<< <    Next Page (Page 1 of 7)    >  >>

Many of the members of this forum [including myself among them] have arrived to very similar conclusions as you have.
Your article has been written with very convincing arguments and I congratulate you in this effort too.
You've mentioned that someone had already worked out a model including waves with a similar configuration to the one proposed for the structure of the DNA. That's good news! I see that there is an awarness about how wrong we got it with the standard model in the first place.
I iniciated a thread some time ago about some of those concepts you've mentioned in your article. The title of the thread is "Here is my point" and it was signed by "humanbydefault."
Also I have posted some other with the goal of explaining the true structure of matter in the universe... Indeed standing waves, specks of high-energy radiation energy and their interactions along with the concept of "space-time" depending in the RADIUS of the spinn were some of them I know you'll find... "intriguing." (?)
Welcome to the forum were a bunch of physics lovers and dreamers find a refuge where they could say things other forums do not allow!
I hope you'll find a friend in me too!
HUMANBYDEFAULT

Welcome to the forum Joseph. It's good to have another logically clear thinker on board. I think you have offered a great addition to our thought processes, especially as relates to these statements; "The mechanical conscience of the universe" and your universal law "The wave energy of the universe is constantly seeking ever more stable states of equilibrium." I am a big fan of the equilibriated states of all universal processes, and have been working in this area for over 25 years, and also the area of trying to define Hofstadter's statement; "How does inanimate matter produce animate beings?" You are one who has offered the mechanical idea I wrote about as far back as the `80's, and since I am basicly an economist using physics' laws, maths and logics to prove economic models, the equilibrium law is truly amazing. I also, over the last two years, had realized the importance of the two definitions of time being required to explain reality properly, although not exactly as you have used the two time states. Your's is a welcome addition. Mine was a philosophical point, that reality could not be truly comprehended without a separate infinite now time space, to witness the real world of wave/matter motions and all physical reality from___the super-objective point of view___which just happens to come from the super-subjective awareness.

Anyway, thanks for the input, welcome again, and keep up the great work. I find nothing in your thesis I outright disagree with, however check out Milo Wolff's work, http://www.quantummatter.com/ if you haven't already, to see how close your ideas are. I'd like to hear your opinion about his ideas as relates to yours...

regards,
Lloyd

p.s.
I already like your idea about "The mechanical conscience of the universe" better than Milo Wolff's idea of wave/particle communication. It's logically more sound...

It occurs to me that we cannot be certain of anything. The Uncertainty principle (see definition below) suggests that we cannot even be sure where a certain atom in our body actually is.

Now imagine this on a global scale and then a galactic scale and we must conclude that the Universe is illogical. So trying to solve the TOE it would seem is an impossibility. But there must be an underling principal to the order of things.

In society the rules are manmade. On a Global scale the rules (or Laws) are different for each Country and continent. This is further divided into the haves and have not’s, meaning that a technological society is more advanced than a primitive society? Isn’t it ? What if there was suddenly no Electricity ?

The Observer effect however (see definition below) can blur the boundaries of our perception of the Universe. We are trying to discover the rules of a chaotic system, much like here on Earth. Are we making them up as we go along? Just on the information available at this present “Time”. Are we sure that the speed of light or Time is constant? Or in fact that everything we know must have some measurement. Are there more than 4 dimensions ? As we progress with our knowledge of the Universe our views will change and the new school of thought will reign supreme until a newer version comes along.

I probably haven’t explained this as clearly as I would have liked, but it will have to stand. I’m Uncertain !!!

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle or just Uncertainty principle states that one cannot measure values (with arbitrary precision) of certain quantities, which are pairs of observables of a single elementary particle. These pairs include the position and momentum. Mathematics provides a positive lower bound for the product of the uncertainties of measurements of the conjugate quantities.
It is often confused with the observer effect.

