiloh: Discover Interview: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics
One of the greatest thinkers in physics says the human brain—and the universe itself—must function according to some theory we haven't yet discovered.

By Susan Kruglinski, Oliver Chanarin|Tuesday, October 06, 2009


http://discovermagazine.com/2009/se...ics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics/
For further details, a consultation of the Thuban archives on http://cosmosdawn.com is suggested.
[3:51:30 AM] Sirius 17: yes i have not gotten to that part yet, i am on the last kaku video
[3:52:02 AM] Sirius 17: but Michio is right, we are on the verge of either taking off onto a new civilization or destroying ourselves
[3:52:14 AM] Sirius 17: precarious times to witness
[3:54:22 AM] Shiloh: Yes
[3:54:30 AM] Shiloh: This is it
[3:54:43 AM] Shiloh: Why our 'death' is pointless in the cosmic sense
[4:15:13 AM] Sirius 17: humm yes i like this penrose article
[4:16:03 AM] Shiloh: I am posting it
[4:30:21 AM] Shiloh: Done
[4:30:37 AM] Shiloh: Of course he is wrong about strings as we understand them
[4:30:42 AM] Sirius 17:
1. Calculate the Phasevelocity (Vph) of the matterwave for a constant sourcesink frequency (fmax=f*) parameter using Vph=R.f* for a chosen displacement coordinate R.

2. Calculate the total inertia as a density function for the object to be matterwaved or 'teleported' in de Broglie parameters.

3. Convert this density function into the masseigen-frequency selfstate (fmin=1/f*) using the magnetopolic currentflow from the selfdual Planckian superstring transform.

