|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
AUTUMN ATUM AUTUMN
AUTUMN ATUM AUTUMN QUANTUM ATUM QUANTUM
RA ATUM ATUM RA
THE NEW MATHEMATICS OF CHAOS Ian Stewart 1989 Page 1 PROLOGUE CLOCKWORK OR CHAOS? "YOU BELIEVE IN A GOD WHO PLAYS DICE, AND I IN COMPLETE LAW AND ORDER." Albert Einstein, Letter to Max Born
"YOU B5LI5V5 I5 A GOD 5HO PLAYS DIC5, A5D I I5 COMPL5T5 LA5 A5D ORD5R." 5 x 13 = 65
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
QUANTUM THOUGHTS GODS THOUGHTS QUANTUM
QUANTUM ATUM AMUN ATEN ATOM QUANTUM
Quantum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quantum In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is an indivisible entity of a quantity that has the units as the Planck constant and is related to both energy and momentum of elementary particles of matter (called fermions) and of photons and other bosons. The word comes from the Latin "quantus", for "how much." Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized", referred to as "quantization". This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete numerical values, rather than any value, at least within a range. There is a related term of quantum number. A photon is often referred to as a "light quantum". The energy of an electron bound to an atom (at rest) is said to be quantized, which results in the stability of atoms, and of matter in general. But these terms can be a little misleading, because what is quantized is this Planck's constant quantity whose units can be viewed as either energy multiplied by time or momentum multiplied by distance. Usually referred to as quantum "mechanics", it is regarded by virtually every professional physicist as the most fundamental framework we have for understanding and describing nature at the infinitesimal level, for the very practical reason that it works. It is "in the nature of things", not a more or less arbitrary human preference. Contents [hide] [edit] Development of quantum theory Planck was reluctant to accept the new idea of quantization, as were many others. But, with no acceptable alternative, he continued to work with the idea, and found his efforts were well received. Eighteen years later, when he accepted the Nobel Prize in Physics for his contributions, he called it "a few weeks of the most strenuous work" of his life. During those few weeks, he even had to discard much of his own theoretical work from the preceding years. Quantization turned out to be the only way to describe the new and detailed experiments which were just then being performed. He did this practically overnight, openly reporting his change of mind to his scientific colleagues, in the October, November, and December meetings of the German Physical Society, in Berlin, where the black body work was being intensely discussed. In this way, careful experimentalists (including Friedrich Paschen, O.R. Lummer, Ernst Pringsheim, Heinrich Rubens, and F. Kurlbaum), and a reluctant theorist, ushered in a momentous scientific revolution. [edit] The quantum black-body radiation formula The quantum black-body radiation formula, being the very first piece of quantum mechanics, appeared Sunday evening October 7, 1900, in a so-called back-of-the-envelope calculation by Planck. It was based on a report by Rubens (visiting with his wife) on the very latest experimental findings in the infrared. Later that evening, Planck sent the formula on a postcard, which Rubens received the following morning. A couple of days later, he informed Planck that it worked perfectly. At first, it was just a fit to the data; only later did it turn out to enforce quantization. This second step was only possible due to a certain amount of luck (or skill, even though Planck himself called it "a fortuitous guess at an interpolation formula"). It was during the course of polishing the mathematics of his formula that Planck stumbled upon the beginnings of Quantum Theory. Briefly stated, he had two mathematical expressions: (i) from the previous work on the red parts of the spectrum, he had x; This is (essentially) what is being compared with the experimental measurements. There are two parameters to determine from the data, written in the present form by the symbols used today: h is the new Planck's constant, and k is Boltzmann's constant. Both have now become fundamental in physics, but that was by no means the case at the time. The "elementary quantum of energy" is hλ. But such a unit does not normally exist, and is not required for quantization. [edit] Beyond electromagnetic radiation [edit] The birth of quantum mechanics [edit] See also [edit] References
Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quantum mechanics Mathematical formulation of... [show]Background Certain systems, however, do exhibit quantum mechanical effects on a larger scale; superfluidity (the frictionless flow of a liquid at temperatures near absolute zero) is one well-known example. Quantum theory also provides accurate descriptions for many previously unexplained phenomena such as black body radiation and the stability of electron orbits. It has also given insight into the workings of many different biological systems, including smell receptors and protein structures.[3] Even so, classical physics often can be a good approximation to results otherwise obtained by quantum physics, typically in circumstances with large numbers of particles or large quantum numbers. (However, some open questions remain in the field of quantum chaos.) Contents [hide] [edit] Overview Quantum mechanics is essential to understand the behavior of systems at atomic length scales and smaller. For example, if classical mechanics governed the workings of an atom, electrons would rapidly travel towards and collide with the nucleus, making stable atoms impossible. However, in the natural world the electrons normally remain in an uncertain, non-deterministic "smeared" (wave-particle wave function) orbital path around or "through" the nucleus, defying classical electromagnetism.[7] Quantum mechanics was initially developed to provide a better explanation of the atom, especially the spectra of light emitted by different atomic species. The quantum theory of the atom was developed as an explanation for the electron's staying in its orbital, which could not be explained by Newton's laws of motion and by Maxwell's laws of classical electromagnetism.[8] In the formalism of quantum mechanics, the state of a system at a given time is described by a complex wave function (sometimes referred to as orbitals in the case of atomic electrons), and more generally, elements of a complex vector space.[9] This abstract mathematical object allows for the calculation of probabilities of outcomes of concrete experiments. For example, it allows one to compute the probability of finding an electron in a particular region around the nucleus at a particular time. Contrary to classical mechanics, one can never make simultaneous predictions of conjugate variables, such as position and momentum, with arbitrary accuracy. For instance, electrons may be considered to be located somewhere within a region of space, but with their exact positions being unknown. Contours of constant probability, often referred to as “clouds” may be drawn around the nucleus of an atom to conceptualize where the electron might be located with the most probability. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle quantifies the inability to precisely locate the particle given its conjugate.[10] The other exemplar that led to quantum mechanics was the study of electromagnetic waves such as light. When it was found in 1900 by Max Planck that the energy of waves could be described as consisting of small packets or quanta, Albert Einstein exploited this idea to show that an electromagnetic wave such as light could be described by a particle called the photon with a discrete energy dependent on its frequency. This led to a theory of unity between subatomic particles and electromagnetic waves called wave–particle duality in which particles and waves were neither one nor the other, but had certain properties of both. While quantum mechanics describes the world of the very small, it also is needed to explain certain “macroscopic quantum systems” such as superconductors and superfluids.[11] Broadly speaking, quantum mechanics incorporates four classes of phenomena that classical physics cannot account for: (I) the quantization (discretization) of certain physical quantities, (II) wave-particle duality, (III) the uncertainty principle, and (IV) quantum entanglement. Each of these phenomena is described in detail in subsequent sections.[11] [edit] History Main article: History of quantum mechanics where h is Planck's Action Constant. Planck insisted[13] that this was simply an aspect of the processes of absorption and emission of radiation and had nothing to do with the physical reality of the radiation itself. However, this did not explain the photoelectric effect (1839), i.e. that shining light on certain materials can function to eject electrons from the material. In 1905, basing his work on Planck’s quantum hypothesis, Albert Einstein[14] postulated that light itself consists of individual quanta. These later came to be called photons (1926). From Einstein's simple postulation was born a flurry of debating, theorizing and testing, and thus, the entire field of quantum physics.
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
[edit] Quantum mechanics and classical physics The main differences between classical and quantum theories have already been mentioned above in the remarks on the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Essentially the difference boils down to the statement that quantum mechanics is coherent (addition of amplitudes), whereas classical theories are incoherent (addition of intensities). Thus, such quantities as coherence lengths and coherence times come into play. For microscopic bodies the extension of the system is certainly much smaller than the coherence length; for macroscopic bodies one expects that it should be the other way round.[16] This is in accordance with the following observations: Many “macroscopic” properties of “classic” systems are direct consequences of quantum behavior of its parts. For example, stability of bulk matter (which consists of atoms and molecules which would quickly collapse under electric forces alone), rigidity of this matter, mechanical, thermal, chemical, optical and magnetic properties of this matter—they are all results of interaction of electric charges under the rules of quantum mechanics.[17] While the seemingly exotic behavior of matter posited by quantum mechanics and relativity theory become more apparent when dealing with extremely fast-moving or extremely tiny particles, the laws of classical “Newtonian” physics still remain accurate in predicting the behavior of surrounding (“large”) objects—of the order of the size of large molecules and bigger—at velocities much smaller than the velocity of light.[18] [edit] Theory In this formulation, the instantaneous state of a quantum system encodes the probabilities of its measurable properties, or "observables". Examples of observables include energy, position, momentum, and angular momentum. Observables can be either continuous (e.g., the position of a particle) or discrete (e.g., the energy of an electron bound to a hydrogen atom).[22] Generally, quantum mechanics does not assign definite values to observables. Instead, it makes predictions using probability distributions; that is, the probability of obtaining possible outcomes from measuring an observable. Oftentimes these results are skewed by many causes, such as dense probability clouds[23] or quantum state nuclear attraction.[24][25] Naturally, these probabilities will depend on the quantum state at the "instant" of the measurement. Hence, uncertainty is involved in the value. There are, however, certain states that are associated with a definite value of a particular observable. These are known as "eigenstates" of the observable ("eigen" can be roughly translated from German as inherent or as a characteristic[26]). In the everyday world, it is natural and intuitive to think of everything (every observable) as being in an eigenstate. Everything appears to have a definite position, a definite momentum, a definite energy, and a definite time of occurrence. However, quantum mechanics does not pinpoint the exact values of a particle for its position and momentum (since they are conjugate pairs) or its energy and time (since they too are conjugate pairs); rather, it only provides a range of probabilities of where that particle might be given its momentum and momentum probability. Therefore, it is helpful to use different words to describe states having uncertain values and states having definite values (eigenstate). For example, consider a free particle. In quantum mechanics, there is wave-particle duality so the properties of the particle can be described as the properties of a wave. Therefore, its quantum state can be represented as a wave of arbitrary shape and extending over space as a wave function. The position and momentum of the particle are observables. The Uncertainty Principle states that both the position and the momentum cannot simultaneously be measured with full precision at the same time. However, one can measure the position alone of a moving free particle creating an eigenstate of position with a wavefunction that is very large (a Dirac delta) at a particular position x and zero everywhere else. If one performs a position measurement on such a wavefunction, the result x will be obtained with 100% probability (full certainty). This is called an eigenstate of position (mathematically more precise: a generalized position eigenstate (eigendistribution)). If the particle is in an eigenstate of position then its momentum is completely unknown. On the other hand, if the particle is in an eigenstate of momentum then its position is completely unknown. [27] In an eigenstate of momentum having a plane wave form, it can be shown that the wavelength is equal to h/p, where h is Planck's constant and p is the momentum of the eigenstate.[28] Usually, a system will not be in an eigenstate of the observable we are interested in. However, if one measures the observable, the wavefunction will instantaneously be an eigenstate (or generalized eigenstate) of that observable. This process is known as wavefunction collapse, a debatable process.[29] It involves expanding the system under study to include the measurement device. If one knows the corresponding wave function at the instant before the measurement, one will be able to compute the probability of collapsing into each of the possible eigenstates. For example, the free particle in the previous example will usually have a wavefunction that is a wave packet centered around some mean position x0, neither an eigenstate of position nor of momentum. When one measures the position of the particle, it is impossible to predict with certainty the result.[30] It is probable, but not certain, that it will be near x0, where the amplitude of the wave function is large. After the measurement is performed, having obtained some result x, the wave function collapses into a position eigenstate centered at x.[31] Wave functions can change as time progresses. An equation known as the Schrödinger equation describes how wave functions change in time, a role similar to Newton's second law in classical mechanics. The Schrödinger equation, applied to the aforementioned example of the free particle, predicts that the center of a wave packet will move through space at a constant velocity, like a classical particle with no forces acting on it. However, the wave packet will also spread out as time progresses, which means that the position becomes more uncertain. This also has the effect of turning position eigenstates (which can be thought of as infinitely sharp wave packets) into broadened wave packets that are no longer position eigenstates.[32] Some wave functions produce probability distributions that are constant or independent of time, such as when in a stationary state of constant energy, time drops out of the absolute square of the wave function. Many systems that are treated dynamically in classical mechanics are described by such "static" wave functions. For example, a single electron in an unexcited atom is pictured classically as a particle moving in a circular trajectory around the atomic nucleus, whereas in quantum mechanics it is described by a static, spherically symmetric wavefunction surrounding the nucleus (Fig. 1). (Note that only the lowest angular momentum states, labeled s, are spherically symmetric).[33] The time evolution of wave functions is deterministic in the sense that, given a wavefunction at an initial time, it makes a definite prediction of what the wavefunction will be at any later time.[34] During a measurement, the change of the wavefunction into another one is not deterministic, but rather unpredictable, i.e., random. A time-evolution simulation can be seen here.[1] The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics thus stems from the act of measurement. This is one of the most difficult aspects of quantum systems to understand. It was the central topic in the famous Bohr-Einstein debates, in which the two scientists attempted to clarify these fundamental principles by way of thought experiments. In the decades after the formulation of quantum mechanics, the question of what constitutes a "measurement" has been extensively studied. Interpretations of quantum mechanics have been formulated to do away with the concept of "wavefunction collapse"; see, for example, the relative state interpretation. The basic idea is that when a quantum system interacts with a measuring apparatus, their respective wavefunctions become entangled, so that the original quantum system ceases to exist as an independent entity. For details, see the article on measurement in quantum mechanics.