Mystery111

The consciousness as a part of the Universe

Consciousness is a real phenomenon that takes place in the world we see.

If we accept,that everything in the world is relative, then the outside world, those we see , we can accept that is inner.

Just a more cryptic way of saying what we see we can subjectively-associate to the experience of the event.

As a result we can suppose, that inner world of man that is to say the consciousness is outside.

How? As far as we can tell, whatever develops consciousness it exists inside the corporeal structure of our brains. There is no evidence suggesting consciousness can exist ''outside'' assuming you mean the objective world, and not in reference to some other human being.

At the same time The consciousness is the same at each men.From these two admission we can make conclusion , that consciousness is the first dimension of the Universe that is to say to be externally and the same everywhere

Well, last time I checked, human consciousness, indeed anyone's consciousness was a game played quite late in the universes history... There certainly wasn't anyone sitting playing poker and watching the universe come into existence. Saying consciousness is a dimension is technically ok, but you cannot claim it is the ''fundamental'' dimension of the universe.

This explain us the philosophical question, which is first the substance or consciousness.

Consciousness as far as physics can tell is not needed to create the first structure of anything. Physics can be quite free from any observer-dependancy models.

The ANSWER is that they are different dimension of the Universe.We can make interesting conclusions, the first of which is we are in time machine that is to say we can reborn again in men or animals , that is why the richest must think over their attitude toward the poors and the men their attitude toward the animals.More interesting conclusion is that we can reborn on another planet where has life as ours. The INTELLIGENCE and feelings as INTERACTION between consciousness and substance are probably the fourth or second dimension of the Universe but that is only supposition.

 

Author:Georgi Andonov Zlatev

 

 

Seriously, we aren't that important.

I tend to agree with that. My question actually did not refer to your post but to another one that is not there, anymore (either it was deleted or it wasn't there in the first place and I mixed up the threads - dunno).

Oh. No problem.

And what exactly where you doing, calculationally-wise?

So what does that mean for the question "are gravitons real. and can they really control gravity?" in your opinion?

In my opinion, one part of the question is asking whether a graviton is a real particle. The second part is asking whether they mediate gravitational forces. In my opinion of course.

So a graviton could exist. Or it may not.

If it is found that neutrinos do violate the faster-than-light barrier how would that destroy the notion of causality?

It's all about relativity. If you go fast enough, you can slow down time. If you could move at lightspeed, time would completely stop. If you could go faster than light speed (and still believing that Einstein's laws hold true up to this point) then you could potentially oscillate through time. In effect, you could violate standard laws of cause and effect, action and reaction.

I suspect that we are not disagreeing that much.

 

 

 

IM Egdall gave a good example, where 2 flashes are simultanate for an observator, and sequenced for another. You can imagine a third observator for which the sequence of events is reversed. IOW the past for some observator can be the future for another.

 

But if one flash is the cause of the other flash, the 2 events cannot be reversed, unless some observator moves at speed faster than light, which is impossible by axiom.

In this sense, the sequence from any observator cannot be reversed.

Now, you are stating, if I understand correctly, that the sequence is simply an ordering happening in our brain and not a matter of physics.

That must be our disagreement.

I went through this phase, having for a while the conviction that time simply does not exist. But then, what is this "t" factor you encounter in all the mathematical laws of physics ?

You cannot simply erase it and continue explaining the Universe.

I have come to the conclusion that Time must correspond to something very physical. To me, Time is not an illusion.

 

 

I don't believe that "time is moving", I believe that WE are traveling into time. To me, time is a receptacle like space is. In fact a spacetime continuum.

 

But if time were moving, it would be relative to space. Better say space would be a tridimensional manifold translating along a fourth dimension we call time. But that would be wrong IMHO because time is relative.

This is the whole reason entirely why timelessness arises in physics. The Hamiltonian describing the universe has no time description. It happens because true time evolution in general relativity is a symmetry of the theory. Time is a special type diffeomorphism invariance which has constraints acting on the energy of the system. Moving clocks cease to exist and timelessness remains a problem for quantum mechanics.

But if time were moving, it would be relative to space.