In science, the observer effect refers to changes that the act of observing has on the phenomenon being observed. For example: observing an electron will change its path because the observing light or radiation contains enough energy to disturb it.
In quantum mechanics, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of superposition, which is being in all possible states at once. The most famous example is the thought experiment Schrödinger's cat, in which the cat is neither alive nor dead until observed — until that time, the cat is both alive and dead (technically half-alive and half-dead in probability terms).

To: 1. humanbydefault
2. Lloyd
3. Pagan 3142

First of all, thank you very much for your response to my article. I truly appreciated your taking the time to respond.

Rather than respond to each question you raised, let me take this moment to make three points about this article more clearly. First, if you look at that list of questions again, if you placed all the physicists in the world in one place, neither could they answer any of these questions in a way which would satisfy everyone, nor could whatever answers they came up possibly be connected together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle to produce a clear picture or complete theory of the universe. Now if it sounds like I'm slamming the world community of theoretical physicists or something like that, well, I'm not. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Indeed, I doubt there's anyone more amazed, more proud, even, as a fellow human being of what these scholars have managed to accomplish over the past centuries than I. I'm only pointing out that with all they've accomplished, they still don't understand the universe. Not at all. Not one bit. It's even reached the point where physics students are taught they never will.

Which brings me to my second point. In the article I proposed two new ideas about the nature of EM fields. That they propagate helically instead of sinusoidally, and that they propagate at all because their inherently elastic. The elasticity coming from the interaction of the electric and magnetic components of the wave.

Are these assumptions correct? Shoot, I don't know. I only know--and this brings me to my third point--that by adding these two new ideas about the movement of EM waves to what we already know about them, we can quickly, clearly, and simply come up with a different way to define the big three--EM waves, energy, and matter--which leads directly to a new scenario for the big bang. A scenario which allows us to come up with answers to all the questions on that list. Well, not all of them. I'm still trying to explain gravity. Actually, I'm hoping some one of you could use this theory to maybe help me with that. Anyway, except for that, I, or rather, this theory, gives you the answers to all these questions. For instance, in the article I explain what time is and where it comes from. Is this explanation correct? I'm not sure. All I know is that with it I can explain two other questions on that list. The physical processes underlying special relativity and the electron cloud. Lloyd raised the question of how animate energy could derive from inanimate energy. Heck, Lloyd, if you want me to, I'll explain it for you. With this theory it's easy. For another example, physicists love to theorize possible answers to the horizon, boundary, and smoothness problems. Remember Einstein's "we cannot hope to solve important problems with the same thinking we used to create them"?, well, these three are a perfect example of what he meant. With this theory, this new way of thinking about the big three and the big bang, these three problems don't exist any more. They never did. They only showed up at all because, like Einstein said, we weren't thinking about the universe properly.

Let me say one more thing on this and then I'll let you go. For 2000 years western scholars could not figure out why the stars and planets revolved around the earth the way they did. Then, in 1543, an obscure Polish astronomer/cleric, Nicolaus Copernicus, said, wait a minute, what if it's not the heavens that are moving. What if it's the earth instead? And then he came up with two new ideas about the movement of the earth. That it revolves on its own axis once every day, and that it orbits the sun once every year. At the time there was no way he could prove he was right. But suddenly the paths of the heavenly bodies made very good sense. It was decades before Galileo and his telescope could prove him right.

All I'm saying is, let's propose two new ideas about the movement of EM waves. With these we redefine the big three, the big bang, and suddenly the universe makes very good sense. Is this new world view correct? It's going to take some work to find out. But if it isn't the one we're looking for, or should be looking for, it's got to be the biggest coincidence in the history of science.

Take care, Joseph

Hey Joseph, this should be interesting, since to answer the question would be the greatest feat in both philosophy and physics, as such would be the solution to the mind/body problem... I challenge you to give a detailed answer___please be specific... And a word of caution___it's more difficult than you may yet know... Also, please relate it to exactly what I said; "How does inanimate matter produce animate being?" Don't skirt the issue with energy hocus-pocus___I'm talking about vital life from non-vital energy/matter... If you succeed___you'll be the first...