[35] [edit] Mathematical formulation The time evolution of a quantum state is described by the Schrödinger equation, in which the Hamiltonian, the operator corresponding to the total energy of the system, generates time evolution. The inner product between two state vectors is a complex number known as a probability amplitude. During a measurement, the probability that a system collapses from a given initial state to a particular eigenstate is given by the square of the absolute value of the probability amplitudes between the initial and final states. The possible results of a measurement are the eigenvalues of the operator - which explains the choice of Hermitian operators, for which all the eigenvalues are real. We can find the probability distribution of an observable in a given state by computing the spectral decomposition of the corresponding operator. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is represented by the statement that the operators corresponding to certain observables do not commute. The Schrödinger equation acts on the entire probability amplitude, not merely its absolute value. Whereas the absolute value of the probability amplitude encodes information about probabilities, its phase encodes information about the interference between quantum states. This gives rise to the wave-like behavior of quantum states. It turns out that analytic solutions of Schrödinger's equation are only available for a small number of model Hamiltonians, of which the quantum harmonic oscillator, the particle in a box, the hydrogen molecular ion and the hydrogen atom are the most important representatives. Even the helium atom, which contains just one more electron than hydrogen, defies all attempts at a fully analytic treatment. There exist several techniques for generating approximate solutions. For instance, in the method known as perturbation theory one uses the analytic results for a simple quantum mechanical model to generate results for a more complicated model related to the simple model by, for example, the addition of a weak potential energy. Another method is the "semi-classical equation of motion" approach, which applies to systems for which quantum mechanics produces weak deviations from classical behavior. The deviations can be calculated based on the classical motion. This approach is important for the field of quantum chaos. An alternative formulation of quantum mechanics is Feynman's path integral formulation, in which a quantum-mechanical amplitude is considered as a sum over histories between initial and final states; this is the quantum-mechanical counterpart of action principles in classical mechanics. [edit] Interactions with other scientific theories Unsolved problems in physics: In the correspondence limit of quantum mechanics: Is there a preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics? How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the "superposition of states" and "wavefunction collapse", give rise to the reality we perceive?When quantum mechanics was originally formulated, it was applied to models whose correspondence limit was non-relativistic classical mechanics. For instance, the well-known model of the quantum harmonic oscillator uses an explicitly non-relativistic expression for the kinetic energy of the oscillator, and is thus a quantum version of the classical harmonic oscillator. Early attempts to merge quantum mechanics with special relativity involved the replacement of the Schrödinger equation with a covariant equation such as the Klein-Gordon equation or the Dirac equation. While these theories were successful in explaining many experimental results, they had certain unsatisfactory qualities stemming from their neglect of the relativistic creation and annihilation of particles. A fully relativistic quantum theory required the development of quantum field theory, which applies quantization to a field rather than a fixed set of particles. The first complete quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, provides a fully quantum description of the electromagnetic interaction. The full apparatus of quantum field theory is often unnecessary for describing electrodynamic systems. A simpler approach, one employed since the inception of quantum mechanics, is to treat charged particles as quantum mechanical objects being acted on by a classical electromagnetic field. For example, the elementary quantum model of the hydrogen atom describes the electric field of the hydrogen atom using a classical Coulomb potential. This "semi-classical" approach fails if quantum fluctuations in the electromagnetic field play an important role, such as in the emission of photons by charged particles. Quantum field theories for the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force have been developed. The quantum field theory of the strong nuclear force is called quantum chromodynamics, and describes the interactions of the subnuclear particles: quarks and gluons. The weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force were unified, in their quantized forms, into a single quantum field theory known as electroweak theory, by the physicists Carl Jamieson, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg. It has proven difficult to construct quantum models of gravity, the remaining fundamental force. Semi-classical approximations are workable, and have led to predictions such as Hawking radiation. However, the formulation of a complete theory of quantum gravity is hindered by apparent incompatibilities between general relativity, the most accurate theory of gravity currently known, and some of the fundamental assumptions of quantum theory. The resolution of these incompatibilities is an area of active research, and theories such as string theory are among the possible candidates for a future theory of quantum gravity. [edit] Example The general solutions are: or (by Euler's formula). Consider x = 0 sin 0 = 0, cos 0 = 1. To satisfy the cos term has to be removed. Hence D = 0. at x = L, In this situation, n must be an integer showing the quantization of the energy levels. [edit] Attempts at a unified field theory [edit] Relativity and quantum mechanics Even with the defining postulates of both Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum theory being indisputably supported by rigorous and repeated empirical evidence and while they do not directly contradict each other theoretically (at least with regard to primary claims), they are resistant to being incorporated within one cohesive model.[41] Einstein himself is well known for rejecting some of the claims of quantum mechanics. While clearly contributing to the field, he did not accept the more philosophical consequences and interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the lack of deterministic causality and the assertion that a single subatomic particle can occupy numerous areas of space at one time. He also was the first to notice some of the apparently exotic consequences of entanglement and used them to formulate the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, in the hope of showing that quantum mechanics had unacceptable implications. This was 1935, but in 1964 it was shown by John Bell (see Bell inequality) that Einstein's assumption was correct, but had to be completed by hidden variables and thus based on wrong philosophical assumptions. According to the paper of J. Bell and the Copenhagen interpretation (the common interpretation of quantum mechanics by physicists for decades), and contrary to Einstein's ideas, quantum mechanics was neither a "realistic" theory (since quantum measurements do not state pre-existing properties, but rather they prepare properties) Gravity is negligible in many areas of particle physics, so that unification between general relativity and quantum mechanics is not an urgent issue in those applications. However, the lack of a correct theory of quantum gravity is an important issue in cosmology and physicists search for an elegant "Theory of Everything". Thus, resolving the inconsistencies between both theories has been a major goal of twentieth- and twenty-first-century physics. Many prominent physicists, including Professor Stephen Hawking, have labored in the attempt to discover a theory underlying everything, combining not only different models of subatomic physics, but also deriving the universe's four forces —the strong force, electromagnetism, weak force, and gravity— from a single force or phenomenon. One of the leading minds in this field is Edward Witten, a theoretical physicist who formulated the groundbreaking M-theory, which is an attempt at describing the supersymmetrical based string theory. [edit] Applications Quantum mechanics is important for understanding how individual atoms combine covalently to form chemicals or molecules. The application of quantum mechanics to chemistry is known as quantum chemistry. (Relativistic) quantum mechanics can in principle mathematically describe most of chemistry. Quantum mechanics can provide quantitative insight into ionic and covalent bonding processes by explicitly showing which molecules are energetically favorable to which others, and by approximately how much.[42] Most of the calculations performed in computational chemistry rely on quantum mechanics.[43] Much of modern technology operates at a scale where quantum effects are significant. Examples include the laser, the transistor, the electron microscope, and magnetic resonance imaging. The study of semiconductors led to the invention of the diode and the transistor, which are indispensable for modern electronics. Researchers are currently seeking robust methods of directly manipulating quantum states. Efforts are being made to develop quantum cryptography, which will allow guaranteed secure transmission of information. A more distant goal is the development of quantum computers, which are expected to perform certain computational tasks exponentially faster than classical computers. Another active research topic is quantum teleportation, which deals with techniques to transmit quantum states over arbitrary distances. In many devices, even the simple light switch, quantum tunneling is vital, as otherwise the electrons in the electric current could not penetrate the potential barrier made up, in the case of the light switch, of a layer of oxide. Flash memory chips found in USB drives also use quantum tunneling to erase their memory cells. [edit] Philosophical consequences The Copenhagen interpretation, due largely to the Danish theoretical physicist Niels Bohr, is the interpretation of quantum mechanics most widely accepted amongst physicists. According to it, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics predictions cannot be explained in terms of some other deterministic theory, and does not simply reflect our limited knowledge. Quantum mechanics provides probabilistic results because the physical universe is itself probabilistic rather than deterministic. Albert Einstein, himself one of the founders of quantum theory, disliked this loss of determinism in measurement (this dislike is the source of his famous quote, "God does not play dice with the universe."). Einstein held that there should be a local hidden variable theory underlying quantum mechanics and that, consequently, the present theory was incomplete. He produced a series of objections to the theory, the most famous of which has become known as the EPR paradox. John Bell showed that the EPR paradox led to experimentally testable differences between quantum mechanics and local realistic theories. Experiments have been performed confirming the accuracy of quantum mechanics, thus demonstrating that the physical world cannot be described by local realistic theories.[44] The Bohr-Einstein debates provide a vibrant critique of the Copenhagen Interpretation from an epistemological point of view. The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a "multiverse" composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[45] This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet: All the possible consistent states of the measured system and the measuring apparatus (including the observer) are present in a real physical (not just formally mathematical, as in other interpretations) quantum superposition. (Such a superposition of consistent state combinations of different systems is called an entangled state.) While the multiverse is deterministic, we perceive non-deterministic behavior governed by probabilities, because we can observe only the universe, i.e. the consistent state contribution to the mentioned superposition, we inhabit. Everett's interpretation is perfectly consistent with John Bell's experiments and makes them intuitively understandable. However, according to the theory of quantum decoherence, the parallel universes will never be accessible to us. This inaccessibility can be understood as follows: once a measurement is done, the measured system becomes entangled with both the physicist who measured it and a huge number of other particles, some of which are photons flying away towards the other end of the universe; in order to prove that the wave function did not collapse one would have to bring all these particles back and measure them again, together with the system that was measured originally. This is completely impractical, but even if one could theoretically do this, it would destroy any evidence that the original measurement took place (including the physicist's memory). [edit] See also
Quantum mind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quantum mind theories are based on the premise that quantum mechanics is necessary to fully understand the mind and brain, particularly concerning an ... Introduction - Motivation - Examples of theories - Ongoing Debate Quantum mind Contents [hide] [edit] Introduction Supporters of the quantum mind hypothesis have not submitted any evidence to support its claims for peer review, but the hypothesis has also not been falsified. As such, the hypothesis is still in its early phases. [edit] Motivation [edit] Consciousness Banished Fritjof Capra writes: To make it possible for scientists to describe nature mathematically, Galileo postulated that they should restrict themselves to studying the essential properties of material bodies—shapes, numbers, and movement—which could be measured and quantified. Other properties, like color, sound, taste, or smell, were merely subjective mental projections which should be excluded from the domain of science. [1] Proponents of the Quantum mind state that perceived qualities such as sound, taste and smell are an essential part of the human experience and therefore cannot be discounted. They posit that classical mechanics fails to account for the experience of such phenomena. Similarly, they hypothesize that the internal experiences of consciousness, such as dreaming and memory, all of which are 'part and parcel' of everyday human experience remain unaccounted for. [edit] Minimization of Mystery [edit] Examples of theories [edit] David Bohm Bohm's implicate order applies both to matter and consciousness, and he proposed that it could explain the relationship between them. Mind and matter are here seen as projections into our explicate order from the underlying reality of the implicate order. Bohm claims that when we look at the matter in space, we can see nothing in these concepts that helps us to understand consciousness. In Bohm's scheme there is a fundamental level where consciousness is not distinct from matter. Bohm's view of consciousness is connected to Karl Pribram's holographic conception of the brain [4][5][dead link]. Pribram regards sight and the other senses as lenses without which the other senses would appear as a hologram. Pribram proposes that information is recorded all over the brain, and that it is enfolded into a whole, similar to a hologram. It is suggested that memories are connected by association and manipulated by logical thought. If the brain is also receiving sensory input all these are proposed to unite in overall experience or consciousness. In trying to describe the nature of consciousness, Bohm discusses the experience of listening to music. He thinks that the feeling of movement and change that make up our experience of music derives from both the immediate past and the present being held in the brain together, with the notes from the past seen as transformations rather than memories. The notes that were implicate in the immediate past are seen as becoming explicate in the present. Bohm compares this to consciousness emerging from the implicate order. Bohm sees the movement, change or flow and also the coherence of experiences such as listening to music as a manifestation of the implicate order. He claims to derive evidence for this from the work of Piaget[6] in studying infants. He claims that these studies show that young children have to learn about time and space, because they are part of the explicate order, but have a 'hard-wired' understanding of movement because it is part of the implicate order. He compares this 'hard-wiring' to Chomsky's theory that grammar is 'hard-wired' into young human brains. In his writings, Bohm never proposed any specific brain mechanism by which his implicate order could emerge in a way that was relevant to consciousness. [edit] Gustav Bernroider Bernroider bases