New Physics, New Ideas

[Pharaoh]

In the last century shocked physicists discovered that subatomic particles behave as a wave like patterns of probabilities rather that a solid pieces of matter. Rather than finding smaller and smaller “things”, when we look down into the foundations of reality, the illusion of substance disappears and we find in its place a web of relationships without intrinsic qualities of their own. The quantum world is one of probabilities of relationships. These probabilities are not of “things” but potentials of interconnection. Subatomic particles exist only as a relationship to other equally intangible particles of a broader whole. Only when we attempt to measure or observe them do they behave as “solid” particles. This act of observation itself seems to be what collapses the wave function. This is known as the mysterious “observer effect” and exists at the center of much controversy. Physicists have argued amongst themselves for years exactly what this means. It is as though through our conscious participation we collapse the wave function of the particle from a quantum superposition of all possible states, to a “real” determinable point in space and time. It appears that movements of our consciousness and the choices we make create relationships that extend into the world of matter. The mind it seems is not as separate from the world as we once believed. The notion that consciousness plays some role in the shaping of reality is heretical to say the least and yet this is exactly what many quantum physicists are beginning to believe. It is risky territory for scientists to make such assertions and many find ways of ignoring the problem. The reason being is that it treads too closely to matters of a philosophical and even “spiritual” nature that many feel ought to be keep separate from science, and perhaps rightly so. We live in a time in which a new vocabulary is required to deal with experiences of interconnection, feelings of expanded consciousness and universal compassion. Our cultures have in many cases hijacked these experiences and associated them with religious significance. As we shrug off the oppressive outdated beliefs of religion, the new “spirituality” is likely rather to be a self evident set of evolving principles derived from intrinsically objective observations about reality that evolve alongside science. The Cartesian world view was permitted by the authoritarian Christian church precisely because it was compatible with their religious dogma. With the mind separated from the world of matter, matters of faith such as the “soul” and “spirit” where preserved as property of the church and science was forbidden to go there. This division is perhaps responsible for setting back the scientific process hundreds of years. Now however, through the advancement of science into new domains beyond these boundaries, a convergence of scientific and philosophical principles is beginning to take place. This is evidenced by contemporary statements of physicists attempting to explain the mysterious quantum world. Their statements often seem to echo the millennia old assertions of eastern mystics. These sages, whose intuitive sense of reality emerged from extensive deep meditation, in some respects may simply have trod an internal path to the same perennial understanding of reality.




This is more of this book available free online. send an email to [e-mail] and I'll send you the full word document so far.

[Kind of Blue]

1. Thanks, Pharaoh.

The best book that I've read so far on the matter is The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra, and am always looking for more on the subject, especially those written clearly and simply on such a difficult topic, language-wise.

Looking forward to receiving a copy. Nice that the author makes it freely available.

Here's an interesting article on Heisenberg
http://meta-religion.com/Physics/Spirituality/heisenberg_mysticism.htm

[MorningGlow]

2. Neither science nor religion

Just the "new" (old) All.

The rift is mending, the duality ceasing, and everyone on the far ends of both poles are being dragged into this "new" reality even if it has to be kicking and screaming.
:rofl:

Thank you, Pharaoh. Sounds like a great book! :hi:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Yes!

It as if the dance of duality is finally ending, and That is coming back to Unity.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Thanks for this

I'll check into it when I've got the time to fully devote to it (have about 10 minutes before I have to go to work now).

Have you ever seen the movie "Mind Walk"? Based on The Tao of Physics, it captures the concept of changing world views quite nicely.

The leaders of my Sufi order have talked a lot about quantum physics and how it relates to spirituality. They see science showing what Sufis have experienced--and as one Sufi master (Murshid S.A.M.) said--spirituality is experience.

[northernlights]

5. not entirely accurate and very confusing language

At the subatomic level, we can observe electrons as waves *or* as particles with about equal ease, just not at the same time. All observation is indirect, and dependant on the type of instrumentation used to observe.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a mathematical statement that says we can't know an electron's location and momentum at the same time. The more we know about location, the less we know about momentum, and vice versa.

I don't understand what is meant by a "wave function collapsing." The term wave function refers to the 3-d coordinates that graph the shape, size and orientation of specific orbitals. Orbitals are essentially energy levels within which electrons travel about 90% of the time, and each orbital holds up to 2 electrons spinning in opposite directions (per the Pauli principle). For example, the 1S orbital is shaped like a sphere and is closest to the nucleus. The 2S orbital also shaped like a sphere, but has higher energy, so is larger than the 1S orbital and further from the nucleus. The 2P orbitals are higher energy than the 2S orbital (but lower energy than the 3S orbital) and shaped like dumbells. There are 3 of them with horizontal, vertical and one at a 90% angle.