The challenge is on...

regards,
Lloyd

Lloyd, I just spent two more hours trying to respond to your request, but for the second time got a msn error message stating that it needed 10 or more characters to be submitted and my work disappeared. Again. If this gets through let me know at jwreid13@msn.com and I'll try again in a few days.
Regards, Joseph

Many thanks Joseph,for your well written and thought out theory,you have
made many points all of which are interesting,I to have warm spot for dear
old Albert?For me the universe is self aware and Totally conscious,fully alive,
and evolving into self aware consciousness of this reality.


kind regards michael.

Joseph, your hypothesis makes sense to me. It further illustrates the harmony in nature and our limited vision. It's funny, I have always described time as a 'slinky' but hadn't thought of extending this form to other phenomena.
Cheers!

Hello Lloyd,

Of course I’ll be happy to explain how this proposed universal law tells us how the first living cells could evolve from inanimate matter. I regret it took so long to complete. I don’t know if you picked up on it or not, but in the original article I stated, albeit in passing, that the universe was always going to produce human beings. I wondered if anyone would pick up on that. But no one’s said anything so far. I tried again in my first response to you, except that I referred to the first living cells rather than complete humans. It was to this you responded. However, I was of course disappointed that it was such a negative response. I say that because you referred to my attempt in the original article to portray the universe as a complete system through the use of an admittedly proposed wave energy theory as "wave energy mumbo-jumbo". While I applaud your eloquence, since everything else in the article was based on that wave-energy mumbo-jumbo (I hope you won’t mind my using that phrase in the future—there’s a certain ring to it), I’m going to have to regrettably assume that any other conclusions, including how life came to exist on earth, since that portion of the proposed overall theory of the universe is also based on that wave-energy mumbo-jumbo, will also be rejected by you out of hand.

So before I get into the main subject here let me try one more time to reach you about the importance of visualizing the universe as a complete system, and why the one I proposed in the original article might very well be the one we’re looking for. And I’m going to begin with an analogy.

Have you ever worked a jigsaw puzzle? If you have, then you know it’s a two step process. First you turn all the pieces right side up. For the second step, using the picture on the box-top for a guide, you assemble the pieces. No problemo. But let’s say you can’t do step two. You can’t put the pieces together. But then you remember there’s another puzzle and maybe someone switched the boxtops. So you get the other boxtop with the other picture on it and, sure enough, now you can begin to assemble the pieces. By doing this you’ve accomplished two things. You’ve assembled the picture and you’ve proved the second picture is the one you’re looking for.

Well, that’s sort of the situation theoretical physicists are in now. They’ve been turning over the pieces of the universal puzzle—the laws, principles, truths, etc., they’ve come up with so far for centuries now. But with the current picture they have, they can’t assemble the pieces. If you remember, I described the current picture in the original article. Basically, based only on what they’ve been able to make out from the pieces they’ve turned over so far, physicists think that everything in the universe is made of some really strange stuff called energy. That in the beginning, even before the big bang, this energy existed as a really hot, dense, plasma of some kind. Then there was some mysterious, enormous explosion which somehow blew the energy plasma into EM waves and particles of matter. In this scenario, then, the universe is expanding purely because of the force of the explosion, so, naturally, researchers are trying to find out if the force of gravity is strong enough to slow the universe down, stop it, and reverse the flow of EM waves and matter.

The thing is, though, using this view of the universe, none of the pieces turned over so far, and there are a lot of them, fit together into a clear picture. Further, if you remember the list of questions (and I know I keep pointing to this list, but I do it for good reason), using the current view, no one can answer any of these questions having to do with the fundamental nature of the universe. At least not in a way such they, along with all the other pieces interlock together into a clear picture of the universe. And, perhaps most telling of all, a lot of researchers have concluded that it appears the universe’s energy, in all its forms, is trying to constantly seek out ever more stable states of equilibrium. In other words, that the universe itself is moving toward equilibrium; not away from it as the current view holds. And physicists have never been able to explain this either. So, obviously, they’re working with the wrong picture.