his work on recent studies of the potassium (K+)ion channel in its closed state and draws particularly on the atomic-level spectroscopy work of the MacKinnon group [9][10][11][12][13]. The ion channels have a filter region which allows in K+ ions and bars other ions. These studies show that the filter region has a framework of five sets of four oxygen atoms, which are part of the carboxyl group of amino-acid molecules in the surrounding protein. These are referred to as binding pockets. Two K+ ions are trapped in the selection filter of the closed ion channel. Each of these ions is electrostatically bound to two sets of oxygen atoms or binding pockets, involving eight oxygen atoms in total. Both ions in the channel oscillate between two configurations. Bernroider uses this recently revealed structure to speculate about the possibility of quantum coherence in the ion channels. Bernroider and co-author Sisir Roy's calculations suggested to them that the behaviour of the ions in the K channel could only be understood at the quantum level. Taking this as their starting point, they then ask whether the structure of the ion channel can be related to logic states. Further calculations lead them to suggest that the K+ ions and the oxygen atoms of the binding pockets are two quantum-entangled sub-systems, which they then equate to a quantum computational mapping. The ions that are destined to be expelled from the channel are proposed to encode information about the state of the oxygen atoms. It is further proposed the separate ion channels could be quantum entangled with one another. [edit] David Chalmers One possibility is that instead of postulating novel properties, physics might end up appealing to consciousness itself, in the way that some theorists but not all, hold that quantum mechanics does. [14] The collapse dynamics leaves a door wide open for an interactionist interpretation. [15] The most promising version of such an interpretation allows conscious states to be correlated with the total quantum state of a system, with the extra constraint that conscious states (unlike physical states) can never be superposed. In a conscious physical system such as a brain, the physical and phenomenal states of the system will be correlated in a (nonsuperposed) quantum state. Upon observation of a superposed external system, Schrödinger evolution at the moment of observation would cause the observed system to become correlated with the brain, yielding a resulting superposition of brain states and so (by psychophysical correlation) a superposition of conscious states. But such a superposition cannot occur, so one of the potential resulting conscious states is somehow selected (presumably by a nondeterministic dynamic principle at the phenomenal level). The result is that (by psychophysical correlation) a definite brain state and a definite state of the observed object are also selected. [16] If physics is supposed to rule out interactionism, then careful attention to the detail of physical theory is required. [17] [edit] Roger Penrose 1. Humans have abilities, particularly mathematical ones, that no algorithmic computer (specifically Turing machine) could have, because computers are limited by Gödel's incompleteness theorem. In other words, he believes humans are hypercomputers. (The argument was originally due to John Lucas.) Gödel demonstrated that with any recursively enumerable set of axioms capable of expressing Peano arithmetic, it was possible to produce a statement that was obviously true, but could not be proved by the axioms. The theorem enjoys general acceptance in the mathematical community[18]. Penrose, however, built a further and highly controversial argument on this theorem. He argued that the theorem showed that the brain had the ability to go beyond what can be demonstrated by mathematical axioms, and therefore there is something within the functioning of the brain that is not based on an algorithm (a system of calculations). A computer is just a system of algorithms, and Penrose claimed that Gödel's theorem demonstrated that brains could perform functions that no computer could perform. Penrose is not interested in explaining phenomenal consciousness, qualia, generally regarded as the most mysterious feature of consciousness, but instead focuses mainly on the cognitive powers of mathematicians. These assertions have been vigorously contested by many critics and notably by the philosophers Churchland and Grush[19][20]. The theory has been much criticised [21] [22] [23]. 2. This would require some new physics. Penrose postulates that the currently unknown process underlying quantum collapse supplies the non-algorithmic element. The random choice of, for instance, the position of a particle, which is involved in the collapse of the wave function was the only physical process that Penrose could find, which was not based on an algorithm. However, randomness was not a promising basis for the quality of mathematical judgement highlighted by his Gödel theorem argument. But Penrose went on to propose that when the wave function did not collapse as a result of a measurement or decoherence in the environment, there could be an alternative form of wave function collapse, which he called objective reduction (OR). In this, each quantum superposition has its own space time geometry. When these become separated by more than the Planck length, they are affected by gravity, become unstable and collapse. OR is strikingly different both from the traditional orthodoxy of Niels Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory and from some more modern theories which avoid wave function collapse altogether such as Many-worlds interpretation or some forms of Quantum decoherence theory. Penrose further proposes that OR is neither random nor governed by an algorithm, but is 'non-computational', selecting information embedded in the fundamental level of space time geometry. 3. Collapse requires a coherent superposed state to work on. Penrose borrows Stuart Hameroff's proposal about microtubules to supply this. Initially, Penrose had lacked any detailed proposals for how OR could occur in the brain. Later on cooperation with Stuart Hameroff [24] supplied this side of the theory. Microtubules were central to Hameroff's proposals. These are the core element of the cytoskeleton, which provides a supportive structure and performs various functions in body cells. In additions to these functions, it was now proposed that the microtubules could support macroscopic quantum features known as Bose-Einstein condensates. It was also suggested that these condensates could link with other neurons via gap junctions. This is claimed to permit quantum coherence to extend over a large area of the brain. It is suggested that when one of these areas of quantum coherence collapses, there is an instance of consciousness, and the brain has access to a non-computational process embedded in the fundamental level of space time geometry. At the same time, it was postulated that conventional synaptic activity influences and is influenced by the activity in the microtubules. This part of the process is referred to as 'orchestration' hence the theory is called Orchestrated Objective Reduction or more commonly Orch OR. Hameroff's proposals like those of Penrose attracted much criticism. However the most cogent attack on Orch OR and quantum mind theories in general was the view that conditions in the brain would lead to any quantum coherence decohering too quickly for it to be relevant to neural processes. This general criticism is discussed in the Science section below. [edit] Evan Harris Walker Information theory is concerned with the measurement of information in terms of logarithmic probability—how many bits of information does it take to represent a certain type of information such as, let’s say, the letter “T” in print. Since we don’t know all the possible permutations or “combinations” of such a question we use statistical probability in order to be very accurate in our measurements. We add up all the logarithmic contributions of each possible symbol being measured in terms of its chance of occurrence. It is expressed as log₂P. This gives us an informational field potential. A physicist, Evan Harris Walker developed a scientific theory about how the brain might, at quantum levels, process information. In his book, The Physics of Consciousness, he adds log₂P to Schrödinger’s equation. What he demonstrates mathematically is that when information is measured by consciousness and will channel capacities in terms of a closed loop, it forces one real solution only when one probable state happens and all other possible states disappear. He offers/proposes physical evidence that this process is occurring in the brain. [edit] Henry Stapp Stapp envisages consciousness as exercising top-level control over neural excitation in the brain. Quantum brain events are suggested to occur at the whole brain level, and are seen as being selected from the large-scale excitation of the brain. The neural excitations are viewed as a code, and each conscious experience as a selection from this code. The brain, in this theory, is proposed to be a self-programming computer with a self-sustaining input from memory, which is itself a code derived from previous experience. This process results in a number of probabilities from which consciousness has to select. The conscious act is a selection of a piece of top-level code, which then exercises ongoing control over the flow of neural excitation. This process refers to the top levels of brain activity involved with information gathering, planning and the monitoring of the execution of plans. Conscious events are proposed to be capable of grasping a whole pattern of activity, thus accounting for the unity of consciousness, and providing a solution to the 'binding problem'. Stapp's version of the conscious brain is proposed to be a system that is internally determined in a way that cannot be represented outside the system, whereas for the rest of the physical universe an external representation plus a knowledge of the laws of physics allows an accurate prediction of future events. Stapp proposes that the proof of his theory requires the identification of the neurons that provide the top-level code and also the process by which memory is turned into additional top-level code. [edit] Quantum Brain Dynamics Frohlich is the source of the idea that quantum coherent waves could be generated in the neuronal network. Frohlich argued that it was not clear how order could be sustained in living systems given the disruptive influence of the fluctuations in biochemical processes. He viewed the electric potential across the neuron membrane as the observable feature of some form of underlying quantum order. His studies claimed to show that with an oscillating charge in a thermal bath, large numbers of quanta may condense into a single state known as a Bose condensate. This state allows long-range correlation amongst the dipoles involved. Further to this, biomolecules were proposed to line up along actin filaments (part of the cytoskeleton) and dipole oscillations propagate along the filaments as quantum coherent waves. This now has some experimental support in the form of confirmation that biomolecules with high electric dipole moment have been shown to have a periodic oscillation[31]. Vitiello also argues that the ordered chains of chemical reactions on which biological tissues depend would collapse without some form of quantum ordering, which in QBD is described by quantum field theory rather than quantum mechanics. Vitiello provides citations, which are claimed to support his view of biological tissue. These include studies of radiation effect on cell growth[32],response to external stimuli[33], non-linear tunnelling[34],coherent nuclear motion in membrane proteins[35],optical coherence in biological systems[36], energy transfer via solitons and coherent excitations[37]. QBD proposes that the cortical field not only interacts with, but also to a good extent controls the neuronal network. It suggests that biomolecular waves propagate along the actin filaments in the area of the cell membranes and dendritic spines. The waves derive energy from ATP molecules stored in the cell membrane and control the ion channels, which in turn regulate the flow of signals to the synapses. Vitiello claims that QBD does not require quantum oscillations to last as long as the actual time to decoherence. The proponents of QBD differ somewhat as the exact way in which it produces consciousness. Jibu and Yasue think that the interaction between the energy quanta of the cortical field and the biomolecular waves of the neuronal network, particularly the dendritic part of the network, is what produces consciousness. On the other hand, Vitiello thinks that the quantum states involved in QBD produce two poles, a subjective representation of the external world and a self. This self opens itself to the representation of the external world. Consciousness is, in this theory, not in either the self or the external representation, but between the two in the opening of one to the other. [edit] Quantum Evidence Physicists at the University of California, Berkeley believe they have discovered that green plants perform quantum computation in order to capture the sun's light through photosynthesis—evidence of quantum coherence in a living system.[38] Stuart Hameroff noted, in October 2000, that quantum coherence—although, by its mere occurrence in the brain not sufficient to prove its supposed central role in consciousness—had nevertheless been observed. This, he claimed, was significant because so much of the criticism of his model had "come under sharp criticism due to the issue of decoherence, and the question of whether quantum processes of significance can exist in the brain at physiological temperature." (Quantum Mind archives, October 2000 - (11.)) [edit] Ongoing Debate [edit] Science In quantum terms each neuron is an essentially classical object. Consequently quantum noise in the brain is at such a low level that it probably doesn't often alter, except very rarely, the critical mechanistic behaviour of sufficient neurons to cause a decision to be different than we might otherwise expect. (...) —Michael Clive Price[1] One well-known critic of the quantum mind is Max Tegmark. Based on his calculations, Tegmark concluded that quantum systems in the brain decohere quickly and cannot control brain function, "This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way"[39] Proponents of quantum consciousness theories have sought to defend them against Tegmark's criticism. In respect of QBD, Vitiello has argued that Tegmark's work applies to theories based on quantum mechanics but not to those such as QBD that are based on quantum field theory. In respect of Penrose and Hameroff's Orch OR theory, Hameroff along with Hagan and Tuszynski replied to Tegmark[40]. They claimed that Tegmark based his calculations on a model that was different from Orch OR. It is argued that in the Orch OR model the microtubules are shielded from decoherence by ordered water. Energy pumping as a result of thermal disequilibrium, Debye layer screening and quantum error correction, deriving from the geometry of the microtubule lattice are also proposed as possible sources of shielding. Similarly, in his extension of Bohm's ideas, Bernroider has claimed that the binding pockets in the ion selection filters could protect against decoherence[41]. So far, however, there has been no experimental confirmation of the ability of the features mentioned above to protect against decoherence. [edit] Philosophy As David Chalmers puts it: Nevertheless, quantum theories of consciousness suffer from the same difficulties as neural or computational theories. Quantum phenomena have some remarkable functional properties, such as nondeterminism and nonlocality. It is natural to speculate that these properties may play some role in the explanation of cognitive functions, such as random choice and the integration of information, and this hypothesis cannot be ruled out a priori. But when it comes to the explanation of experience, quantum processes are in the same boat as any other. The question of why these processes should give rise to experience is entirely unanswered. [2] Other philosophers, such as Patricia and Paul Churchland and Daniel Dennett[43] reject the idea that there is anything puzzling about consciousness in the first place. [edit] See also [edit] References [edit] Further reading [edit] External links
THE ROOTS OF COINCIDENCE Arthur Koestler 1972 Page 88 "Euclidian geometries, invented by earlier mathematicians more or less as a game, provided the basis for his relativistic cosmology Another great physicist whose thoughts moved in a similar direction was Wolfgang Pauli. At the end of the 1932 conference on nuclear physics in Copenhagen the participants, as was their custom on these occasions, performed a skit full of that quantum humour of which we have already had a few samples. In that particular year they produced a parody of Goethe's Faust, in which Wolfgang Pauli was cast in the role of Mephistopheles; his Gretchen was the neutrino, whose existence Pauli had predicted, but which had not yet been discovered. MEPHISTOPHELES (to Faust): Beware, beware, of Reason and of Science Man's highest powers, unholy in alliance. You'll let yourself, through dazzling witchcraft yield To weird temptations of the quantum field. Enter Gretchen; she sings to Faust. Melody: "Gretchen at the Spinning Wheel" by Schubert. GRETCHEN: My rest-mass is zero My charge is the same You are my hero Neutrino's my name."
ZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZAAZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZAZ
I ME ENTANGLEMENTS I ME ENTANGLE ENTANGLE ME I ENTANGLES ME I ME ENTANGLES
Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement Quantum entanglement Quantum entanglement is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the quantum states of two or more objects have to be described with reference to each other, even though the individual objects may be spatially separated. This leads to correlations between observable physical properties of the systems. For example, it is possible to prepare two particles in a single quantum state such that when one is observed to be spin-up, the other one will always be observed to be spin-down and vice versa, this despite the fact that it is impossible to predict, according to quantum mechanics, which set of measurements will be observed. As a result, measurements performed on one system seem to be instantaneously influencing other systems entangled with it. But quantum entanglement does not enable the transmission of classical information faster than the speed of light (see discussion in next section below). Quantum entanglement applications in the emerging technologies of quantum computing and quantum cryptography, and has been used to realize quantum teleportation experimentally. At the same time, it prompts some of the more philosophically oriented discussions concerning quantum theory. The correlations predicted by quantum mechanics, and observed in experiment, reject the principle of local realism , which is that information about the state of a system should only be mediated by interactions in its immediate surroundings. Different views of what is actually occurring in the process of quantum entanglement can be related to different interpretations of quantum mechanics.
What you write in your book about entanglement is so startling, it’s hard to believe. Let’s start with a definition. What is quantum entanglement ? ... calitreview.com
THE STRANGE WORLD OF QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT by Paul Comstock March 30th, 2007 Briab Clegg received a physics degree from Cambridge University and is the author of numerous books and articles on the history of science. His most recent book is The God Effect : Quantum Entanglement, Science’s Strangest Phenomenon
Entanglement is a strange feature of quantum physics, the science of the very small. It’s possible to link together two quantum particles – photons of light or atoms, for example – in a special way that makes them effectively two parts of the same entity. You can then separate them as far as you like, and a change in one is instantly reflected in the other. This odd, faster than light link, is a fundamental aspect of quantum science – Erwin Schrödinger, who came up with the name “entanglement” called it “the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics.” Entanglement is fascinating in its own right, but what makes it really special are dramatic practical applications that have become apparent in the last few years.Is it possible that entangled particles are not actually in immediate communication, but are simply programmed to behave in the same way? Much like twins separated at birth who live eerily similar lives - assume the same professions, marry similar spouses, etc.This is an obvious possibility. John Bell, who devised a lot of the theory for testing the existence of entanglement, covered it in a paper called “Bertlmann’s Socks and the Nature of Reality.” Reinhold Bertlmann, a colleague of Bell’s, always wore socks of different colors. Bell pointed out that, if you saw one of Bertlmann’s feet coming around the corner of a building and it had a pink sock on, you would instantly know the other sock wasn’t pink, even though you had never seen it. The color difference was programmed in when Bertlmann put his socks on.But the quantum world is very different. If you take some property of a particle, the equivalent of color, say the spin of an electron, it doesn’t have the value pre-programmed. It has a range of probabilities as to what the answer might be, but until you actually measure it, there is no fixed value. What happens with a pair of entangled electrons is you measure the spin of one. Until that moment, neither of them had a spin with a fixed value. But the instant you take the measurement on one, the other immediately fixes its spin (say to the opposite value). These “quantum socks” were every possible color until you looked at one. Only then did it become pink, and the other instantly took on another color.You write that Einstein among other scientists could not accept quantum entanglement. It seems to throw out the whole notion of cause and effect. How confident are physicists that quantum entanglement exists and what are the implications for science and the scientific method? Einstein had problems with the whole of quantum physics – which is ironic, as it was based on his Nobel Prize winning paper on the photoelectric effect. What he didn’t like was the way quantum particles don’t have fixed values for their properties until they are observed – he couldn’t relate to a universe where probability ruled. That’s why he famously said that God doesn’t play dice. I think an even better quote, less well known, was when he wrote:“I find the idea quite intolerable that an electron exposed to radiation should choose of its own free will, not only its moment to jump off, but also its direction. In that case, I would rather be a cobbler, or even an employee in a gaming house, than a physicist." Einstein believed that underneath these probabilities were fixed, hidden realities we just couldn’t see. That was why he dreamed up the idea of entanglement in 1935. It was to show that either quantum theory was incomplete, because it said there was no hidden information, or it was possible to instantly influence something at a distance. As that seemed incredible, he thought it showed that quantum theory was wrong. It did take a long time to prove that entanglement truly existed. It wasn’t until the 1980s that it was clearly demonstrated. But it has been shown without doubt that this is the case. Entanglement exists, and is being used in very practical ways.Entanglement doesn’t throw away the concept of cause and effect. But it does underline the fact that quantum particles really do only have a range of probabilities on the values of their properties rather than fixed values. And while it seems to contradict Einstein’s special relativity, which says nothing can travel faster than light, it’s more likely that entanglement challenges our ideas of what distance and time really mean. Similarly, entanglement is no challenge to the scientific method. We need to use a different kind of math, but this is still the same science.Where do you see the first practical applications of entanglement ?
IN SEARCH OF SCHRODINGER'S CAT John Gribbin 1984 QUANTUM PHYSICS AND REALITY
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
IN SEARCH OF SCHRODINGER'S CAT John Gribbin 1984 QUANTUM PHYSICS AND REALITY NOTHING IS REAL "The cat of our title is a mythical beast, but Schrodinger was a real person. Erwin Schrodinger was an Austrian scientist instrumental in the development, in the mid-1920s, of the equations of a branch of science now known as quantum mechanics. Branch of science is hardly the correct expres-sion, however, because quantum mechanics provides the fundamental underpinning of all of modem science. The equations describe the behavior of very small objects-gen-erally speaking, the size of atoms or smaller-and they provide the only understanding of the world of the very small. Without these equations, physicists would be unable to design working nuclear power stations (or bombs), build lasers, or explain how the sun stays hot. Without quantum mechanics, chemistry would still be in the Dark Ages, and there would be no science of molecular biology-no under-standing of DNA, no genetic engineering-at all " 107 + 91 = 198 1 + 9 + 8 = 18 1 + 8 = 9 1 x 9 x 8 = 72 " Quantum theory represents the greatest achievement of science, far more significant and of far more direct, prac-tical use than relativity theory. And yet, it makes some very strange predictions. The world of quantum mechanics is so strange, indeed, that even Albert Einstein found it in-comprehensible, and refused to accept all of the implica-tions of the theory developed by Schrodinger and his colleagues. Einstein, and many other scientists, found it more comfortable to believe that the equations of quantum mechanics simply represent some sort of mathematical trick, which just happens to giye a reasonable working guide to the behavior of atomic and subatomic particles but that conceals some deeper truth that corresponds more closely to our everyday sense of reality. For what quantum mechanics says is that nothing is real and that we cannot say anything about what things are doing when we are not looking at them. Schrodinger's mythical cat was invoked to make the differences between the quantum world and the everyday world clear. In the world of quantum mechanics, the laws of phys-ics that are familiar from the everyday world no longer work. Instead, events are governed by probabilities. A radio-active atom, for example, might decay, emitting an electron, say; or it might not. It is possible to set up an experiment in such a way that there is a precise fifty-fifty chance that one of the atoms in a lump of radioactive material will decay in a certain time and that a detector will register the decay if it does happen. Schrodinger, as upset as Einstein about the implications of quantum theory, tried to show the absurdity of those implications by imagining such an experiment set up in a closed room, or box, which also contains a live cat and a phial of poison, so arranged that if the radioactive decay does occur then the poison container is broken and the cat dies. In the everyday world, there is a fifty-fifty chance that the cat will be killed, and without looking in-side the box we can say, quite happily, that the cat inside is either dead or alive. But now we encounter the strangeness of the quantum world. According to the theory, neither of the two possibilities open to the radioactive material, and therefore to the cat, has any reality unless it is observed. The atomic decay has neither happened nor not happened, the cat has neither been killed nor not killed, / Page 3 / until we look inside the box to see what has happened. Theorists who accept the pure version of quantum mechanics say that the cat exists in some indeterminate state, neither dead nor alive, until an observer looks into the box to see how things are getting on. Nothing is real unless it is observed. The idea was anathema to Einstein, among others. "God does not play dice," he said, referring to the theory that the world is governed by the accumulation of outcomes of essentially random "choices" of possibilities at the quan-tum level. As for the unreality of the state of Schrodinger's cat, he dismissed it, assuming that there must be some un-derlying "clockwork" that makes for a genuine fundamen-tal reality of things. He spent many years attempting to devise tests that might reveal this underlying reality at work but died before it became possible actually to carry out such a test. Perhaps it is as well that he did not live to see the outcome of one line of reasoning that he initiated. In the summer of 1982, at the University of Paris-South, in France, a team headed by Alain Aspect completed a series of experiments designed to detect the underlying reality below the unreal world of the quantum. The under-lying reality-the fundamental clockwork-had been given the name " hidden variables," and the experiment con-cerned the behavior of two photons or particles of light fly-ing off in opposite directions from a source. It is described fully in Chapter Ten, but in essence it can be thought of as a test of reality. The two photons from the same source can be observed by two detectors, which measure a property called polarization. According to quantum theory, this prop-erty does not exist until it is measured. According to the hidden-variable idea, each photon has a "real" polarization from the moment it is created. Because the two photons are emitted together, their polarizations are correlated with one another. But the nature of the correlation that is actually measured is different according to the two views of reality. The results of this crucial experiment are unam-biguous. The kind of correlation predicted by hidden- variable theory is not found; the kind of correlation pre- dicted by quantum mechanics is found, and what is more, again as predicted by quantum theory, the measurement / Page 4 / that is made on one photon has an instantaneous effect on the nature of the other photon. Some interaction links the two inextricably, even though they are flying apart at the speed of light, and relativity theory tells us that no signal can travel faster than light. The experiments prove that there is no underlying reality to the world. "Reality," in the everyday sense, is not a good way to think about the be-havior of the fundamental particles that make up the uni-verse; yet at the same time those particles seem to be inseparably connected into some indivisible whole, each aware of what happens to the other The search for Schrodinger's cat was the search for quantum reality.. From this brief outline, it may seem that the search has proved fruitless, since there is no reality in the everyday sense of the word. But this is not quite the end of the story, and the search for Schrodinger's cat may lead us to a new understanding of reality that transcends, and yet includes, the conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics. The trail is a long one, however, and it begins with a scientist who would probably have been even more horrified than Einstein if he could have seen the answers we now have to the questions he puzzled over. Isaac New-ton, studying the nature of light three centuries ago, could have had no conception that he was already on the trail leading to Schrodinger's cat."
