Relevant posts
- Fractal dimensions harbour parallel worlds?
- Observer to Planck length distance, fractal? Why we perceive continuity, out of the energy packets (quanta), the physical world is made out of?
I read in Answers.com, 'cosmic background radiation' entry
"This big bang was not an explosion of matter into empty space but an explosion of space itself."
Space was not there, and space was created? The notions of microscopic and macroscopic were irrelevant at that time?
Space flat? No depth?
As space exploded, it expanded both ways? Deeper in to the microscopic, creating the quantum world and further out in the macroscopic world, creating the universe?
Mirror images? And as such, the quantum world expands deeper and deeper in as the universe expands further and further away?
With the speed of light? Which might have implications on the electron to nucleus distance?
The microcosm expanding? But this runs counter to common held notions of the microscopic world. Countless pockets of microcosms, apparent. Fractal? Fractal origins for every atom in our bodies, in the world at large?
Energy dissipated down fractal paths, as space expanded deeper and deeper in, forces eventually being constrained in fractal corridors, effectively separated into the kinds that exist now?
Saturday, 27 December 2008
Thursday, 4 December 2008
Observer to Planck length distance, fractal? Why we perceive continuity, out of the energy packets (quanta), the physical world is made out of?
Space an emergent product?
Italicized journey of thoughts, emanated by naive observations badly, anything but eloquently, expressed but nevertheless building towards new perspectives in my mind, as I gradually assimilate, (my very own meaning construction process), informed, worked-out assumptions presented by experts in the field
Heck! I forgot about that. The four blinking lights in two rows and two columns, (a matrix(?)), a rectangle near square, surrounding a two-digit number display(?). Alternate blinking of the lights per row. The two lights lying on a row were lit at the same time. One time interval, 1 time-step, then off. In the next time-step, the lights in the other row were lit, then off. Alternate lighting up per row continuously. The lights, as looked from afar gave the impression of a light running up and down. The perception of a single(!)... (the whole(?)) light jumping up and down incessantly. The lights, as being looked at, from near, did not give the impression of a running light, instead each single light in the row was constantly switched on and off. The illusion or perception of a running light, a shining beam going up and down, only given by the lights looked at from afar, but not when looked at from near. Distance of the lights from the observer being crucial? For the illusion of a running light(!) to be perceived by the observer.
Light, transmitted as waves. In both cases by different sources, but the distance from the observer would make a difference in its perception. What it is perceived. In my mind, this is how waves are perceived in our minds, and by that reality. Distance being crucial in the way waves are perceived. It is connected with perceived coherence and our ability to distinguish between simultaneously emitted waves. It is what I dealt with, as well, after I read this article about the human resolving time.
Anyhow, it evades me at the moment, but the thought that occurred to me, is connected with the microscopic world, the world of quanta.
Oumf, space being an emergent phenomenon? There is no actually space, we do not really probe space, as it is not there? It emerges as a result of the processes involved. That even flat, let's call it space, is sufficient to describe it as. The branes, to use a word from string theory, a flat surface that contains or includes, all our universe. The onion with its laid-out skins of fractal universes?
And to go back to the idea of distance being crucial to how we perceive incoming waves. Waves from atomic and sub-atomic particles, quanta for that matter, as they are perceived by virtue of the energy, they emit; in waves, each by itself a unique, single source, but what we experience, by virtue of a function(?) that combines all these waves to the reality perceived? As it emerges as reality?
And where the waves come from? They come from a distance quite afar and that's why we perceive them as running or interacting with one another.
A distance that increases as we go deeper and deeper into the microscopic world? which even creates the impression of interaction?
Interference of the waves, which we mistake as motion?
Distance, as it is experienced in the classical world and distance, by which, out of the quanta, the packets emitted, we perceive the world as is?
(in a manner analogous to combined?)
That all reality can be explained by looking at it from that angle, distance; distance from the observer, the human individual. To begin with there is the quanta, packets of energy, waves. As the waves are dispatched in packets, effectively blink, incessantly, and the observer which senses these processes from a distance; far far away; namely the distance to the microscales, to Planck length itself. A distance so remote and yet so close? The observer surmises continuity out of the stream of packets, and by that reality?
How can that happen?
Distance should not be conceived as a straight line? Instead it should be conceived as the line weaving a fractal? Unfolding in near infinite trajectories, laid out in layers upon layers, closely knit, infinitesimally thin onion-like skins, barely touching each other unraveling into infinite fractal or fractional dimensions? Infinities reminiscent of the infinities that lies between two integer numbers?