Time is just the imaginary dimension of space. How can space move relative to itself? Relativity wouldn't allow that.

True.

What's the definition of a "pseudo-force"?

The physically apparent but nonexistent force needed by an observer in a noninertial frame to make Newton's laws of motion hold true. The centrifugal force is a pseudo force. Also called fictitious force.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/fictitious-force#ixzz1bKkiVeeR

ok im totaly confused can u pls just clearly tell me what does actualy the Higgs boson do cause ive obviusly missunderstud it

The Higgs Boson gives particles mass.

Simple.

The concept here ties in with the relativity of simultaneity. You can have two people at the same point, one stationary and one moving, and while one observes two events as simultaneous, the other will not. "right here, right now" is ambiguous. In science we tend to quantify things.

This is true.

Wait, if matter and energy are equivalent, couldn't I say everything is made out of matter? So wait, is everything made out of matter or photons?

hahaha... nice one...

Anyway.... .... the question of what makes something, is the same as saying what came first, ''the chicken or the egg.''

are gravitons real. and can they really control gravity?

Depends, because, if gravity is a psuedo-force, then it does not need a phsyical mediator by definition.

 

 

 

How so? Or maybe this post clarifies what I meant.(?)

My comment was justified and I think the moderators agree.

You simply require a little tutoring in how to analyze these subjects. Believe it or not, but these subjects are more philosophy at heart but in root it lyes in the physical foundation of quantum theory.

I googled for "define: entropy" and came up with this:

 

"A measure of the disorder in a system."

 

I also entered "entropy" into www.dictionary.com and found, among other definitions:

 

"The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity."

 

So if I understand this correctly, entropy is the phenomenon observed when, for instance, an elastic band goes from stretched to slack or a building going from erect to rubble when demolished by means of explosives. Is this correct?

 

If so, what do we call the opposite phenomenon - that is, the building up of physical systems from something simple with uniformly distributed energy to something more complex and non-uniformly structured?

If someone asked me ''What is the opposite of entropy,'', I would need to say it was the opposite of the definition itself of entropy. That would be it's a measure of an increasing order instead of an increasing disorder of your systems initial origin.

The physical consequence would be that the system will contract in size, assuming we are talking about a system as being a universe where there are moving clocks (peices of matter) and it will continue to contract until it reaches a singular localized region. Assuming a pointlike particle is a system without extended structure (ie. dimensions) then this point in space accurately corresponds to to a singularity when you compress spacetime (and the dynamical fluctuations) into the point where the primordial time and space began then what you have is entropy at it's grund state. But if the singularity is to be taken seriosly, then this ''ground state order'' is in fact the same state we attribute to the presence of systems which correspond to infinite degrees of freedom for false vacuum states which have a reseviour of negative exotic (and potentially imaginary) energy/mass. It is almost like the battery which powered the existence of the appearance of matter and energy. Space and time must have been a consequence of quantum principles.

Assuming quantum mechanics and field theory has it correct, then compressing matter and energy infinitely on top of each other into a dimensionless point will violate the Uncertainty Principle. No particle can be made to have an infinitely defined region of space, so expansion of space must be the result of allowing it's fluctuations to permeate greater degrees of freedom, expanded by three dimensions, four adding time Minkowski space. So the expansion of spacetime, must be a direct consequence of quantum mechanics, refusing matter to be compressed violating the laws of uncertainty.

Ok.... back in my youth (I'm still young but I feel old enough) I studied the fringe theory topics of consciousness and explored many idea's.

The sum of consciousness can be achieved if one is willing to take in the idea that the location of consciousness can never be pin-pointed to any where in the human mind. It seems to be an emergent property of a collection of particles, atoms, cells and molecules (the human brain consists on average 10^30 particles [1]) all working in a coherent fashion as to send information into the ''holograph'' of the three-dimensional phenomenon of perception.

The reason why it is a phenomenon, is because scientists (physicists included) cannot provide a reasonable explanation as to how the brain takes a two-dimensional image from a photon hitting the retina and reconfigure it into the three-dimensional phenomenon of visual perception. The world we see, is not really the world at large. No human on planet earth has ever seen the ''real world''. Our sight is really a hologram of perception which is generated by the particles in our brain, working in the harmony of coherence... which is a quantum mechanical property itself.