So what I’ve done, by proposing that EM waves are inherently elastic and propagate helically, is come up with a different view of the universe. Only with this one I’m pretty sure we can answer all the questions on that list (I can even answer most of them myself), so that now the answers, along with all the other pieces turned over fit together into a clear and reasonable picture of the universe. Plus, now the universe isn’t heading away from equilibrium as the current view holds, but toward it just as a lot of the research is telling us is happening.

Well, Lloyd, you just got my last, best shot on why we need a different view of the universe, and why I think this is the one. If that doesn’t reach you, there’s probably not much sense in trying to answer your question. Yet I’m still going to try my best to do just that, not so much because it’s going to make any difference to you, but for two other reasons. First, because you were good enough to take the time to respond in the first place, and for that alone deserve an answer, and because I have another, larger motive.

As you probably already know, there is a growing controversy between some so-called "evolutionists" and some so-called "creationists" regarding the "intelligent design" of the universe. The U.S. media’s having a field day with it. The reason why the scientific community is generally against the idea is specifically because the initial appearance of living cells on earth, and Darwin’s subsequent version of evolution, are both based on purely accidental natural selection. Which basically shuts the door on any sort of intelligent design. However, if the universal law turns out to be correct, and we can eventually explain our appearance here on earth is not totally accidental, well, while it doesn’t prove the existence of intelligent design, it certainly does open the door right back up again.

Like most really good arguments, the new view of natural selection and evolution presented here could eventually lead to their both being right. So I’m thinking of writing another article to submit to Toequest.com. Maybe I’ll call it, on a lighter note, "the right square theory" because I’m thinking that such an article, based on what I’ve written in the original article and here as well, would probably come down right square between the two sides of the argument. It doesn’t completely settle the argument, but it at least puts the discussion in a more favorable light for eventual resolution.

However, getting back to our discussion, this proposed theory, and the universal law which derives from it, allows us for the first time to see and understand the universe (absent human behavior) as a continuous, orderly, and essentially predictable process stretching from the big bang to the present day and beyond. And I think that (a) how and why the first living cells came to exist on earth, and (b) how and why they evolved all the way to us, may well prove to be the most sophisticated, maybe even the most elegant, application of the universal law. Not to mention of the greatest direct importance to the human race.

Sorry for the soapboxing. My kids and grandkids would warn you not to ask grandpa a question unless you have a few minutes.

OK, then. The first thing I want to do here is review what I know about what the scientific community knows (or thinks it knows) about how we got here. And, because Darwin’s Principle of Natural Selection came a century before the work of others on (a), and because the scientific community has used Darwin’s natural selection to help explain (a), I think it’s best to start with Darwin’s work first.

To begin with, let me point out that while Darwin deserves the credit for the term "principle of natural selection", the two earlier laws I wrote about in the article, the Principle of Least Action, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or the entropy law, are also "natural selection" laws. With the least action principle, the path requiring the least effort or work to get from the beginning state to the end state of a process is "naturally selected". Right? And the entropy law basically says that inanimate processes are always "naturally selecting" states of ever increasing entropy. And that’s because the universal law I’ve proposed, from which all these laws derive, is itself a natural selection law. Actually, instead of stating it as "the wave energy of the universe is constantly seeking ever more stable states of equilibrium", I could have written it instead as "the wave energy of the universe naturally selects ever more stable states of equilibrium". In other words, all the laws dealing directly with energy/matter’s search for equilibrium are natural selection laws.
The thing is, Darwin of course didn’t know about these other laws, and about matter’s search for equilibrium, and about DNA, and so forth. Still, by attributing the evolution of species to the natural selection of those best suited for survival in their environment, he was close to being right on. What he did not realize was that his version of natural selection is partly the result of a deeper, more fundamental, and far more orderly process. The natural selection by matter of ever more stable states of equilibrium. The better adapted you are to your environment, the easier it is, and the less work or effort is required, to remain alive. In other words, he recognized the consequence of evolution, which was the origin of species. He just had no possible way of knowing the true cause, instead attributing evolution to pure chance. He knew the process was by natural selection, you might say, he just didn’t fully understand what was actually being naturally selected.

