Beverly Spicer

6 Responses to “The universe is queerer than we suppose”

1. 1 sam Aug 7th, 2007 at 5:07 pm

   he simply follows logic

2. 2 Steven Earl Salmony Aug 8th, 2007 at 10:42 am

   Hi Beverly,

   Another superb blog. Thanks.

   Richard Dawkins’ work is terrific, not doubt about it. But what he reports about the universe, when he is not talking strangely about delusional thinking, appears not at all queer. Sam makes this very point so well, just above.

   At least to me, what does appear to dangerously deviate from what Dr. Dawkins presents as well as from what is natural, normal or expected are certain unbridled over-growth activities of the human species that are now overspreading the surface of the Earth. Perhaps Dr. Dawkins and others would be willing to comment on these questionable, seemingly “outlier” behaviors.

   Perhaps a question is useful here. Can you think of a time in recorded history when a single generation, like my own, has so efficiently ravaged the finite resources of the Earth, so conspicuously consumed what it has self-righteously commandeered, so polluted the environment and left so little of what is sacred for its own children and coming generations? And, of all things, we call ourselves masters of the universe and the greatest generation while we religiously pursue this “primrose path,” one that mainly diminishes life, degrades the planet and glorifies the profane.

   The distinctly human behaviors of 1) per capita overconsumption, 2) the seemingly endless increase of industrialization and economic globalization in a relatively small world with limited resources and frangible ecosystem services and 3) overpopulation, to which I draw attention, do look as if they are reasonably and sensibly apprehended as approaching a point in time when they can be described as suspicious, off-centered, unbalanced and of an odd nature.

   With hope of discussion,

   Steve

3. 3 socratus Aug 9th, 2007 at 2:05 pm

   What is the first law of Universe ?
   =========
   The Physics is first of all Vacuum.
   Vacuum is :T=0K.
   It is the “empty” space between milliards of billions Galaxies.
   * * *
   Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
   (all elementary particles and all quarks and
   their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
   all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
   muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a “single point”.
   It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the “single point”.
   The answer is :
   EMPTINESS- NOTHING….!!!
   Ok!
   But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
   common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
   I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
   the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
   is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
   by the formula T=0K.
   * * *
   Once there was a “Big Bang”.
   But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
   and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
   Not in T=0K?
   It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in T=0K.
   Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
   in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big Bang ).
   But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change and decrease.
   What temperature can this radiation reach?
   Not T=0K?
   Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
   we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING T=0K.
   Therefore it is necessary to begin to think from T=0K.
   ===================
   2.
   What is the second law of Universe ?
   To answer of this question we must ask:
   ” What geometrical and physical parameters
   have the particles in Vacuum T=0K? ”
   The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning
   Vacuum created a ” virtual particle “, Quantum of Light.
   3.
   What is the “virtual particle “, Quantum of Light?
   A quantum of light is a privileged particle.
   Only a light quantum has the absolute speed: c=1.
   No other particle can travel with the speed: c = 1.
   Other particle can travel only with the speed: s=d/t.
   But if quantum of light flies always only rectilinearly
   with speed c=1, it is a mad one.
   No.
   Quantum of light have two kinds of spins ,
   as a result of which the particle attains motion.
   1)
   Under the action of Planck,s spin (impuls),
   which is equal to the unit ( h =1)
   a quantum of light flies rectilinearly with speed (c = 1).
   The geometrical form of a circle: (C/D = 3,14).
   A quantum of light behaves as a particle.
   2)
   Under the action of Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck’s spin ,
   ( h = h / 2pi) a quantum of light rotates around of its diameter
   with the speed more of light quanta : c>1
   and is known as electron.
   The geometrical form of a circle is transformed into a sphere.
   This kind of movement is described by Lorentz’s transformations .
   In this action the wave properties of light quantum are shown.
   The dualism of a particle becomes clear.
   The paradox of dualism disappears completely.
   When the form of a circle is change into the form of a sphere,
   the transcendental magnitude (pi = 3,14) is change
   on another transcendental magnitude (e = 2,71).
   These changes are described by the Lorentz transformations.
   ===================
   Two views on the space and time.
   ===========
   We have many kinds of dimension spaces: 3D, 4D and etc.
   Is it hard to see the three dimension. . .???
   No.
   1.
   There are an independent space and independent time:
   We notice it on our planet - Earth. It is a 3D space.
   The space (Newtonian) around us is 3D,
   and our eyes allow us to see this 3D.
   If we take Descartes coordinates plus time,
   when it is possible to say:
   4D = 3D space 1D time.
   We live in this 4D and are aware of it.
   2.
   Is it hard to see the fourth dimension. . .???
   No.
   There is simultaneous union of space and time
   (negative four-dimensional / Minkowski / space).
   Herman Minkowski :
   ” Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
   are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
   and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent
   reality.”
   Question.
   What is the “a kind of union of the two “?
   The answer.
   It is Vacuum. T=0K.
   It is the “empty” space between milliards of billions Galaxies.
   =====================.
   Why we say :
   ” that it is impossible to see the fourth dimension.. .”
   Maybe because: we are in a “special kind of intelligence
   is variably called schizophrenia. ”
   What is the reason of this illness?
   The reason is hidden in abstract thinking about :
   abstract ideal gas, abstract black body,
   abstract inertial systems, abstract ” virtual” particles,
   abstract zoo of antiparticles, abstract
   Schrödinger’s cat in a dark matter ,
   abstract 4D, 5D, 11D, 27D , 52D and etc……
   ==========
   Is there a medicine for this illness?
   Of course.
   On the one recipe is written ” Vacuum: T=0K”,
   On the other recipe is written ” Light quanta”.
   If we don’t take this medicine our human society
   will remain in the state of “schizophrenia”. Save us God.
   =======================.