So all these particle are consciousness, but there is no location in the human body which we can pin-point and say ''this is the origin of consciousness.''

(1) - A Brief History of Time, Steven Hawking

 

Consciousness is not a physical reality than can be touched like the tv - it is more like the image on the tv screen that only exists while the power is on.

I don't know what else you said, but I saw this comment and needed to say something. I try not to make theories on consciousness any more, I find theories outside this realm much more pleasing nowadays.

Consciousness is certainly not a physical reality. However touching a tv is not a physical reality either. The reality you sense is still a by-product of electrical signals. Albeit to say, they hold classically enough information to state you are a valid observer of this property of matter which you may come to touch, but it is still a ''recreation of it's corporeal physicality'' inside the brain (which again, manifests as a holographic representation of the world outside). I agree though that

''it is more like the image on the tv screen that only exists while the power is on.''

The power in the sense I hope you mean it is that the energy exists to keep the brain functioning as we percieve it, and the image is what it produces.

Does no one else wanna tell me what they think?

I think physics should never be underestimated... It usually goes beyond common sense....

However, if say be some magic of neutrino mixing or something else meant that neutrons cannot be used to transmit information, then maybe tachyonic neutrinos are ok.

Ajb, when you said tachyonic neutrino mixing, is this in reference to the generation oscillations of the nuetrino? Or is it something a bit more technical? Had me intruiged and I shuld have mentioned it the the day.

light I have to add my opinion here. I hopr it helps. I think Eisntein's comment that past, present, and futere are an illusion comes from his consideration of simultaneous events. Say you are on a unifromly moving train car. A lioght is at the back of the car, and another at the front. Say you arrange it so you see both lights flash at the same time. So from your point-of-view on the train, the two light flashes are simultaneous.

 

Now what do people on the ground see as the train moves by them? Per Einstein, they do not see the two flashes occurring at the same time. In fact, they see the at the back of the train car flash before the flash at the front of the train. This is the relativity of simultaneity.

 

For you on the train, let's define "now" as when the two lights flash. So to you, the past is before the two lights flashed. And the future is after the two lights flashed.

 

But what about the people on the ground? Let's define their "now" as modpoint between the times of the two flashes. So to tehm, the past is when the light at the back of the car flashed. And the futer is when the light at the front of the car flashed.

 

So past, present, and future are relative. They are seen as different for you on the train than for those on the ground.

This is most likely right, Einstein was well aware of this fact when he made his statement.

I also made it clear that an arrow of time cannot exist because that would invoke a set of ordered events, but the elapsing of time allowed for events to happen between two observers can differ. But what is interesting to note, is that even though they may ''disagree'' when the events happened, the event in their frame of references where in fact happening still in an asymptotic frame of reference. This is most commonly known as local time experienced by the observer which would be frame-dependant. This means even though two events are oddly dilated and occurring at different times involving two observers, the events still occurred within a present time.

The time we all come to experience on, is the present time. This is the definition of an asymptotic time by the way, in physics.

But for time's histories, past and future and time present (experienced because of a recording mind) to be relative, it must assume that there exists a psychological arrow of time. As I said before, the psychological arrow is the only arrow which really holds any meaning at all. The reason to that is simple, but I never explained why before. The reason is because it holds meaning to the way we describe the universe, but does not describe the universe directly.

I have even speculated (and I may get a bad reputation for saying it, but hey ho) that time may not even really exist as part of the physical metric

Replace the word "subjective" by the word "relative" and most members here will agree on the statement.

 

 

I disagree strongly.

Time's arrow is not relative. Time's arrow in the psychological arrow description (one of several arrows of time in physics) is an asymptotic phenomenon. The experiences of events are always within the present time frame. Duration of Events is when we record a series of events or ''happenings'' which we can catalogue through experience of when they happened (Or when order is illuminated by our sense of perception.) Time is relative however, but the idea of a linear ordered flow of time could never be a relative statement, because then you would need to tell me what time is moving relative to.

If you can answer this, I will send you 100 pounds. That is roughly 150 dollars.