There’s one more point to be made here. Pure chance does enter into the natural selection process in another way. Sudden, large-scale changes in the environment, i.e., earthquakes, large-scale volcanic eruptions, an asteroid possibly slamming into earth to wipe out the large dinosaurs, etc., certainly also brought some degree of chance into the equation. But, for the most part, Darwin’s Principle of Natural Selection was given order, direction, and purpose through the ages by the orderly, understandable, and predictable universal law.

What I’m going to do now is show how the universal law is also partly responsible for the evolution of the first living cells from "dead" atoms and molecules, and then merge this process with Darwin’s portion of evolution.
As I mentioned in the article, almost a century after Darwin’s work became public the physicist Ilya Prigogine determined that the entropy of a living cell decreases as it grows or assembles. In other words, that a living cell has more energy, and is capable of doing more work, than the sum of the energys and work its individual atoms and molecules would be able to do before they are assembled into the cell. Prigogine also noted that a living cell appears to exist in a state of equilibrium that is somehow separate or isolated from its environment. I believe he called the cell’s state "near" equilibrium. He wrote that there was something really important about these findings, but he couldn’t figure out what it was.

Later the physicist and microbiologist Carl Sagan performed some experiments at Cornell U. to try and better understand how the first living cells might have come into existence. By this time physicists and biologists already knew that the larger, more complex atoms and molecules have a smaller surface charge, which requires a gentle environment like the earth’s oceans, especially near the equator, where temperature changes are small and in a range conducive to the organization of large, complex molecules. And also that there were incomprehensibly large and varied quantities of atoms and simple molecules available in these oceans for Darwin’s natural selection by pure chance to work its magic over a four billion year period. But Sagan felt he still had to explain the fact, noted by Prigogine, that living cells are "high-energy" cells. For certainly, that extra energy was necessary for the cell to survive, and reproduce, and just generally qualify as being "alive". And besides, both he and Prigogine recognized how important it was to find out why the entropy law had reversed itself with living organisms. Eventually, as he explained it on his "Nova" TV series, the only way he and his team could account for this extra energy was to assume that random lightning strikes might possibly strike atoms and simple molecules of hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc., in the atmosphere, somehow imparting to them the required extra energy. Then, he reasoned, after these high-energy atoms and molecules had fallen into the oceans, Darwin’s principle would have kicked in so that, over some four billion years of countless connections, disconnections, and reconnections, the original much simpler high energy molecules would evolve into ever more complex high energy molecules, eventually resulting in the appearance of the first, self-sustaining living cells.

Thus, you see, Sagan, like Darwin, attributed both the appearance of the original high-energy atoms and molecules, as well as the eventual appearance of high-energy living cells by the process of natural selection, strictly to chance.

So now, employing the universal law, let me give you my version of what happened.

First of all, we generally define equilibrium, which I should have done in the original article, as a state of existence where a minimum of work is done by the object matter on its environment, and vice versa. In other words, a state where little or no energy passes across the boundary of the object matter in either direction. This also means that the object matter would remain in its state of equilibrium until something changes, either in the object matter or in the environment. Thus, again generally speaking, the more stable the state of equilibrium, the longer the object matter undergoes no change of state. Further, we normally think of such a state of equilibrium as being a fairly simple state to achieve and maintain as long as the environment, which is often the larger of the two systems involved, remains unchanged. Which is, again, most often the case.

But let’s say that the environment refuses to cooperate. Let’s say that the much larger environment is in a constant state of change. If that’s the case, then the object matter may never be able to achieve a stable state of equilibrium. Why? Because changes in the state of the environment starts up the energy flows again and the object matter is forced to change its state to match up once again with the environment.