   The secret of words ‘God’, ’soul ‘, ‘religion’,
   Existence’, ‘dualism of consciousness’, ‘human being’
   hide in the “Theory of Light quanta”.
   Because, from all particles, only and only
   the quantum of light is a privileged particle.
   ========================

4. 4 Beverly Spicer Aug 9th, 2007 at 6:50 pm

   Sam, Steve, and Socratus,

   WOW! What conversation Mr. Dawkins’ ideas stimulate! I think you all are underscoring the fact there is much to think about when pondering this universe of ours, and the ways we have thought about how it works are not necessarily what they seem. As Mr. Dawkins says, it’s queerer than we ever imagined. Science has been suggesting this for decades now, that the more we understand on some level, the ‘curiouser and curiouser’ things get on others. I have to admit that I just looked up a word Steve used, ‘frangible,’ and for anyone who doesn’t know what it means already, here’s the definition: ‘capable of being easily broken.’ We know the earth is pretty resilient, but we also know the beings that inhabit the earth come and go like the tides, and are quite fragile indeed. I agree our biggest problem may be over-population of humans and the corollary — the vanishing species of non-humans. It seems we have a pattern, as conscious beings, of making big mistakes that eventually result in raising our consciousness. At least, that’s how it often works. We do, then we understand what we just did by observing the consequences. Aren’t we all hoping to raise our consciousness beyond our experience in the future, to solve what lies ahead? Do we know enough to anticipate the future, and are we strong enough to take action to get ourselves back in line with the laws of nature? Thank heaven for the efforts to raise our awareness proposed by thinking individuals like Dawkins and his audience like Sam, Steve and Socratus. Your thoughtful comments are most appreciated, and we look forward to hearing more!

5. 5 Matthew Aug 12th, 2007 at 10:38 am

   Can’t we just discuss the topic Mr. Dawkins so eloquently presented. The overconsumption/overpopulation and T=0K stuff is interesting, but misses the point. I think Sam is the only respondant that heard (and listened) to the speech. And to Ms. Spicer….you are very gracious in your reply.

   But lets discuss some of his actual statements:

   My favorite part was the description of a childhood memory, with the revelation that not a single molecule of our present person was there at the time. That fact is truly awesome. How do memories manifest if the storage media is in constannt flux. Even if it is electromagnetic patterns between the neurons, the transcription and recall of the data is wonderous.

   I also enjoyed the information about bats hearing in color and dogs smelling the length of a carbon chain. That changes our definition of the word “color” too. That can be amazing or disappointing at the same time. Amazing because everything we see is present in only a very small portion of the EM spectrum. Being able to subdivide that small portion of the scale into the infinite images of life is amazing. But it’s disappointing because we can only experience that 1% of the spectrum….how much we must be missing.

   And to pick a third nugget from the pile of ore, I wonder if anyone heard the short editorial comment that Mr. Dawkins makes about life in the universe. He says something like (and I paraphrase here), the odds of life being 100 million billion, makes the odds of finding extraterrestrial life unlikely (two islands not knowing the other exists). He makes a comment indicating that is a rather disappointing fact. I agree with him, but I still like Star Trek.

   Life is remarkable. Perception is reality. Dreams ARE real, how can you have a fake one?

6. 6 socratus Sep 5th, 2007 at 3:10 am

   Matthew wrote:
   Life is remarkable. Perception is reality.
   Dreams ARE real, how can you have a fake one?
   ======================
   If mathematician makes a small mistake in the
   beginning of his calculations then after some
   operations it grows into a big one.
   And if in the beginning of sciences birth (Newton )
   the abstract ideas were put into its fundament ,
   then now we are surprised with its paradoxes………
   ……and we can create new and new theories for 1000 years
   but the result will be the same - paradoxical.
   ===========================

Leave a Reply