Distance, what measures the length of space between objects, looses its meaning? Distance, as we experience it in the macroscopic world, and the distance to the microscales, both work in the same way? Provide continuity for our minds to perceive? A fundamental process of our minds with distance, and therefore length, space, being the products? Emergent products?
For any effect, the world we live in, the reality for us, might unravel in infinite fractal dimensions inside thin sheets, as thick as A4 paper.
Italicized journey of thoughts, emanated by naive observations badly, anything but eloquently, expressed but nevertheless building towards new perspectives in my mind, as I gradually assimilate, (my very own meaning construction process), informed, worked-out assumptions presented by experts in the field
Heck! I forgot about that. The four blinking lights in two rows and two columns, (a matrix(?)), a rectangle near square, surrounding a two-digit number display(?). Alternate blinking of the lights per row. The two lights lying on a row were lit at the same time. One time interval, 1 time-step, then off. In the next time-step, the lights in the other row were lit, then off. Alternate lighting up per row continuously. The lights, as looked from afar gave the impression of a light running up and down. The perception of a single(!)... (the whole(?)) light jumping up and down incessantly. The lights, as being looked at, from near, did not give the impression of a running light, instead each single light in the row was constantly switched on and off. The illusion or perception of a running light, a shining beam going up and down, only given by the lights looked at from afar, but not when looked at from near. Distance of the lights from the observer being crucial? For the illusion of a running light(!) to be perceived by the observer.
Light, transmitted as waves. In both cases by different sources, but the distance from the observer would make a difference in its perception. What it is perceived. In my mind, this is how waves are perceived in our minds, and by that reality. Distance being crucial in the way waves are perceived. It is connected with perceived coherence and our ability to distinguish between simultaneously emitted waves. It is what I dealt with, as well, after I read this article about the human resolving time.
Anyhow, it evades me at the moment, but the thought that occurred to me, is connected with the microscopic world, the world of quanta.
Oumf, space being an emergent phenomenon? There is no actually space, we do not really probe space, as it is not there? It emerges as a result of the processes involved. That even flat, let's call it space, is sufficient to describe it as. The branes, to use a word from string theory, a flat surface that contains or includes, all our universe. The onion with its laid-out skins of fractal universes?
And to go back to the idea of distance being crucial to how we perceive incoming waves. Waves from atomic and sub-atomic particles, quanta for that matter, as they are perceived by virtue of the energy, they emit; in waves, each by itself a unique, single source, but what we experience, by virtue of a function(?) that combines all these waves to the reality perceived? As it emerges as reality?
And where the waves come from? They come from a distance quite afar and that's why we perceive them as running or interacting with one another.
A distance that increases as we go deeper and deeper into the microscopic world? which even creates the impression of interaction?
Interference of the waves, which we mistake as motion?
Distance, as it is experienced in the classical world and distance, by which, out of the quanta, the packets emitted, we perceive the world as is?
(in a manner analogous to combined?)
That all reality can be explained by looking at it from that angle, distance; distance from the observer, the human individual. To begin with there is the quanta, packets of energy, waves. As the waves are dispatched in packets, effectively blink, incessantly, and the observer which senses these processes from a distance; far far away; namely the distance to the microscales, to Planck length itself. A distance so remote and yet so close? The observer surmises continuity out of the stream of packets, and by that reality?
How can that happen?
Distance should not be conceived as a straight line? Instead it should be conceived as the line weaving a fractal? Unfolding in near infinite trajectories, laid out in layers upon layers, closely knit, infinitesimally thin onion-like skins, barely touching each other unraveling into infinite fractal or fractional dimensions? Infinities reminiscent of the infinities that lies between two integer numbers?
Distance, what measures the length of space between objects, looses its meaning? Distance, as we experience it in the macroscopic world, and the distance to the microscales, both work in the same way? Provide continuity for our minds to perceive? A fundamental process of our minds with distance, and therefore length, space, being the products? Emergent products?
For any effect, the world we live in, the reality for us, might unravel in infinite fractal dimensions inside thin sheets, as thick as A4 paper.
Wednesday, 3 December 2008
Quantum computers, the panacea of computing. What about chaotic computers?
Threads triggers
- The 25 Questions about Physics for the Next 25-30 Years
- The parallels of quantum phenomena and consciousness?