But let’s say the environmental changes are not too radical, but moderate, fairly slow and steady changes about some mean state of equilibrium. Like what happens on the surface of the earth. So what happens then?
Well, if you think about it, there is a way to naturally select for equilibrium states if these states are somehow able to remain separated from the constantly changing environment. Which, remember, is what Prigogine discovered but couldn’t explain. In other words, the only way to create a state of fairly stable equilibrium in conditions which are not conducive to such a state is to create sort of an island of equilibrium that’s somehow isolated, at least equilibrium-wise, from the environment. But to do that such a colony or cell of molecules would have to be able to do a lot of work to remain sufficiently isolated from its environment. Thus it would have to be composed of extremely complex high-energy molecules capable of constantly doing a lot of work such as taking in energy from the environment and distributing it as needed throughout the cell when the outside temperature drops.

As to where these high-energy molecules come from, of all the molecules existing in the ocean, even the simplest ones, some are going to naturally have just a little more free (extra) energy available than others. In other words, there may well be some higher energy molecules because of lightning strikes, but there’s also going to be some for other reasons. And since these slightly higher energy molecules have a tiny bit better chance of lasting for a longer period of time in an environment where the temperature is constantly changing, this means they are in a state of more stable equilibrium to begin with than are the other molecules around them. And so the universal law kicks in and selects them over the lower energy molecules which don’t last as long.

Now if you’re thinking all this natural selection stuff is getting too complicated to be real, don’t forget that Darwin and Sagan and the rest of the scientific community, given the beyond astronomical numbers of atoms and molecules on earth for the past four billion years, and the beyond astronomical numbers of possible connections, disconnections, reconnections, and so on, which ensued, have been perfectly satisfied that living cells could happen just by accidental natural selection alone. After all, they do exist. It’s just that the universal law says its even easier and more certain than that.

So you see. It’s conceivable that the natural selection of living cells would not be completely by accident as scientists currently believe. Even the natural selection of higher energy molecules to make up the cell could be a more certain gradual process over billions of years, rather than by an accidental lightning bolt.

And there’s something else. Sagan also said, and remember that he was a physicist and microbiologist, that natural selection would also be solely responsible for the living cell to use its extra energy to eventually construct DNA and reproduce, which is a requirement for the eventual evolution of the first living cells to us. And again, according to Sagan, all this would be done purely by chance. The universal law’s version of natural selection, on the other hand, would justify naturally selecting for DNA bearing cells not just by accident, but also because cell reproduction increases the overall stability of cell equilibrium by constantly replacing the high-energy, quickly worn out cell with a new one. So the cell essentially remains in existence for a longer period of time, which translates into a state of more stable equilibrium for another reason. And once again the universal law kicks in.

But that’s not all. Sex enters the reproductive scene because, by mixing together the two genetic codes from two separate cells, which gives the two-celled organism a better chance of dealing with relatively small, relatively slow changes in the environment, this gives the organism yet another way to achieve more stable equilibrium.

So if you think about it, the universal law’s natural selection of most stable states of equilibrium transforms smoothly from constructing the first living cells to the task of naturally selecting ever more complex living organisms since, after all, the scientific community already agrees that increasing complexity generally translates to a more efficient system capable of lasting longer. Especially if ever increasing complexity results in the natural selection of living organisms with brains. Organisms which can choose their behavior and plan their future.

Finally, then, while purely accidental natural selection is partly responsible for the appearance of the first single-cell organisms, the universal law certainly has a great deal to do with it as well. And the same can be said for the origin of species.

Well, Lloyd, basically there you are. Remember, in attempting to explain in general terms how the universal law drove the natural selection of the first living cells, and their evolution into us, what I’ve tried to do here is demonstrate once again that the proposed universal law provides a mechanism which helps to drive the universal process of evolution from the very beginning of time right up to the present, and beyond, in a seamless, orderly, and understandable way. Of course, even if the arguments presented here are true, or mostly so, they still don’t prove the proposed law really is all I’m thinking it is. As Einstein put it, "mother nature is the cruelest of judges, with all her yeses conditional, and all her nos absolute". But I’m liking its chances more all the time.

Regards, Joseph