THE SCULPTURE OF VIBRATIONS 1971
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
Everything Is Energy and Science Has Proved It – Here Is How ... 14 Sep 2018 - Many spiritual traditions have viewed everything in the universe as part of an interconnected web of energy. ... Basically, there was a widespread belief that everything is energy or at least that a consciousness flows through everything. ... Quantum physics proves that solid matter does ... “If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” – Niels Bohr
3+ 6 = 9
3+ 6 = 9
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
14 Sep 2018 - Many spiritual traditions have viewed everything in the universe as part of an interconnected web of energy. ... Basically, there was a widespread belief that everything is energy or at least that a consciousness flows through everything. ... Quantum physics proves that solid matter does ... “If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” – Niels Bohr Many spiritual traditions have viewed everything in the universe as part of an interconnected web of energy. Now, science has proved everything is energy. Throughout history, humans have believed in various religious and spiritual traditions. Many of these beliefs include an element of the unseen, something more than the reality we see before our eyes. These different energies have been called soul, spirit, qi, life force and various other names. Basically, there was a widespread belief that everything is energy or at least that a consciousness flows through everything. Newtonian Physics These widespread beliefs were challenged at the end of the seventeenth century when Newtonian physics became the cornerstone of science. This new science described a set of physical laws that affect the motion of bodies under the influence of a system of forces. The New Science In the 1900’s beliefs changed again with the beginnings of quantum physics. This new science accepts that the universe, including us, is made up of energy, not matter. Quantum mechanics arose from Max Planck’s solution in 1900 to the black-body radiation problem. It was also influenced by Albert Einstein’s 1905 paper which offered a quantum-based theory to explain the photoelectric effect. The theory was further developed in the mid-1920s by Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg and Max Born among others. Quantum Physics Quantum physics proves that solid matter does not exist in the universe. Atoms are not solid, in fact, they have three different subatomic particles inside them: protons, neutrons, and electrons. The protons and neutrons are packed together into the center of the atom, while the electrons whizz around the outside. The electrons move so quickly that we never know exactly where they are from one moment to the next. In reality, the atoms that form objects and substances that we call solid are actually made up of 99.99999% space. And, as everything is made of atoms, which are energy, this shows us that everything is made up of energy. The energy that makes you is the same energy that composes trees, rocks, the chair you are sitting on and the phone, computer or tablet you are using to read this article. It’s all made of the same stuff – energy. This has been proven time and time again by multiple Nobel Prize-winning physicists, including Niels Bohr, a Danish Physicist who made significant contributions to the understanding of quantum theory.
ATOMIC ENERGY
LETTERS REARRANGED NUMERICALLY
ATOMIC NUMBERS
LETTERS REARRANGED NUMERICALLY
The "God Particle" - Advanced Science Newshttps://www.advancedsciencenews.com › science-of-the... Higgs boson - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Higgs_boson In the mainstream media, the Higgs boson has often been called the "God particle" from the 1993 book The God Particle by Nobel Laureate Leon Lederman, ... The Higgs field is a scalar field, with two neutral and two electrically charged components that form a complex doublet of the weak isospin SU(2) symmetry. Its "Mexican hat-shaped" potential has a nonzero value everywhere (including otherwise empty space), which breaks the weak isospin symmetry of the electroweak interaction, and via the Higgs mechanism gives some particles mass. Both the field and the boson are named after physicist Peter Higgs, who in 1964 along with five other scientists in three teams, proposed the Higgs mechanism, a way that some particles can acquire mass. (All fundamental particles known at the time[c] should be massless at very high energies, but fully explaining how some particles gain mass at lower energies, had been extremely difficult.) If these ideas were correct, a particle known as a scalar boson should also exist, with certain properties. This particle was called the Higgs boson, and could be used to test whether the Higgs field was the correct explanation. After a 40 year search, a subatomic particle with the expected properties was discovered in 2012 by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN near Geneva, Switzerland. The new particle was subsequently confirmed to match the expected properties of a Higgs boson. Physicists from two of the three teams, Peter Higgs and François Englert, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2013 for their theoretical predictions. Although Higgs's name has come to be associated with this theory, several researchers between about 1960 and 1972 independently developed different parts of it. In the mainstream media, the Higgs boson has often been called the "God particle" from the 1993 book The God Particle by Nobel Laureate Leon Lederman,[14] although the nickname is not endorsed by many physicists.[15][16]
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
Higgs boson - Wikipedia The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. First suspected to exist in the 1960s, it is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field, a fundamental field of crucial importance to particle physics theory. Unlike other known fields such as the electromagnetic field, it has a non-zero constant ... Higgs boson The Higgs boson is an elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics. First suspected to exist in the 1960s, it is the quantum excitation of the Higgs field, a fundamental field of crucial importance to particle physics theory. Wikipedia Composition: Elementary particle Classification: Boson Symbol: H° Mass: 125.09±0.21 (stat.)±0.11 (syst.) GeV/c² (CMS+ATLAS) Electric charge: 0 e Discovered: Large Hadron Collider (2011–2013) Mean lifetime: 1.56×10-22 s (predicted)
LETTERS RE-ARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
Everything Is Energy and Science Has Proved It – Here Is How ... 14 Sep 2018 - Many spiritual traditions have viewed everything in the universe as part of an interconnected web of energy. ... Basically, there was a widespread belief that everything is energy or at least that a consciousness flows through everything. ... Quantum physics proves that solid matter does ... “If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” – Niels Bohr
energy' related words: work vitality electricity [598 more] Words Related to energy According to the algorithm that drives this word similarity engine, the top 5 related words for "energy" are: kinetic energy, work, radiant energy, vitality, and electricity.
Energy is from energos, an ancient Greek word that means "active or working.
Energy is from energos, an ancient Greek word that means "active or working.
" The word "energy" was first used in the scientific sense of mechanical or electrical energy in the 1800s. ENERGY ENERGIES ENERGISE ENERGISES ENERGISED ENERGISING
ENERGYENERGIESENERGISEENERGISESENERGISEDENERGISING LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED INTO NUMERICAL ORDER
SOUL SO U LIVE
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
TRANSPOSED LETTERS REARRANGED NUMERICALLY
BREATHE ON ME BREATH OF GOD
HOLY BIBLE Scofield References Page 7 GENESIS C 2 V 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
setiathome.berkeley.edu Join the Search for Alien Life Message boards: SETI @ home Science: If someone found a signal would the public know ? Message Message 765818 Posted 10 Jun 2008 20:59:38 UTC I am just woundering if there was a signal found. how long wound it take for the public to be informed.
Message 765821 Posted 10 Jun 2008 21:06:26 UTC - in response to Message ID 765818. I am just woundering if there was a signal found. how long wound it take for the public to be informed. I hate to think that this information would be kept to a choosen few. I also think it is possable, that we have already found a signal and the general public will not be told for a very very long time. One more thing, If ET says hello... What are we going to say back? Despite the denials, we\'d not get to know for a few years I\'d guess. There\'s too many vested interests ranging from the church to governments, the military and big business. SETI has the Wow signal and at least one other signal that have ALL the hallmarks of being extra terrestial. But, there\'s always something that stops them saying so ie not confirmed by another source or, there\'s \'nothing in that particular part of the sky\' etc. Yes, Im a cynic now. Just returned to SETI but I know, as I suspect we all do, that we\'ll never get to find \'that\' signal.
Message 765857 Posted 10 Jun 2008 22:14:54 UTC To answer the main question: yes, the public will know once a signal is confirmed, and yes, they will know as soon as possible (days not years).
Message 765952 - Posted 11 Jun 2008 7:12:47 UTC - in response to Message ID 765912 btw - is your response to this based upom what you just (recently) Posted re: sys admin ;)) Actually.. no - though I see where you might have drawn a hopeful conclusion. I just always feel it\'s important to snuff out wrongful conspiracy theories concerning my day job. Things are never are as complicated/secretive/conspiratorial as people think (or hope in some cases) Matt BOINC/SETI@home network/web/science/development person "Any idiot can have a good idea. What is hard is to do it." - Jeanne-Claude
Message 766101 - Posted 11 Jun 2008 7:12:47 UTC - in response to Message ID 765857 To answer the main question: yes, the public will know once a signal is confirmed, and yes, they will know as soon as possible (days not years). Matt How many unconfirmed signals found? Other than the WOW! one
Message 766204 - Posted 11 Jun 2008 15:07:35 UTC A couple of days ago I watched as the graphics catched or stumbled upon a big gaussian (not the same one as mentioned some place else). It did not come up in the numbers thereafter and I did unfortunately not take the number of the WU, sorry to say. Possibly (but very uncertainly) it may have been WU 06mr08ah.13828.82132.6.8.73._2_0 . In any case, that WU had a spike of 1.70, a gaussian of -8.01 (which is low and not the opposite as some other like to tell) and a pulse of 100996 (Yes!). No triplet. If it was that one, it could be interesting...ID: 766204
Message 766238 Posted 11 Jun 2008 16:41:52 UTC It would be nice if somewhere in the seti program when it knows positive that it has a signal that is states across the screen... \"CANDIDATE SIGNAL FOUND!\" like it did in the movie Contact. ;)
Message 766299Posted 11 Jun 2008 18:49:23 UTC - in response to Message ID 766238. Last modified: 11 Jun 2008 18:58:49 UTC It would be nice if somewhere in the seti program when it knows positive that it has a signal that is states across the screen... \"CANDIDATE SIGNAL FOUND!\" like it did in the movie Contact. ;) The problem is, it doesn't know. Only humans can make that determination, and only after revisiting what they determine are *possible* candidates and scanning their locations again and again. How many unconfirmed signals found? Other than the WOW! one Zero No signal has ever been found which had the characteristics of the WOW! signal (ie; unconfirmed origin and not a natural source, either a glitch, interference, or the real thing) The closest that the SETI@Home team ever came was this one- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_source_SHGb02%2B14a Unlike WOW!, this is not something that appeared for an instant and could never be found again; this was found again, and presumably can still be detected by any radio telescope with sufficient capability. This is not an "unconfirmed signal" because it was determined not to be a signal at all. I'll admit, I'm not satisfied with the explanations as to why it was eventually determined not to be a candidate signal, and to my knowledge, no thorough public explanation has ever been given. It's not that I personally think it's a signal (I don't), I'd just like to know exactly why scientists are so sure it's not.
Message 767007- Posted 12 Jun 2008 19:44:03 UTC - in response to Message ID 766299. This is not an "unconfirmed signal" because it was determined not to be a signal at all. Thats my point! People argue over the very basic question whether a signal is a candidate. It doesnt fit the bill so lets dismiss it therefore we havent got an 'unconfirmed \ potential signal' to talk about. I'll admit, I'm not satisfied with the explanations as to why it was eventually determined not to be a candidate signal, and to my knowledge, no thorough public explanation has ever been given. It's not that I personally think it's a signal (I don't), I'd just like to know exactly why scientists are so sure it's not. Im not satisfied either but I think its highly unlikely you'll get scientists to agree. The signal appears to meet all the criteria for a 'candidate' but is dismissed because 'there's nothing in that part of the sky' and something to do with rotational period or something I mean were either of those two conditions in SETI's original conditions for a candidate? I dont think so.Im not satisfied either but I think its highly unlikely you'll get scientists to agree. The signal appears to meet all the criteria for a 'candidate' but is dismissed because 'there's nothing in that part of the sky' and something to do with rotational period or something. I mean were either of those two conditions in SETI's original conditions for a candidate? I dont think so.
Message 767082- Posted 12 Jun 2008 22:12:21 UTC - in response to Message ID 76007. Last modified: 12 Jun 2008 22:18:08 UTC The signal appears to meet all the criteria for a 'candidate' but is dismissed because 'there's nothing in that part of the sky' and something to do with rotational period or something. The WOW! signal did apparently fit the criteria for artificial origin, but an Earthbound source or glitch in the system couldn't be ruled out since it could never be detected again or independently verified by any other telescope. As for the SETI@Home signal, while I think they know the criteria better than we do, I admit that I don't fully understand the explanation. Just because I don't understand it doesn't mean I don't agree with it. If the signal were as compelling as you seem to think it is, it wouldn't have been dismissed, certainly not by the SETI@Home team which has put years' worth of effort and investment into this project, and certainly not by other SETI teams, like the SETI Institute. I may not be happy that it turned out not be a signal from ET, and I may not be personally satisfied with the explanations, but I have to concede that they know more about the signal than I do and they know more about why it's not a good candidate than I do.
Message 767267- Posted 13 Jun 2008 4:53:21 UTC - in response to Message ID 765952. btw - is your response to this based upom what you just (recently) Posted re: sys admin ;)) Actually.. no - though I see where you might have drawn a hopeful conclusion. I just always feel it\'s important to snuff out wrongful conspiracy theories concerning my day job. Things are never are as complicated/secretive/conspiratorial as people think (or hope in some cases). - Matt Yeah, but everyone likes a god conspiracy theory :)
DAILY MAIL Thursday, September 11, 2008 Pages 12/13 "BANG! Day the/world didn't end" Page 12 'Secrets of the universe' machine is turned on. . . but we're till here Michael Hanlon Science Editor Page 12/13 "Suffering superlatives/or how Marr got his particles all shook up" Page 13 "A few of them said 'wow! from time to time but there was nothing much to see or hear" Quentin Letts
THE CITIZEN WAKEFIELD City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council Issue 26 July/August 2006 THE PAPER FOR THE DISTRICT'S RESIDENTS Page 11 "WOW What's On in Wakefield District" "DIARY OF FORTHCOMING EVENTS"
FIRST CONTACT THE SEARCH FOR EXTRA TERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE Edited by Ben Nova and Byron Preiss 1990 Page 256 "Two types of unexplained signals were detected during this search. The first kind is quite rare, with the best example being the 'Wow' signal found in 1977. This /Page 257/ name was unintenionally applied from Jerry Ehman's comments in the margin of the computer printout when he noticed the signal. The signal was unmistakably strong and had all the characteristics of an extra-terrestrial signal." "We searched in the direction of the 'Wow!' signal hundreds of times after its discovery and over a wide frequency range. We never found the signal again. "...the 'Wow signal was received only once..." "What was the wow signal? Probably we will never know."