- Fractal Neurodynamics and Chaos: Resolving the Mind-Brain Paradox Through Novel Biophysics
- Currently phenomenally out-worldly notions
I read in The 25 Questions about Physics for the Next 25-30 Years
"15 - The understanding of complexity in computing:
Is there something beyond the artifacts of approximations ...
16 - The construction of a quantum computer:
One with 10,000 qbits would be useful; Can we construct such a real QC .."
Quantum computer? Is there not one already? Looking for a quantum computer, but what about a chaotic computer? Chaotic computer? What? Playing with words? What kind of computer would that be? A computer that his architecture is built upon the tenets of chaos? If the word tenets, as regards to chaos make any sense. What are these tenets? Attributes or properties attached to the concept of chaos. That, what the word chaos, would bring forth in an individual's mind. What kind of thoughts would be triggered upon hearing the word chaos. It certainly is, the influence of the minute, the infinitesimal quantity upon the state presented or emerging. State presented or emerging being the output and the minute or infinitesimal, the input. And what chaos dictates about the potential influence of the minute and infinitesimal upon the emergent state, the output? It is down to the sensitive dependence on the initial conditions.
Initial conditions algorithmically determined, chipped, part of the computer hardware, upon which the selection would be based, which among the minutiae of states, would be the input which will compute the output, the emergent state.
Fractal computer architecture based on registers where values representing input states, are tested against the initial conditions algorithms, the more the fractal branches, the more of the minutiae input states can be tested. Or even, by breaking up the initial conditions algorithms into smaller ones, super/sub hierarchical levels, based on a kind of AND, OR, XOR or other gate configuration available, would increase ... the 'fractality'?
Increase in complexity? Fractal branches in several levels, all being placed in such a way that the lowest registers, fed with the input values, are directly linked to the highest level registers, carrying the values which will compute for the output states? And ensure an exponential or other increase of the population of minutiae that are tested against the initial conditions algorithms?
Initial conditions based on the problem, in seek of a solution? Reverse engineering of the chaotic processes involved? What about the other tenets of chaotically developed systems. Attractors and Lyapunov exponents, diverging and converging trajectories. Can they be incorporated in the fractal architecture, be part of the initial conditions algorithms, tweak the sensitivity sought for, in the initial conditions?
In my mind, all these thoughts follow up the blueprint of the brain, in ways that have been dealt with, in Genesis of Eden paper on Fractal Neurodynamics and Chaos: Resolving the Mind-Brain Paradox Through Novel Biophysics
"The four levels of instability link in stages, making it possible for the fractal aspect of chaotic dynamics at the global, cellular, synaptic and molecular levels to combine to provide a fractal model in which global and quantum instabilities are linked by mutual interactions of scale. Global instabilities in brain dynamics may be dynamically-linked to fluctuation of a critical neuron."
The critical neuron, representing the neuron that sensitively responds to given initial conditions, fractally connected, affects the global state of the brain, the output which determines what is perceived or conceived.
In the same post, it is mentioned
"21 - Could a computer become a creative physicist:
When will this happen; How will we train them;"
A chaotic computer built out of the blueprint of the brain, might?
- The 25 Questions about Physics for the Next 25-30 Years
- The parallels of quantum phenomena and consciousness?
- Fractal Neurodynamics and Chaos: Resolving the Mind-Brain Paradox Through Novel Biophysics
- Currently phenomenally out-worldly notions
I read in The 25 Questions about Physics for the Next 25-30 Years
"15 - The understanding of complexity in computing:
Is there something beyond the artifacts of approximations ...
16 - The construction of a quantum computer:
One with 10,000 qbits would be useful; Can we construct such a real QC .."
Quantum computer? Is there not one already? Looking for a quantum computer, but what about a chaotic computer? Chaotic computer? What? Playing with words? What kind of computer would that be? A computer that his architecture is built upon the tenets of chaos? If the word tenets, as regards to chaos make any sense. What are these tenets? Attributes or properties attached to the concept of chaos. That, what the word chaos, would bring forth in an individual's mind. What kind of thoughts would be triggered upon hearing the word chaos. It certainly is, the influence of the minute, the infinitesimal quantity upon the state presented or emerging. State presented or emerging being the output and the minute or infinitesimal, the input. And what chaos dictates about the potential influence of the minute and infinitesimal upon the emergent state, the output? It is down to the sensitive dependence on the initial conditions.
Initial conditions algorithmically determined, chipped, part of the computer hardware, upon which the selection would be based, which among the minutiae of states, would be the input which will compute the output, the emergent state.
Fractal computer architecture based on registers where values representing input states, are tested against the initial conditions algorithms, the more the fractal branches, the more of the minutiae input states can be tested. Or even, by breaking up the initial conditions algorithms into smaller ones, super/sub hierarchical levels, based on a kind of AND, OR, XOR or other gate configuration available, would increase ... the 'fractality'?
Increase in complexity? Fractal branches in several levels, all being placed in such a way that the lowest registers, fed with the input values, are directly linked to the highest level registers, carrying the values which will compute for the output states? And ensure an exponential or other increase of the population of minutiae that are tested against the initial conditions algorithms?
Initial conditions based on the problem, in seek of a solution? Reverse engineering of the chaotic processes involved? What about the other tenets of chaotically developed systems. Attractors and Lyapunov exponents, diverging and converging trajectories. Can they be incorporated in the fractal architecture, be part of the initial conditions algorithms, tweak the sensitivity sought for, in the initial conditions?
In my mind, all these thoughts follow up the blueprint of the brain, in ways that have been dealt with, in Genesis of Eden paper on Fractal Neurodynamics and Chaos: Resolving the Mind-Brain Paradox Through Novel Biophysics
"The four levels of instability link in stages, making it possible for the fractal aspect of chaotic dynamics at the global, cellular, synaptic and molecular levels to combine to provide a fractal model in which global and quantum instabilities are linked by mutual interactions of scale. Global instabilities in brain dynamics may be dynamically-linked to fluctuation of a critical neuron."
The critical neuron, representing the neuron that sensitively responds to given initial conditions, fractally connected, affects the global state of the brain, the output which determines what is perceived or conceived.
In the same post, it is mentioned
"21 - Could a computer become a creative physicist:
When will this happen; How will we train them;"
A chaotic computer built out of the blueprint of the brain, might?
Labels:
chaotic computers,
fractality,
quantum computer
Monday, 1 December 2008
Currently phenomenally out-worldly notions
The content of this post The 25 Questions about Physics for the Next 25-30 Years
by Prof. David Gross (recorded by Infanta), intrigued me. Novel thoughts expressed which feel juicy, tasty morsels to whet my appetite. They were taken from another website and attributed to Prof. David Gross, who as I read was awarded a Nobel prize
The references on
"How did the Universe begin; How far back can we probe; Can String theory determine the initial conditions;"
initial conditions; which in my mind; the first thought it came up with, was chaos. The initial conditions, as a direct reference to chaos; chaos spawned the universe.
And in the same paragraph
"... Is time itself an emergent concept ..."
what an interesting approach. It opens up a whole new field of questions demanding an answer, looked upon from at totally new perspective, with hardly being able to comprehend, I do not have the faintest idea, where it could lead to.
Going further
"How does DM interact with ordinary baryonic matter; Is it wimpy; Can we detect it in the laboratory; How is it distributed in the Universe; What does this tell us about structure formation ..."
... about structure formation; being connected with dark matter? Implying that dark matter, is all around us. Undetected, as it is wimpy or possibly, it is us. We do not have the sensory equipment necessary, and even beyond, all the additional machines we use to extend our probing of nature, our attachments crutches, fail us. The waves, by which propagate, do not produce coherent structures, neither to us nor to the machines we use, to detect them?
The list goes on ...
by Prof. David Gross (recorded by Infanta), intrigued me. Novel thoughts expressed which feel juicy, tasty morsels to whet my appetite. They were taken from another website and attributed to Prof. David Gross, who as I read was awarded a Nobel prize
The references on
"How did the Universe begin; How far back can we probe; Can String theory determine the initial conditions;"
initial conditions; which in my mind; the first thought it came up with, was chaos. The initial conditions, as a direct reference to chaos; chaos spawned the universe.
And in the same paragraph
"... Is time itself an emergent concept ..."
what an interesting approach. It opens up a whole new field of questions demanding an answer, looked upon from at totally new perspective, with hardly being able to comprehend, I do not have the faintest idea, where it could lead to.
Going further
"How does DM interact with ordinary baryonic matter; Is it wimpy; Can we detect it in the laboratory; How is it distributed in the Universe; What does this tell us about structure formation ..."
... about structure formation; being connected with dark matter? Implying that dark matter, is all around us. Undetected, as it is wimpy or possibly, it is us. We do not have the sensory equipment necessary, and even beyond, all the additional machines we use to extend our probing of nature, our attachments crutches, fail us. The waves, by which propagate, do not produce coherent structures, neither to us nor to the machines we use, to detect them?
The list goes on ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)