So the wave function, and the orbital it describes, is always there -- it simply refers to an energy level. That energy level may or may not be occupied by an electron or two.

When you put the mathematics together, you end up with approximately spherical atoms, each with a central nucleus, surrounded by a "cloud" of electrons that, depending on their energy level, move within specific orbitals approximately 90% of the time. The other 10% of their time, they are somewhere not within their orbitals. Experimentation supports this.

As much as I love quantum mechanics, it's not really "new physics" any more. It really is "old physics." I asked my chemistry professor why we stopped (in class) at the 70+ year old, quantum mechanical model of the atom and she explained that there are no models available that describe the current theories in physics. She said physics has proceeded to the point of being pure mathematic relationships that are absolutely mind-boggling, and so abstract that no physical models describe them.

For example, I was just discussing with a friend the controversy over whether "string theory" can even be referred to as a theory. It allows predictions, but we have no instruments sensitive enough to test the predictions. The predictions can't be observed by any our 5 senses (and I guess we haven't developed our other sense enough to reliably observe it, lol). But I guess that math works, for the few people that can do it!

Don't get me wrong. All of it really resonates with eastern philosophy and spirituality, even with the mathematics! But fuzzy use of language doesn't lend credibility when talking to scientists, which may be why some are so quick to pooh-pooh and turn their backs...

I read "The Tao of Physics," "The Dancing Wu Li Masters," "Quantum Reality" and several other lay books on quantum mechanics back in the 80s and I loved them. Studying the mathematics and science of it, though, lends a somewhat different perspective. For example, to realize that all "objects" also are waves. I can calculate my own wavelength and frequency, they're just too huge to observe. On the other hand, an electron is just the right size to observe equally as a wave or as a particle. When you get smaller than an electron, it's easier to observe the wave and very hard to observe as a particle.

[Kind of Blue]

7. What I remember about the theory

of wave function collapse from my long ago physics classes is that, yeah, the cloud is there but when the particle is being observed/measured, it moves from a state of superimposed orbitals to a single state and returns to the cloud once you leave it alone.

I think quantum mechanics will remain "new" until we can figure out a way to describe the meaning of the behavior of subatomic particles. The debate continues for language in so far as what view of it do we take subjective or not. Mind boggling, indeed.

To me, credibility and fuzzy language depends upon the scientist one speaks to, and IMHO, kind of unavoidable. Twenty years ago, I had wonderful discussions with my teachers who were not afraid of students' awe and speculating, as well as physicists such as Capra (The Tao of Physics) trying to develop a mode of understanding. Maybe every bit of it, fuzzy language/pure mathematics, brings us closer to the reality of what's really going on.

[northernlights]

9. ok, I think I get what you're saying

so when they say the "wave function collapses" they really mean that it's as if the electrons exist as a cloud of energy when not being observed, emerge within the orbital structure while being observed, and then return to cloud status when we stop looking?

That seems familiar (it's been a loooong time since I read Capra and the others). And we only went as far as the Schrodinger/de Broglie/Pauli model in my chemistry class for the reasons stated above...there are no models that accurately describe or portray current theories.

One thing that really cracked me up (although I didn't dare mention it to my chemistry professor), was where my text says something along the lines that "energy is really just matter." I distinctly remember reading in those physics books that "matter is really just frozen energy!" :rofl:

[Kind of Blue]

10. Yeah, what you said!

:rofl: There goes that language thing again. I never understood why use the word "collapse" when they're saying the particle moves or there's some intrinsic value in being observed/measured that causes it to vanish. :crazy: but I love it.

[northernlights]

11. the language thing drives me batty, along with the alphabet soup

like when pie is 3.14xxx, except when it refers to a covalent hybridized bond, except when it refers to osmotic pressure, except when whatever else comes down the pike....

And then there's always constant K...except when it's a, or b or R. Thermodynamics was a blast. An entirely different alphabet for chemistry than physics, we learned them both at the same time, and the book just randomly switched between the two.

And in EM radiation, I thought I'd go blind between v, nu and mu. The font they picked had them look almost identical. Every time I had a formula with one of them I had to search through the chapter for the others, just for comparison. :crazy:

[Kind of Blue]

12. Wow! Chemistry and physics at the same time

How painful was that? :( I'm going daft just thinking about it. I'm sure I would have given up. Shoot, I had to take chemistry twice so I honestly admire your tenacity :thumbsup:

[BanzaiBonnie]

6. And this is what Matrix Energetics is all about

Richard Bartlett is consulting with various physicists in continuing to develop Matrix.

He is scheduled to have a second book out next fall and it will have much more about collapsing the wave function and the why and how of Matrix.

[Pharaoh]

8. I actually just pulled

a small bit off this guys Myspace page last night.

Go here to read the whole thing


www.myspace.com/adrianapocalipse :party: