In my previous post Is Time a Dimension?, I presented a case that time is a dimension. I also pointed out that even the greatest minds in science can't agree on a single definition of time. I'm sorry to disappoint you if you thought I had discovered the holy grail of time! Like many other pundits I have my own ideas about time, however.
Let's start by thinking about how we perceive time. In our personal experience, we are aware of time passing - in one direction. We don't appear to be able to move backwards in time and seemingly can't move forwards in time (other than one day at a time). We can remember the past and we can visualise the (possible) future but we seemingly can't access it or interact with time other than in the present moment.
But what is the present moment? Can we ever hope to perceive the universe as it is NOW? The answer to that is a resounding NO! As I will now explain, time and space can cause optical illusions and time itself is different for every observer.
First, let's consider how distorted our perception of space can be due to the vastness of space and the speed of light.
The speed of light limits our ability to view the current moment
When we look out into the night sky, we are not seeing the stars as they actually are at this moment in time. The light from each celestial object has travelled to our eyes at a speed of 300,000 kilometres per second. The distance that each beam of light has travelled is so great that by the time it reaches our eyes, it may have been travelling for years, even centuries or more. We are seeing the light it emitted at a point in time equal to its distance from us divided by the speed of light. Because the stars are at different distances from the Earth, we are therefore looking at a time-distorted snapshot of the universe.
Light from the Moon takes just over a second to reach us and from the Sun, about 8 minutes and 19 seconds. The nearest star, Alpha Centauri is so far away that its light takes 4.27 years to reach us. We express cosmological distances in those terms, so we would say that Alpha Centauri is 4.27 light years away from the Earth. The furthest object ever observed to date is over 13 billion light years away! (However that can't be seen with the naked eye.)
Here's an interesting video by Carl Sagan from 1980 where he demonstrates how our view of the cosmos is not only distorted but changes through time due to the relative motion of the stars.
Travels In Space and Time
So, what we see in the sky is distorted because we are looking back a different length in time for every visible object. That may be reasonably easy to understand but there's an aspect to time that's a lot less easy to get your head around and that's the time dilation effect of special relativity.
There's no such thing as a universal "Now"
Probably one of the greatest scientific achievements of the 20th century was Einstein's theory of relativity. According to this theory, we can change our own unique time frame relative to one another, depending on our relative speed and the differing effects of gravity. This is called the time dilation effect. The theory states that the rate that your personal time frame elapses depends on the speed you are travelling and the amount of gravitational force you are subjected to. I'll let the following video explain this.
Time Travel: Einstein's big idea
(Theory of Relativity)
The faster you are travelling and the greater the gravitational pull you are experiencing, relative to someone observing you, the slower your time frame elapses relative to them. It's not just you that appears to slow down, but everything in your time frame: your own personal universe, if you like. You witness your own world elapsing at the "normal" rate, but someone observing you from a different relative speed or subject to a different amount of gravitational pull would see you moving more slowly Eventually you would appear to freeze in time as you approached the speed of light or when you were in a massive gravitational field such as at the event horizon of a black hole.
The time dilation effect has been proved to be correct in practice. As Renate Loll said in my last post, "satnav" satellites gain 45 billionths of a second a day due to their lower relative gravity. If the positioning calculations ignored this effect, then after a week your reported position would be 10 kilometers in error!
Most sources that describe time dilation patronise the reader by saying that its effects are only significant when the relative speed between observer and observed is a significant fraction of the speed of light. That may be enough to satisfy most practical situations, but what about the philosophical implications?
If you went on a long journey in a hyper-speed space craft, you might return to Earth years later to find that you had only aged a few years whereas I would now appear decades older than when you last saw me. Clearly you have moved into a different reality relative to the one you would have experienced had you stayed at home.
If you accept that argument then you should be able to see that if your time frame elapses only one Planck unit of time different to mine then the same principle applies. If you have moved in time at all at a different rate to me then when we meet again, we are no longer sharing the same reality as we did when our time frames were synchronous.
A Planck unit of time is about 5.4 x 10-44 of a second. I have calculated that if you walk away from me at a speed of one metre per second for only one second then you will have changed your time frame relative to me by more than 1026 Planck units by virtue of the time dilation effect! In my last post I offered one description of the present moment as consisting of a succession of "now-points": slices of 3-D reality at the Planck scale.
Now consider what this implies about the nature of of our perceived reality.
Every object that is in motion relative to other objects and every object that is subjected to a relatively differing gravitational pull is in its own time frame: its own reality.
So the idea of "now" is subjective for every observer. We all exist in our own unique reality. That's a stunning conclusion from a relatively simple mathematical equation!
So, when you look out into the night sky, even if you could see the stars in "real" time without time and distance distorting the picture due to the speed of light, you would only be viewing the heavens in a time frame that was real to you. Each planet, star and galaxy would be experiencing time elapsing at a different rate to your time.
We choose how time unfolds
Our subjective experience of time depends on the choices we make in terms of our speed of movement and location with a gravitational field.
At any particular now-point there is theoretically an infinite number of possibilities of what the next succeeding now-point might be from which we use our free will to make a choice. The vast majority of those possibilities would be unlikely to manifest themselves into your current reality because the historical series of now-points that led you to the current one make some options more likely than others.
Read that again if you don't quite get what I'm trying to say then consider this example.
So let's say you've graduated from university with a first class degree in mathematics. What will happen next? Will you take up a career in academia? Will you go into industry? Will you drop it all and become a musician instead; or will you decide to drop out and become a street bum begging money from passers-by? Each of these possible futures are possibilities but you can guess that the first two are more likely futures than the latter, given the path that you have taken so far. Which ever future you choose to aim for, the future that you will actually realise is influenced by the choices you are making in the current now-point.
OK, I understand that your future career isn't going to manifest itself in the next Planck frame of time! However, the unfolding of any particular version of your future is more (or less) likely depending on what the next now-point is and, having made that choice, the ongoing probabilities change on the basis of that choice, steering you ultimately in the direction of your intention.
In summary, the future consists of what mathematicians would call a probability space of possible futures and the one you experience is a result of your choices and the choices of those who affect you. This begs some important questions:
Q. What happens to the unrealised futures? Do they exist in any real sense?
You may be amazed to learn that theoretically the answer to this is "Yes"! In my post 10 spacial dimensions: what does that mean?, I left the door open to parallel 3-D worlds and I'll return to this subject in a later post.
I've reached a point where I want to stop discussing time and move on. However, there are numerous other questions that we could address at this stage. Here are jut a few.
Q. Does the past "exist" in any real sense? Q. If we don't have the ability to remember the past, would we be able to perceive time elapsing? Q. Do unchosen, unrealised futures not exist just because we are not currently witnessing them? Q. Could time actually be a human construct, imagined inside our minds?
In my next post I will introduce a dose of quantum weirdness by discussing the role of the observer in creating reality by describing the famous "double slit experiment".
From the perspective of THIS universe, I am "The REAL" Jeff Hall
More reading
Another video on Time dilation:
Time Dilation - Einstein's Relativity
For the mathematically minded reader there is a good source of information on time dilation and relativity on wikipedia: The Time Dilation Effect.
Friday, 5 August 2011
Monday, 14 March 2011
Is time a dimension?
In my previous post I described the 10 spacial dimensions proposed by M-theory but the theory says there are actually 11 dimensions. The 11th dimension isn't spacial (or space-like) - it's time.
When I dare to think that I'm beginning to understand the bigger picture of reality, the definition of time always messes with my mind! When I try to consolidate my ideas about time, I always hit a new obstacle or paradox that perplexes me. This post is no exception! I am just about to publish and I still seem to have more questions than answers about time!
Question: What IS time?
The following video shows how the greatest minds in physics have still not tied down an answer to the question "What is time?".
Professor BRIAN COX - WHAT IS TIME?
(video 5 of 5)
Question: Does time behave like it is a dimension?
We speak of our perceived reality as "space time" and time is often referred-to as the 4th dimension.
But does time qualify as a dimension? Is it at right angles to space? Well, in order to be orthogonal to space, it must be possible to move in the direction of time without changing your co-ordinates in any of the other dimensions. So time satisfies that condition: standing on the spot, you move through time without moving through space.