[4:30:55 AM] Shiloh: But he is right about them in terms of parallel universe crapola
[4:31:02 AM] Sirius 17: lol Tony this is way too deep for anyone to understand your talking first principles
[4:31:18 AM] Shiloh: Yes it is not for humans
[4:31:27 AM] Sirius 17: i didn't paste all the 'instructions' here but its funny to me
[4:31:38 AM] Shiloh: And I cant do those calculations in the required detail either
[4:32:02 AM] Sirius 17: well the ETs can
[4:32:18 AM] Shiloh: But the new physics can use this somewhat in the form of summation integrals like in the consciousness paper
[4:32:36 AM] Sirius 17: yeah once they can 'see' it
[4:32:52 AM] Sirius 17: problem is they have to get out of the current paradigm limitations to be able to see it
[4:33:01 AM] Sirius 17: they are so very much box thinkers
[4:33:04 AM] Shiloh: Those 10 instructions are however as you said the basic principles and those I can explain as I did in the rest of the message
[4:33:47 AM] Shiloh: It is the micro-macro quantization and this is what the resurrection physics is
[4:34:09 AM] Shiloh: The intro in bold is the general rundown
[4:34:30 AM] Shiloh: Mass to magnetics to electricity then reversed
[4:34:37 AM] Sirius 17: yeah i figured this, transformation physics yes
[4:34:54 AM] Shiloh: But I put this there for Carol and co to see how limited they are
[4:35:00 AM] Sirius 17: how to trap the hubble heart beat within the finitum
[4:35:02 AM] Shiloh: They always ask for details see?
[4:35:27 AM] Shiloh: So there are some they wont get from the quacks like MacCanney
[4:35:33 AM] Shiloh: Or Keshe etc
[4:36:00 AM] Sirius 17: it just kills me, if they only read through this stuff a little slowly and methodically they could see how beautiful it is
[4:36:17 AM] Sirius 17: or maybe i am dreaming
[4:36:26 AM] Shiloh: No it is all selfconsistent
[4:36:42 AM] Shiloh: The Legacy post shows this and tries to prove it
[4:36:44 AM] Sirius 17: but really that is all i did is read it slowly, sometimes over and over until i could see it
[4:37:06 AM] Sirius 17: of course we have had hours of discussion and so on
[4:37:37 AM] Sirius 17: i don't know , it seems that anyone interested even slightly could see this
[4:37:49 AM] Shiloh: Well imo you are the only person, who can comment on the overviews
[4:37:59 AM] Shiloh: They are fakes
[4:38:08 AM] Shiloh: Their Nabs science is pure fake
[4:38:10 AM] Sirius 17: i am still not entirely sure how it is i understand some things
[4:38:31 AM] Shiloh: Floyd is no fake, but he has no science education to understand it
[4:38:53 AM] Sirius 17: no and some understanding of the sciences is required
[4:39:11 AM] Shiloh: I feel Carol is rather annoyed with those posts
[4:39:17 AM] Shiloh: Unsettling
[4:39:29 AM] Sirius 17: you cannot dismiss for example what physics already knows, such as relativity, quantum theory ect, it all goes together with the omni science
[4:39:53 AM] Sirius 17: because it requires deep thought to understand it
[4:39:57 AM] Shiloh: Because all her conspiracy science crap is right there in a novel form, which would even surprise the conspirators
[4:39:59 AM] Sirius 17: and to learn a new language
[4:40:14 AM] Sirius 17: they are not familar with the language of science, let alone omni-science
[4:40:30 AM] Sirius 17: its work
[4:40:40 AM] Sirius 17: takes effort
[4:40:40 AM] Shiloh: Can you see Jenetta or Burgundia read science words and not to call Devakas?
[4:40:51 AM] Sirius 17: oh hell no
[4:41:00 AM] Shiloh: Easier to call us names and evil dragons
[4:41:16 AM] Shiloh: Let them sit in their judgement seats
[4:41:21 AM] Sirius 17: yes and this is a microscopic example of the world, far easier to point fingers then to solve problems
[4:41:25 AM] Shiloh: But Carol pretends to like science
[4:41:33 AM] Sirius 17: yes as does Brook
[4:41:35 AM] Shiloh: This is the hypocrisy
[4:41:39 AM] Shiloh: Yes
[4:41:42 AM] Shiloh: They run
[4:41:49 AM] Sirius 17: but when shi20 gets too heavy even for her she goes total NABS
[4:42:17 AM] Sirius 17: i like how Penrose thinks
[4:42:26 AM] Sirius 17: he is a pragmatic fellow
[4:42:39 AM] Sirius 17: interesting his history that he struggled with math
[4:42:47 AM] Shiloh: It is a Nabs forum and only differs from Ryan and Cassidy in having a dislike for the formers and latters
[4:42:52 AM] Shiloh: The info is just as bad and biased towards their agendas of 'love and light' sillinesses and their schisms
[4:43:11 AM] Shiloh: Yes I saw this and this was just like me in grade 8; when I was more interested in Sonja than algebra and trigonometry
[4:43:18 AM] Shiloh: I wanted it slowly or not at all
[4:43:26 AM] Sirius 17: and i agree with him, no one should be timed on tests, its like you finish when you have solved it, each person has their own timing in this and with practice comes speed
[4:43:40 AM] Sirius 17: and confindence
[4:43:55 AM] Sirius 17: this is what happend to me, they ripped my confidence when i was little
[4:44:05 AM] Sirius 17: because i was slow i was told i was too dumb
[4:44:09 AM] Shiloh: Yes, me too; but I was simply disinterested in mathematics and the calculations, algebras in those days
[4:44:12 AM] Sirius 17: and after a while you believe it
[4:44:20 AM] Shiloh: I have Mercury in Taurus lol
[4:44:31 AM] Sirius 17: i have to work twice as hard as anyone else to get math
[4:44:34 AM] Sirius 17: and to keep it
[4:44:38 AM] Shiloh: I always hated time pressure
[4:44:42 AM] Sirius 17: yes me too
[4:44:57 AM] Sirius 17: but with unlimited time i do quite well
[4:45:19 AM] Shiloh: But this slowness allows thoroughness and this is Roger Penrose
[4:45:32 AM] Sirius 17: yes i can appreciate that
[4:45:33 AM] Shiloh: Pedantic Virgo Moon
[4:45:44 AM] Sirius 17: hehe yeah like you
[4:45:49 AM] Sirius 17: lover of details
[4:45:56 AM] Shiloh: I dont know where his planets are
[4:46:04 AM] Shiloh: I need his birthdate
[4:46:36 AM] Sirius 17: born 8 August 1931),
[4:46:44 AM] Sirius 17: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
[4:46:47 AM] Shiloh: Leo
[4:46:52 AM] Shiloh: yes I check
[4:47:05 AM] Sirius 17: Born in Colchester, Essex, England,
[4:48:15 AM] Shiloh: You would not believe this
[4:48:26 AM] Shiloh: He has a Virgo Mercury and a Taurus Moon
[4:48:35 AM] Shiloh: The exact Mirror of me
[4:48:37 AM] Sirius 17: i found it interesting of his relationship to Escher
[4:48:46 AM] Sirius 17: lol
[4:48:52 AM] Shiloh: Yes the patterns
[4:48:58 AM] Sirius 17: i do believe it
[4:49:06 AM] Shiloh: Lol
[4:49:19 AM] Sirius 17: not too much suprises me anymore with us
[4:49:36 AM] Sirius 17: of course its all too incredible anyhow
[4:49:42 AM] Shiloh: Mars in Libra and Venus in Cancer
[4:49:52 AM] Shiloh: I have Mars in Cancer
[4:50:03 AM] Sirius 17: lol strange he is a mirror
[4:50:06 AM] Shiloh: Detrimental makes us peaceful
[4:50:10 AM] Shiloh: Nonviolent
[4:50:48 AM] Shiloh: Mars in water is antiwar
[4:51:20 AM] Shiloh: Saturn in Capricorn is native and so a father figure
[4:51:31 AM] Shiloh: He has authority and knows it
[4:51:40 AM] Sirius 17:

Penrose believes that such deterministic yet non-algorithmic processes may come into play in the quantum mechanical wave function reduction, and may be harnessed by the brain. He argues that the present computer is unable to have intelligence because it is an algorithmically deterministic system. He argues against the viewpoint that the rational processes of the mind are completely algorithmic and can thus be duplicated by a sufficiently complex computer. This contrasts with supporters of strong artificial intelligence, who contend that thought can be simulated algorithmically. He bases this on claims that consciousness transcends formal logic because things such as the insolubility of the halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorem prevent an algorithmically based system of logic from reproducing such traits of human intelligence as mathematical insight. These claims were originally espoused by the philosopher John Lucas of Merton College, Oxford.


[4:52:07 AM] Shiloh: Yes I agree with him there
[4:52:18 AM] Sirius 17: yes i can see that
[4:52:21 AM] Sirius 17: and i agree too
[4:53:03 AM] Sirius 17: this harkens back to the first principles as well and the underpinning metaphysical algorithmic universe...Logos intelligence
[4:53:15 AM] Sirius 17: i mean it is so logical
[4:53:24 AM] Sirius 17: it just makes sense to me
[4:53:57 AM] Shiloh: Leo Jupiter and Cancer Pluto and Aries Uranus and Virgo Neptune
[4:54:08 AM] Sirius 17: all these people have fear of AI, i dont, because it don't feel it is possible
[4:54:46 AM] Shiloh: Dragon Node and Lilith in Aries, the latter right at the cusp with Pisces
[4:54:52 AM] Sirius 17: if there is to be anything like AI it must come from the human brain period and then remove the 'artificalness'
[4:55:01 AM] Shiloh: Chiron in Taurus
[4:55:14 AM] Sirius 17: oh his lilith is in Aries
[4:55:17 AM] Sirius 17: interesting
[4:55:32 AM] Shiloh: Right in the transit
[4:55:42 AM] Shiloh: One age changes into another age at 0° Aries
[4:55:55 AM] Sirius 17: yes he is before his time lol
[4:56:59 AM] Shiloh: Those are 9 year cycles
[4:58:49 AM] Shiloh: 40° per sign as 9x40°=360°
[4:59:40 AM] Sirius 17: interesting



For further details, a consultation of the Thuban archives on http://cosmosdawn.com is suggested.



Last edited by shiloh on Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:54 am; edited 1 time in total