Mystery111:

 

 

I was contrasting the Einstein quote:

....

with your statement:

...

 

There is no contradiction between me and Einstein. Einstein said it was an ''illusion'' because it does not really exist. What we experience (which is just a bunch of electrical signals interpretated by the nueral networks of our brains) is in contrast a gathering of information which ''recreates'' the world as we experience it. To experience the world, the brain required memory to make sense of why we can somehow move from one present frame to another. The illusion is that our brain recreates the world under the impression that the real description of ''now'' is one between a boundary which time would be a past and a future. The past and future are ''experiences'' only. Not physical artifacts of the world.

Of course the future IS not yet present; and the past IS not still present.

To your links...

I agree with Barbour that time is simply duration. My definition, shared often in this forum: event duration of physical events.

 

Markopoulou states that:

 

 

Is volume "real?" A line is one dimensional. A plane is two dimensional. Volume is three dimensional, whether applied to space or objects in space. When stuff moves through space we say that "time elapses" but this does not mean that time is "something" other than the duration of such events of physical movement.

 

If there were no clocks (or people) everything in the cosmos would still be in motion. We say that such movement "takes time," but we need not reify time, or "make something of it" because of the duration of events. Nor can "it" be "woven together with space" to create the "fabric of spacetime" as many of the critics in the ISASS contend.

You seem to not understand this very well.

It is not that the future is not yet present and the past is not still present, it is actually a matter that there is only the present time. Remove the idea that events are ordered, (invoked by the fabricated and misused arrow of time) and just accept that all events are equal and happening now.

And you cannot have a universe devoid of clocks and say there is still motion. That is in direct violation of relativity.

Ugh, yawn. I guess the supply of troll food ran out in the other thread. Plenty of fresh blood here! Start suckin!

I don't think he's a troll at all. But ill-informed and erreneously opinionated.

It is possible that a single photon could be caught up in a toroidal knot. This creates charge. So this toroidal knot causing charge removes the problem of charge as an arguement matter can not be made from light. Spin is also called into question, but if the spin corresponds to angular momentum but since the toroid causes charge, then spin can be easily found to be related to the spin-magnetic moment which could easily account for deformations (contractions or increases) in spin signs. It must be said, that it is an interesting coincidence that there seems to be a symmetry in nature where particles and antiparticles of the same family can come together and convert back to photon energy.

This is the main question though, at least I believe ... that being ''is it merely a coincidence, or is the symmetry for all particles to do this indicates that photons are somehow involved in a sub-structure motion which makes the electron? Indeed all particels?''

I don't even know if we can test this yet. It should be within the dimensional range of string theory as closed strings.

It would also mean the photon becmes an extended object in multidimensional space when it gets caught into the knot configuration.

well we r just photons

in the big bang only energy came out ( photons ) witch , using the formula E=mc2 , turned into pairs of matter and antimatter

those two anihalated with each other , but a breaking of simetry ( 1 bilion antimatter to 1bilion and 1 matter ) caused us to be here today

According to some theories this is true.

No one? No suggestions?

.. sorry... accidently posted something when I copied and pasted

I haven't seen this expression before:

[math]\frac{-iM\gamma}{\hbar^2k}[/math]

Well I can immediately see that [math]\hbar k[/math] is the momentum. What is the gamma here acting coefficient on the imaginary mass?

In fact, more generally, what is this expression describing? I am inclined to believe it is simply a momentum, but the gamma is knocking me off: source can be found in the first equation in this link:

http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/221B-S02/sol2.pdf

I know, next to nothing about tachyonic condensation. You're words triggered in my head though about it being ''unstable'' and reminded me of the tachyonic condensation which is heavily supported by string theory because string theory seems to permit their existences.

Of course, I was a bit dubious when I heard this because we seem to have evidence of tachyonic superconducters... so perhaps I am making a very radical pressumption based on what I have been told so far by yourself, but is there is a case (let this be hypothetical with no direct mathematical reason yet) which may allow a tachyon to move at this speed, the vacuum destabilisation, you said that the system will tend towards a more stable state in which there are no tachyons.

Now, is this meant to mean that a tachyon could exist, but not for long?