LIFE OUT THERE Michael White1998 SIGNALS FROM BEYOND 5 Page 99/100 Page 102 "So far the most important find was a signal detected at the Ohio University 'Big Ear' radio telescope in August 1977. Known by SETI researchers and enthusiasts as the 'Wow' signal, after the monoyllabic exclamation written on the computer print-out by an astonished astronomer at the station, it lasted exactly thirty-seven seconds and appears to have come from the direction of Sagittarius. Although, most strikingly, the signal was a narrow-band signal precisely at the hydrogen frequency of 1420 MHz, it has not been detected even a second time, in Sagittarius or anywhere else. So, what of the future? Is the continuing search for intelligent life in the Universe a total waste of money, as its opponents insist, or are we perhaps on the threshold of a great discovery?
LIFE OUT THERE Michael White 1998 THE TRUTH OF AND SEARCH FOR EXTRA TERRESTRIAL LIFE SIGNALS FROM BEYOND 5 Page 99/100 Page 102 "So far the most important find was a signal detected at the Ohio University 'Big Ear' radio telescope in August 1977. Known by SETI researchers and enthusiasts as the 'Wow' signal, after the monoyllabic exclamation written on the computer print-out by an astonished astronomer at the station, it lasted exactly thirty-seven seconds and appears to have come from the direction of Sagittarius. Although, most strikingly, the signal was a narrow-band signal precisely at the hydrogen frequency of 1420 MHz, it has not been detected even a second time, in Sagittarius or anywhere else."
MAN AND THE STARS CONTACT AND COMMUNICATION WITH OTHER INTELLIGENCE Duncan Lunan 1974 THE MYSTERIOUS SIGNALS FROM OUTER SPACE Page 323 DID ANYONE FOLLOW IT UP 13 "Oh whistle and i'll come tae you my lad . . ." Page 835 IS ANYONE HERE NOW 14 "Arthur Clarke said we must learn to live with our/ Page 836 / selves, to meet others properly.14 Chris Boyce said here, in Chapter 8, that we should set our own house:" in order, in our relations with one another and with other life on Earth. Robert Burns said: "Oh wad some po'er the giftie gie us, to see oorsels as ithers see us. . . ." It's time we took some action on that basis; indeed, it always has been." "Oh wad some po'er the giftie gie us, to see oorsels as ithers see us. . . ."
DAILY MAIL Friday, August 15, 2008 Ephraim Hardcastle Page 19 "Oh, wad some power the gift to gie us/ To see oursels as others see us"
MAN AND THE STARS CONTACT AND COMMUNICATION WITH OTHER INTELLIGENCE Duncan Lunan 1974 a liberating adventure for mankind? Or a disaster...? Page 72 "Here John Macavey quoted Pope: Observe how system into system runs, What other planets circle other suns, What varied beings people every star
OF TIME AND STARS Arthur C. Clarke 1972 The Sentinel "I can never look now at the Milky Way without wondering from which of those banked clouds of stars the emissaries are coming. If you will pardon so commonplace a simile, we have set off the fire alarm and have nothing to do but wait. I do not think we will have to wait for long."
OF TIME AND STARS Arthur C. Clarke 1972 Page 81 If I forget Thee, Oh Earth "He stared into the west, away from the blinding splendour of the sun - and there were the stars, as he had been told but had never quite believed. He gazed at them for a long time marvelling that anything could be so bright and yet so tiny. They were intense unscintillating points, and suddenly he remembered a rhyme he had once read in one of his father's books: Twinkle, Twinkle, little star, How I wonder what you are."
DAILY MAIL Tuesday October 7, 2008 Page 23 ".........nursery rhymes and songs such as Twinkle Twinkle Little Star."
Good Morning Starshine Singing a song Sing the song song the sing Let the sunshine
Let the sunshine in
The sunshine in Let the sunshine
Let the sunshine in
The sunshine in Let the sunshine
Let the sunshine in
The sunshine in
Hair: The American Tribal Love-Rock Musical 1967 is a rock musical with a book and lyrics by James Rado and Gerome Ragni and music by Galt MacDermot
DAILY MAIL Monday, October 6, 2008 Jonathan Cainer Page 42 "FIRST CONTACT" "THE ALIENS COULD HARDLY HAVE CHOSEN A MORE AUSPICIOUS TIME TO HAVE TURNED UP"
I THAT AM MEASURE DIVINE MEASURE AM THAT I ME ASSURE ASSURE ME MEASURE A SURE ME I ME A SURE MEASURE
WAKEFIELD ORACLE September 2008 Front Page DELIVERED TO ALVERTHORPE ARDSLEY KIRKHAMGATE NEWTON HILL OUTWOOD SANDAL STANLEY ST JOHNS THORNES THORPE WAKEFIELD CENTRE WALTON WRENTHORPE
WAKEFIELD CLAYTON HOSPITAL EYE CENTRE RECEPTION DESK NOTICE 9/10/2008 "ARE YOU GETTING OUR MESSAGE" ??
DAILY MAIL Thursday October 9, 2008 Jonathan Cainer "Friday the 13th."
QUO VADIS (WHITHER GOEST THOU?) By Henryk Sienkiewicz 1895 Page 9 "QUO VADIS ?" Page 90 "QUO VADIS ?" Page 99 "QUO VADIS ?" "GOD" "GOD" "GOD" "GOD" "GOD" Page 108 "QUO VADIS ?"
QUO VADIS Ristorante Italiano Smythe Street WAKEFIELDYORKSHIRE
WAKEFIELD ORACLE September 2008 Front Page DELIVERED TO ALVERTHORPE ARDSLEY KIRKHAMGATE NEWTON HILL OUTWOOD SANDAL STANLEY ST JOHNS THORNES THORPE WAKEFIELD CENTRE WALTON WRENTHORPE
Daily Mail Tuesday, June 1, 2010 Answers to Correspondents Compiled by Charles Legge Page 59 QUESTION I know the phrase 'curiosity killed the cat', but I have recently been told it continues 'satisfaction brought it back'. What is the origin of this? ORIGINALLY 'care' killed the cat, not curiosity. That form of the expression is first found in Ben Jonson's play Every Man In His Humour, in 1598: 'Helterskelter, hang sorrow, care'll kill a cat, uptails all and a louse for the hangman.' In this sense, care meant 'worry or sorrow'. rather than the modern 'look after or provide for'. The play was first performed by the Lord Chamberlain's men, a troupe of actors of which Shakespeare was a member. He obviously liked the line because he used it the following year in Much Ado About Nothing: 'What, courage man! What though care killed a cat, thou hast mettle in thee to kill care.' The notion of curiosity has been frowned on, particularly by early theologians. St Augustine wrote in confessions (AD397) 'God fashioned hell for the inquisitive'', so the idea of curiosity killing the cat would seem logical. Yet as late as 1898 the original form was still in use. Brewster's Dictionary Of Phrase And Fable had: 'Care killed the Cat. It is said that a cat has nine lives, but care would wear them all out.' The. earliest known printed reference is in the O. Henry short story Schools And Schools from 1909: 'Curiosity can do more things than Kill a cat; and if emotions. well recognised as feminine, are inimical to feline life, then jealously would soon leave the world catless.' The rejoinder 'satisfaction brought it back' is a curiosity in itself; the idea is obvious: if you are satisfied with your lot, you are unlikely to be curious about an alternative life. When.the rejoinder was coined is uncertain, but it dates from the mid to late 20th century and seems to have been part of a ditty popularised Curiosity killed the cat Jon Welham, Halifax.
THE ATOM THE QUANTUM ATUM QUANTUM ATUM QUANTUM ATUM QUANTUM ATUM QUANTUM ATUM QUANTUM
THE ATUM THE
ATUM THE COMPLETE AND ALL CONTAINING ONE
ATUM THE COMPLETE AND ALL SUSTAINING ONE
THE HERMETICA THE LOST WISDOM OF THE PHARAOHS Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy To the Memory of Giordano Bruno 1548 - 1600 Mundus Nihil Pulcherrimum The World is a Beautiful Nothing Page 23 "Although we have used the familiar term 'God' in the explanatory notes which accompany each chapter, we have avoided this term in the text itself. Instead we have used 'Atum - one of the ancient Egyptian names for the Supreme One God."
Page 45 The Being of Atum "Atum is Primal Mind."
Page 45 The Being of Atum Give me your whole awareness, and concentrate your thoughts, for Knowledge of Atum's Being requires deep insight, which comes only as a gift of grace. It is like a plunging torrent of water whose swiftness outstrips any man who strives to follow it, leaving behind not only the hearer, but even the teacher himself. To conceive of Atum is difficult. To define him is impossible. The imperfect and impermanent cannot easily apprehend the eternally perfected. Atum is whole and conconstant. In himself he is motionless, yet he is self-moving. He is immaculate, incorruptible and ever-lasting. He is the Supreme Absolute Reality. He is filled with ideas which are imperceptible to the senses, and with all-embracing Knowledge. Atum is Primal Mind. Page 46 He is too great to be called by the name 'Atum'. He is hidden, yet obvious everywhere. His Being is known through thought alone, yet we see his form before our eyes. He is bodiless, yet embodied in everything. There is nothing which he is not. He has no name, because all names are his name. He is the unity in all things, so we must know him by all names and call everything 'Atum'. He is the root and source of all. Everything has a source, except this source itself, which springs from nothing. Atum is complete like the number one, which remains itself whether multiplied or divided, and yet generates all numbers. Atum is the Whole which contains everything. He is One, not two. He is All, not many. The All is not many separate things, but the Oneness that subsumes the parts. The All and the One are identical. You think that things are many when you view them as separate, but when you see they all hang on the One, /Page 47/ and flow from the One, you will realise they are unitedlinked together, and connected by a chain of Being from the highest to the lowest, all subject to the will of Atum. The Cosmos is one as the sun is one, the moon is one and the Earth is one. Do you think there are many Gods? That's absurd - God is one. Atum alone is the Creator of all that is immortal, and all that is mutable. If that seems incredible, just consider yourself. You see, speak, hear, touch, taste, walk, think and breathe. It is not a different you who does these various things, but one being who does them all. To understand how Atum makes all things, consider a farmer sowing seeds;
here wheat - there barley, Just as the same man plants all these seeds, so Atum sows immortality in heaven and change on Earth. Throughout the Cosmos he disseminates Life and movementthe two great elements that comprise Atum and his creation, and so everything that is. Page 48 Atum is called 'Father' because he begets all things, and, from his example, the wise hold begetting children the most sacred pursuit of human life. Atum works with Nature, within the laws of Necessity, causing extinction and renewal, constantly creating creation to display his wisdom. Yet, the things that the eye can see are mere phantoms and illusions. Only those things invisible to the eye are real. Above all are the ideas of Beauty and Goodness. Just as the eye cannot see the Being of Atum, so it cannot see these great ideas. They are attributes of Atum alone, and are inseparable from him. They are so perfectly without blemish that Atum himself is in love with them. There is nothing which Atum lacks, so nothing that he desires. There is nothing that Atum can lose, so nothing can cause him grief. Atum is everything. Atum makes everything, and everything is a part of Atum. Atum, therefore, makes himself. This is Atum's glory - he is all-creative, and this creating is his very Being. It is impossible for him ever to stop creatingfor Atum can never cease to be. Page 49 Atum is everywhere. Mind cannot be enclosed, because everything exists within Mind. Nothing is so quick and powerful. Just look at your own experience. Imagine yourself in any foreign land, and quick as your intention you will be there! Think of the ocean - and there you are. You have not moved as things move, but you have travelled, nevertheless. Fly up into the heavens - you won't need wings! Nothing can obstruct you - not the burning heat of the sun, or the swirling planets. Pass on to the limits of creation. Do you want to break out beyond the boundaries of the Cosmos? For your mind, even that is possible. Can you sense what power you possess? If you can do all this, then what about your Creator? Try and understand that Atum is Mind. This is how he contains the Cosmos. All things are thoughts which the Creator thinks."
RA THE RAINBOW LIGHT SO IRIS O IRIS SO SET OSIRIS SO OSIRIS SET SET OSIRIS ISIS OSIRIS SET OSIRIS THAT SON SETS THAT SON SETS THAT SON OSIRIS THAT SON SO SETS THAT SUN SO RISES THAT SUN SO RISES THAT SUN SO SETS THAT SUN
SPHINX = 90 = SPHINX SPHINX = 9= SPHINX
C RE ATUM ATUM RE C SEE ATUM RE ATUM RE SEE C RE ATUM ATUM RE C CREATION SEE REACTION CREATORS SEE CREATORS CREATIVE SEE REACTIVE SEE CREATIVE CREATUM 3951234 CREATUM CREATUM 3951234 CREATUM
OSIRIS ISISIS OSIRIS ISISIS OSIRIS ISISISISISIS SOIRIS IRIS OSIRIS ISIS SO IRIS ISIS SO OSIRIS ISISIS SO IR IS OSIRIS ISISIS SO IR IS 99 IS IR SO ?
REACTORS CREATORS REACTORS CREATIVE REACTIVE CREATIVE REACTING CREATING REACTING C RE ACT I ON GODS RE ACT I ON C SEE RE ACTIONS GODS ACTIONS RE SEE RE 9 AND 5 AND 5 AND 9 RE
OSIRIS SO IRI IS IS IRI SO OSIRIS RE ATUM RE ATUM RE ATUM 1234 95 1234 ATUM RE ATUM ATUM E ATUM 1234 5 1234 ATUM E ATUM ATUM RE ATUM 1234 95 1234 ATUM RE ATUM RE ATUM RE OSIRIS SO IRI IS IS IRI SO OSIRIS
ATUM RE ATUM E ATUM RE ATUM 1234 5 1234 ATUM RE ATUM E ATUM RE ATUM
ESOTERIC = O SECRET I = ESOTERIC ESOTERIC 6 SECRET 9 ESOTERIC ESOTERIC = 9 SECRET 6 = ESOTERIC ESOTERIC = I SECRET O = ESOTERIC
ATUM 1234 4321 MUTA MUT 234 432 TUM ATUM 1234 4321 MUTA
RE ATUM RE
Ancient Egyptian Religion: Old Kingdom
Egyptian deities
Atum (Egyptian god) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
Atum's myth merged with that of the great sun god Re, giving rise to the deity Re-Atum. When distinguished from Re, Atum was the creator’s original form, living inside Nun, the primordial waters of chaos. At creation he emerged to engender himself and the gods. He was identified with the setting sun and was shown as an aged figure who had to be regenerated during the night, to appear as Khepri at dawn and as Re at the sun’s zenith.
NUMBER 9 THE SEARCH FOR THE SIGMA CODE Cecil Balmond 1998 Preface to the New Edition Page 5
RESEARCH R E SEARCH ER RESEARCH
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/algorithm a procedure for solving a mathematical problem (as of finding the greatest common divisor) in a finite number of steps that frequently involves repetition of an ... algorithm [ˈælgəˌrɪðəm] algorithm (lg-rthm) Noun 1. algorithm - a precise rule (or set of rules) specifying how to solve some problem
Algorithm Flow chart of an algorithm (Euclid's algorithm) for calculating the greatest common divisor (g.c.d.) of two numbers a and b in locations named A and B. The algorithm proceeds by successive subtractions in two loops: IF the test B ≥ A yields "yes" (or true) (more accurately the number b in location B is greater than or equal to the number a in location A) THEN, the algorithm specifies B ← B − A (meaning the number b − a replaces the old b). Similarly, IF A > B, THEN A ← A − B. The process terminates when (the contents of) B is 0, yielding the g.c.d. in A. (Algorithm derived from Scott 2009:13; symbols and drawing style from Tausworthe 1977). Informal definition No human being can write fast enough, or long enough, or small enough† ( †"smaller and smaller without limit ...you'd be trying to write on molecules, on atoms, on electrons") to list all members of an enumerably infinite set by writing out their names, one after another, in some notation. But humans can do something equally useful, in the case of certain enumerably infinite sets: They can give explicit instructions for determining the nth member of the set, for arbitrary finite n. Such instructions are to be given quite explicitly, in a form in which they could be followed by a computing machine, or by a human who is capable of carrying out only very elementary operations on symbols.[13] Minsky: "But we will also maintain, with Turing . . . that any procedure which could "naturally" be called effective, can in fact be realized by a (simple) machine. Although this may seem extreme, the arguments . . . in its favor are hard to refute".[19] Gurevich: "...Turing's informal argument in favor of his thesis justifies a stronger thesis: every algorithm can be simulated by a Turing machine ... according to Savage [1987], an algorithm is a computational process defined by a Turing machine".[20]
EVOLVE LOVE EVOLVE LOVES SOLVE LOVES EVOLVE LOVE EVOLVE
Algorithm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm is a step-by-step procedure for calculations. Algorithms are used for calculation, data processing, and ...
Many Are Called, Few Are Chosen - Church of the Great God 1 Mar 2016 - God's calling and predestination can be confusing, especially the verse that 'many are called, but few are chosen'
Matthew 22 - Many are Called, Few are Chosen - Wolf Creek Baptist ... Turn in your Bibles to Matthew 22:1;. 22 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king ...
Many are called but few are chosen' - the meaning and origin of this ... Many are called but few are chosen. What's the meaning of the phrase 'Many are called but few are chosen'?. Literal meaning, alluding to the variety in qualities ...
'Many are called but few are chosen'
Mysteries of the snowflake: The curious world of ... - The Independent www.independent.co.uk › News › Environment › Nature
THE INDEPENDENT MAGAZINE Wednesday 11 September 2013 THE MYSTERIES OF THE SNOWFLAKE Pages 14/15/17/18 Mysteries of the snowflake: The curious world of ... - The Independent www.independent.co.uk › News › Environment › Nature 5 Jan 2013 - Mysteries of the snowflake: The curious world of the ice-crystal experts ... The ice crystals, nestling in the ice clouds as unborn snowflakes, ... Everybody loves snow, right? But not many of us are obsessed, like the scientists who study these icy enigmas. Nicola Gill enters the curious world of 'dendrites' and 'plates' Dr Chris Westbrook works in deepest Hampshire at the Chilbolton Observatory, home to the world’s largest steerable radar dish, at a whopping 25 metres across. Inside his laboratory, lights blink and instruments receive continuous feedback from the giant dish pointed skywards and looming ever-present outside the window. But even on the hottest summer day, while the other denizens of Chilbolton parish are enjoying Pimm’s on their sun-loungers, Dr Westbrook is buried deep in snowflakes. “The radar dish sends out microwave pulses into ice clouds high up in the atmosphere where the temperature is always well below freezing – whatever it is down here,” he says. The ice crystals, nestling in the ice clouds as unborn snowflakes, bounce those microwaves back and the echoes which return are pored over and analysed by Dr Westbrook and his team. “"We have the most sensitive equipment for studying ice clouds in the world," he says. Westbrook is one of just a tiny handful of snowflake researchers in the world, a group of obsessives who live and breathe snow – fixated on chasing the perfect flake and understanding exactly which weather conditions will produce the many different formations. “It may seem slightly odd that I’ve devoted myself to studying snowflakes when the UK isn’t renowned as an especially snowy place,” he continues, “but, in fact, the vast majority of precipitation in this country starts as snow, which melts high above us and then falls as rain, which we certainly do have a lot of. So if you want to predict precipitation you need to study snow and how it forms.” So far, so dispassionate; ask Dr Westbrook if he likes making snowmen and he rather frostily replies that he’s as keen as the next man (“but I have a degree in physics and electrical engineering and where others see a winter wonderland I see physics in action”). But ask him about the way snowflakes are formed and fall to earth and the amazed child inside emerges as he describes the physics-meets-fairytale element of his work. “The aerodynamics of snowflakes have an inherently mysterious quality we’ve yet to crack,” he enthuses. “We classify their falling style in four unique ways: the ‘tumble’ is a sort of head-over-heels action, the ‘spin’ is a vertical downwards motion with a built-in rotation, the ‘pitch and glide’ is best described as a zig-zag and the ‘twirl’ is how we describe a snowflake that’s descending while spinning and rotating at an angle. Which they do depends on how fast they fall and their size, but it’s a puzzle that’s not solved and we don’t know why they behave as they do all of the time. As for the intricate formations of individual flakes, I defy anyone not to be amazed.” Of course, it’s those spectacular shapes – some like icy fireworks caught mid-explosion, others frozen, fantastical many-armed sea creatures – that fascinate the rest of us non-scientists. Nearly all snowflakes (or snow crystals as scientists insist on calling them, as a large flake can actually be made up of several crystals that clump together on their drift earthwards) have six-sided symmetry, though three- or 12-sided crystals also fall. You will never see a snow crystal with four, five or eight sides. It was ancient Chinese scholars who first noted their sixfold symmetry and they made beautiful complex categories and charts detailing their infinite variety and grouping them into types; as no two snowflakes can ever be identical. Broadly speaking (there are several competing classification systems), the classic, celebrated Christmas-card snowflake is categorised as a dendrite (meaning tree-like, with branches and side-branches). These are the iconic superstars of the snowflake world, hogging all the glory and most of the photo-opportunities. They can be sub-categorised as stellar, radiating or fern-like. As if winning the beauty contest weren’t enough, dendrites’ supermodel qualities (they can be extremely thin and light) also mean they make the best powder snow for skiing. Next in line, the supporting cast, are the plates (stellar, sectored or split) with 12-sided flakes bringing up the rear. The ugly sisters, which in reality make up the vast majority of snowflakes, are the rather dull, hollow and capped columns, needles, simple prisms, bullet rosettes and asymmetrical specks, doomed forever to be the boring, bitty, non-showbiz flakes we brush off our sleeves with nary an “ooh” or an “aah”. The categorisation of snowflakes has a long history. In 1655, Robert Hooke published a f large volume called Micrographia, containing his sketches of snowflakes viewed for the first time under the new invention of the day, the microscope. American farmer, Wilson ‘Snowflake’ Bentley, devoted most of his life to capturing images of snow crystals and his famous book of that name is still in print to this day. Japanese physicist Ukichiro Nakaya created the first truly systemic classification scheme for snowflakes in 1934, in which he subdivided falling flakes into 41 individual types which meteorologists Magono and Lee almost doubled by producing a chart of 80 different types in 1966. Mathematician and philosopher René Descartes is one of many fine minds through the ages to be fascinated by snowflakes and to ponder how such perfection could be created. While every flake really is a law unto itself, other supposed snow ‘facts’ are not quite so true. The oft-quoted idea that it’s ‘too cold to snow’ is nonsense (it snows at the South Pole where it’s rarely above -40C), and even the apparent truism that snow is white turns out to be slushy logic. Ice crystals are clear, like glass, but when they form a large pile, light is reflected off the surface, bounces around and eventually scatters back out. Since all colours are scattered roughly equally, snow only appears to be white. These, and many other reasons, are why world-renowned snowflake obsessive, California-based Ken Libbrecht, has made it his life’s work to study, photograph and ‘grow’ snowflakes. The author of several beautiful books showcasing his favourite flakes out of the 7,000 he has photographed, he lives and breathes dendrites, rosettes and plates. “There is something magical about snowflakes,” he says from his laboratory in Pasadena. “You don’t often see such complex symmetry in nature and that makes them extraordinary. The whole intriguing structure of a snow crystal simply arises quite literally out of thin air, as it tumbles through the clouds. The way the crystal grows depends on the temperature it is shaped in – a simple enough idea to grasp – but the underlying physics is fiendishly complicated and has remained a puzzle. I spend a lot, and I mean a lot, of time thinking about this.” As Libbrecht explains, the life of a snowflake is a hidden, epic, scientific journey in which it transforms through liquid, gas and solid states. “Snowflakes begin life as water vapour in the air – evaporated from oceans, plants, even your breath – and when air cools down at some point the water vapour will condense out. Near the ground it could, for example, be as dew, but higher up it condenses on to airborne dust particles into countless minute droplets. A cloud is just a huge collection of these water droplets suspended in the atmosphere.” The next stage is where it gets exciting, say Libbrecht. Depending on conditions, these droplets could fall as dreary rain, sleet or hail, or descend as mist or fog. But when conditions are right, the alchemy occurs and these minute droplets metamorphise into something more impressive. “At around -10C, the droplets gradually freeze into minuscule particles of ice,” he says. “When humidity is high enough, water vapour condenses on to its surface, gradually building a snowflake. At first they are very small and mostly in the form of simple, hexagonal prisms – but as they grow, the branches sprout from the corners to make ever more complicated shapes.” By growing crystals in his lab, Libbrecht has learnt how the multitudes of varying shapes depend almost entirely on the temperature and humidity. For example, thin plates and stars grow around -2C, while columns and slender needles appear near -5C. Plates and stars form around -15C and a combination of plates and columns are made at around -30C. Libbrecht’s devotion to dendrites has led him halfway around the world and he thinks nothing of basing holidays with his wife and two children exclusively around snowflake sightseeing. On one trip, he took his young children to Japan, where snowflakes are virtually a national craze. “Snow-crystal tourist spots are popular with the Japanese and I flew my family over for a winter holiday to the northern island of Hokkaido, home to the Museum of Snow and Ice, where even the doorknobs are in the shape of snowflakes. Admittedly, it’s not your usual family getaway, but my children know all about capped columns and other snowflake forms. They’re both in college now, but my daughter definitely gets a kick out of telling friends her dad is a snowflake scientist.” At dinner parties, when asked what he does, Libbrecht says, “I like to lead with the science,” but admits that people are really only interested in his photographs and the pretty patterns of individual flakes, and unlikely to want to hear about the convection chamber where he conjures snowflakes into existence. “Basically, it’s just a cold chamber about a metre tall, with two containers of heated water on the bottom. Convection mixes the water vapour into the cold air creating super-saturated conditions for growing snowflakes. We nucleate crystals by dropping a speck of dry ice in the chamber and the crystals float until they grow to about 10-100 microns in size, when they fall to the bottom of the chamber.” Inevitably, though, the most common question is, how can Libbrecht be so sure no two snowflakes are ever identical? He likes to tell people that physics has a Zen-like answer, “which is that it depends largely on what you mean by the question. The short answer is that if you consider there’s over a trillion ways you could arrange 15 different books on your bookshelf, then the number of ways of making a complex snowflake is so staggeringly large that, over the history of our planet, I’m confident no two identical flakes have ever fallen. The long answer is more involved – depending on what you mean by ‘alike’ and ‘snowflake’. There could be some extremely small, simple-shaped crystals that looked so alike under a microscope as to be indistinguishable – and if you sifted through enough Arctic snow, where these simple crystals are common, you could probably find a few twins.” If you thought snowflakes were the ultimate in nature’s micro-level majesty, ice crystals have one more trick up their sleeve, one that almost none of us will ever see, unless we find ourselves at the South Pole. Ice crystal halos are produced in the same way as rainbows, except that the sunlight (or moonlight) refracts from ice crystals instead of water. In other words, instead of being rainbows, they are ‘snowbows’, and, says Libbrecht, “simply exquisite”. Does he ever wonder, staring for years on end at the so-far-impenetrable and wondrous beauty of his subjects, if only a higher hand could have made them? “No,” he says bluntly, the scientist firmly back at the helm. Of course there’s still one obvious question that always come up before pudding that he’s more than happy to elaborate on. Why does he do it? “Humans usually make a thing by starting with a block of material and carving from it,” says Libbrecht. “Computers, for example, are made by patterning intricate circuits on silicon wafers, but in nature things simply assemble themselves. Cells grow and divide, forming complex organisms. Even extremely sophisticated computers like your brain arise from self-assembly. Your DNA does not contain nearly enough information to guide the placement of every cell in your body, most of that structure arises spontaneously as you grow.” The snowflake is a very simple example of self-assembly. “There is no blueprint or genetic code that guides the growth of a snowflake, yet marvellously complex structures appear, quite literally out of thin air.” As the electronics industry pushes toward ever smaller devices, it is likely that self-assembly will play an increasingly important role in manufacturing, and Libbrecht’s work could contribute to that. But neither he nor Westbrook care much about that, they just revel in the joy of unravelling the tantalising mystery of snowflakes. “Einstein didn’t worry about the practical applications of relativity, he just wanted to understand how nature worked. Snowflakes are remarkable structures that simply fall from the sky. With over six billion people on the planet, surely a few of us can be spared to ponder the subtle mysteries of snowflakes.”
Mysteries of the snowflake: The curious world of ... - The Independent www.independent.co.uk › News › Environment › Nature
THE INDEPENDENT MAGAZINE Wednesday 11 September 2013 THE MYSTERIES OF THE SNOWFLAKE Pages 14/15/17/18 Mysteries of the snowflake: The curious world of ... - The Independent www.independent.co.uk › News › Environment › Nature
5 Jan 2013 - Mysteries of the snowflake: The curious world of the ice-crystal experts ... The ice crystals, nestling in the ice clouds as unborn snowflakes, ... Everybody loves snow, right? But not many of us are obsessed, like the scientists who study these icy enigmas. Nicola Gill enters the curious world of 'dendrites' and 'plates' Mathematician and philosopher René Descartes is one of many fine minds through the ages to be fascinated by snowflakes and to ponder how such perfection could be created. While every flake really is a law unto itself, other supposed snow ‘facts’ are not quite so true. The oft-quoted idea that it’s ‘too cold to snow’ is nonsense (it snows at the South Pole where it’s rarely above -40C), and even the apparent truism that snow is white turns out to be slushy logic. Ice crystals are clear, like glass, but when they form a large pile, light is reflected off the surface, bounces around and eventually scatters back out. Since all colours are scattered roughly equally, snow only appears to be white. These, and many other reasons, are why world-renowned snowflake obsessive, California-based Ken Libbrecht, has made it his life’s work to study, photograph and ‘grow’ snowflakes. The author of several beautiful books showcasing his favourite flakes out of the 7,000 he has photographed, he lives and breathes dendrites, rosettes and plates. “There is something magical about snowflakes,” he says from his laboratory in Pasadena. “You don’t often see such complex symmetry in nature and that makes them extraordinary. The whole intriguing structure of a snow crystal simply arises quite literally out of thin air, as it tumbles through the clouds. The way the crystal grows depends on the temperature it is shaped in – a simple enough idea to grasp – but the underlying physics is fiendishly complicated and has remained a puzzle. I spend a lot, and I mean a lot, of time thinking about this.” Inevitably, though, the most common question is, how can Libbrecht be so sure no two snowflakes are ever identical? He likes to tell people that physics has a Zen-like answer, “which is that it depends largely on what you mean by the question. The short answer is that if you consider there’s over a trillion ways you could arrange 15 different books on your bookshelf, then the number of ways of making a complex snowflake is so staggeringly large that, over the history of our planet, I’m confident no two identical flakes have ever fallen. The long answer is more involved – depending on what you mean by ‘alike’ and ‘snowflake’. There could be some extremely small, simple-shaped crystals that looked so alike under a microscope as to be indistinguishable – and if you sifted through enough Arctic snow, where these simple crystals are common, you could probably find a few twins.” "The short answer is that if you consider there’s over a trillion ways you could arrange 15 different books on your bookshelf"
Entanglement: The weirdest link New Scientist vol 181 issue 2440 - 27 March 2004, page 32 That spooky connection between tiny particles is appearing everywhere, and its consequences are even affecting the world that we experience. It seems to unravel the past, and may be what keeps us alive. Quantum entanglement just got a whole lot weirder, says Michael Brooks ENTANGLEMENT. Erwin Schrödinger called this phenomenon the defining trait of quantum theory. Einstein famously dubbed it spukhafte Fernwirkungen: "spooky action at a distance". It is not hard to understand why. Set things up correctly, and you can instantaneously affect the physical properties of a particle on the other side of the universe simply by prodding its entangled twin. This is no longer just a curiosity of the quantum world, visible only in excruciatingly delicate experiments. Physicists now believe that entanglement between particles exists everywhere, all the time, and have recently found shocking evidence that it affects the wider, "macroscopic" world that we inhabit. It is a discovery that might have far-reaching consequences. Not only will it give us a better grip on technological applications, such as quantum computing and cryptography, and the teleportation of quantum states, it could also open up a whole new realm of reality, enabling us to retain and control quantum weirdness in our everyday world. And it's not just a strange kind of "remote control" over matter that is at stake. Entanglement could even be the key to understanding what gives rise to the phenomenon of life. "spooky action at a distance"
spukhafte Fernwirkungen
FIRST YOU SEE IT AND YOU DONT
ONETWOTHREEFOUR FIVE SIXSEVENEIGHTNINE
CIRCLE = 50 5+0 = 5 = 5+0 50 CIRCLE 1234 5 6789 ONE TWO THREE FOUR = 208 = 2+0+8 = 10 1+0 = 1 FIVE THE FULCRUM OF THE BALANCES THE SPIRIT LEVEL OF THE LEVEL SPIRIT 1234 5 6789
NUMBER 9 THE SEARCH FOR THE SIGMA CODE Cecil Balmond 1998 Page 32 5
THE BALANCING ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE NINE EIGHT SEVEN SIX
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Entanglement: The weirdest link New Scientist vol 181 issue 2440 - 27 March 2004, page 32 That spooky connection between tiny particles is appearing everywhere, and its consequences are even affecting the world that we experience. It seems to unravel the past, and may be what keeps us alive. Quantum entanglement just got a whole lot weirder, says Michael Brooks ENTANGLEMENT. Erwin Schrödinger called this phenomenon the defining trait of quantum theory. Einstein famously dubbed it spukhafte Fernwirkungen: "spooky action at a distance". It is not hard to understand why. Set things up correctly, and you can instantaneously affect the physical properties of a particle on the other side of the universe simply by prodding its entangled twin. This is no longer just a curiosity of the quantum world, visible only in excruciatingly delicate experiments. Physicists now believe that entanglement between particles exists everywhere, all the time, and have recently found shocking evidence that it affects the wider, "macroscopic" world that we inhabit. It is a discovery that might have far-reaching consequences. Not only will it give us a better grip on technological applications, such as quantum computing and cryptography, and the teleportation of quantum states, it could also open up a whole new realm of reality, enabling us to retain and control quantum weirdness in our everyday world. And it's not just a strange kind of "remote control" over matter that is at stake. Entanglement could even be the key to understanding what gives rise to the phenomenon of life. spukhafte Fernwirkungen
"spooky action at a distance"
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBER REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER
spukhafte Fernwirkungen: "spooky action at a distance" .
Electromagnetic energy is radiant energy that travels in waves at the speed of light. It can also be described as radiant energy, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetic waves, light, or the movement of radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can transfer of heat. Electromagnetic Energy: Understanding the Power of Waves justenergy.com › Blog About featured snippets Electromagnetic energy is radiant energy that travels in waves at the speed of light. It can also be described as radiant energy, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetic waves, light, or the movement of radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can transfer of heat. Electromagnetic waves carry the heat, energy, or light waves through a vacuum or a medium from one point to another. The act of doing this is considered electromagnetic energy. Electromagnetic radiation was discovered by James Clerk Maxwell, a 19th-century physicist whose findings greatly influenced what would become known as quantum mechanics. When it comes to how it works, we can think of electromagnetic energy or radiation as working similarly to a regular ocean wave. In this metaphor, the radiation is the water. The electromagnetic waves are the ocean waves, and the electromagnetic energy is produced from the waves carrying water from the middle of the ocean to the shore. Examples are radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light – (all colors of the spectrum that we see), ultraviolet light, X-rays and gamma radiation.
WAVES = 70 WAVES W=5 AV=5 E=5 S=1 WAVES = 70 WAVES
LETTERS TRANSPOSED INTO NUMBERS REARRANGED IN NUMERICAL ORDER 5 x 7 = 35 LOOK AT THJE 5FIVES LOOK AT THE 5FIVES LOOK AT THE 5FIVES THE 5FIVES THE 5FIVES 5 x 7 = 35
ELECTRO MAGNETIC ENERGY
5 x 11 = 55 LOOK AT THJE 5FIVES LOOK AT THE 5FIVES LOOK AT THE 5FIVES THE 5FIVES THE 5FIVES 5 x 11 = 55
5 x 11 = 55 LOOK AT THJE 5FIVES LOOK AT THE 5FIVES LOOK AT THE 5FIVES THE 5FIVES THE 5FIVES 5 x 11 = 55
5 x 11 = 55 LOOK AT THJE 5FIVES LOOK AT THE 5FIVES LOOK AT THE 5FIVES THE 5FIVES THE 5FIVES 5 x 11 = 55
5 x 11 = 55 LOOK AT THJE 5FIVES LOOK AT THE 5FIVES LOOK AT THE 5FIVES THE 5FIVES THE 5FIVES 5 x 11 = 55
YEA THOUGH I WALK THROUGH THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH I WILL FEAR NO EVIL FOR THOU ART WITH ME
JUST SIX NUMBERS Martin Rees 1 OUR COSMIC HABITAT PLANETS STARS AND LIFE Page 24 A proton is 1,836 times heavier than an electron, and the number 1,836 would have the same connotations to any 'intelligence'
|
 |
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
.gif)