In the Brian Cox video above (at 03:56) Dr. Fay Dowker describes time as "granular". She is proposing that time works as a series of finite 3D snap-shots - lets call them "now-points" - that evolve or grow from the current moment. She says that, in order that the future can evolve in an infinite number of possible different ways, it has to consist of discrete now-points at which choices can be made. If time were continuous, then there would be no now-points and no opportunities to choose. In other words, if time were continuous, that is the same as saying that the future is pre-determined and there is no such thing as free will.
This description of time as an infinite number of now-points stacked side by side is a similar to my previous description of a 1D line as a collection of zero-D points stacked side-by-side. Again, this supports the idea that time is a dimension.
Question: So, what IS time then?
I have just discovered this short video which introduces a new gravity model called "Quantum Gravity From Causal Dynamical Triangulation". The computer simulation of this model reproduces interesting "quantum foam" effects on the small scale and yet on the large scale, generates a universe that resembles our own.
Professor RENATE LOLL - WHAT IS TIME?
(Utrecht University)
Renate concluded (at 09:35) with two preliminary findings:
(1) Time is fundamental: time and causal order exists at the smallest scale
(2) Time persists: it existed before the Big Bang when there is no space.
I interpret the first point to contradict Fay Dowker's idea that, at the Planck scale, time is granular. However, Renate did not expand on her conclusion so I'll have to come back to this point when I've had a chance get more information.
The second point seems to be saying that time lies outside of space and you could conclude from that that she is suggesting time is pan-dimensional. That would mean that time is infinite and does not have a beginning and an end as the Big Bang theory implies.
Renate says (at 11:32) that to fully understand time, we need a consolidated theory of quantum gravity and a theory of how we perceive reality. I hope to see others take up this philosophical challenge in the near future.
Question: Should time be the 4th dimension or the 11th?
I'll let my Twitter friend, Canadian philosopher Rob Bryanton tackle that one for me:
ROB BRYANTON: AREN'T THERE REALLY 11 DIMENSIONS?
Rob points out how time is a bit tricky to deal with since it only seems to go one-way. He resolves this conundrum by stating that time is just a direction in the dimension that he calls duration and we have time and anti-time in the fourth dimension just as we have the directions up and down in the third dimension.
I like Rob's deductive reasoning and I will return to the elusive nature of time in future posts. By placing time at only the 4th level, we are saying it's a subset of the 5th and that the higher dimensions are therefore beyond time. Renate Loll (above) seems to be suggesting that we need to rethink this point and indeed our whole perception of time.
Question: Is time just a human construct?
This is a big question and I'll try to offer a few clues to the answer in my next post "A Subjective View of Time"
From the perspective of THIS universe, I am "The REAL" Jeff Hall
More Information
In the following link, a new theory of space time suggests that time does not exist as a dimension. It's interesting to see the level of angst in the comments to this post http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html
You'll need to take a deep breath before watching the following video in which Rob explores some of the implications of time lines and granularity
TIME IS A DIRECTION ROB BRYANTON
When I dare to think that I'm beginning to understand the bigger picture of reality, the definition of time always messes with my mind! When I try to consolidate my ideas about time, I always hit a new obstacle or paradox that perplexes me. This post is no exception! I am just about to publish and I still seem to have more questions than answers about time!
Question: What IS time?
The following video shows how the greatest minds in physics have still not tied down an answer to the question "What is time?".
Professor BRIAN COX - WHAT IS TIME?
(video 5 of 5)
Question: Does time behave like it is a dimension?
We speak of our perceived reality as "space time" and time is often referred-to as the 4th dimension.
But does time qualify as a dimension? Is it at right angles to space? Well, in order to be orthogonal to space, it must be possible to move in the direction of time without changing your co-ordinates in any of the other dimensions. So time satisfies that condition: standing on the spot, you move through time without moving through space.
In the Brian Cox video above (at 03:56) Dr. Fay Dowker describes time as "granular". She is proposing that time works as a series of finite 3D snap-shots - lets call them "now-points" - that evolve or grow from the current moment. She says that, in order that the future can evolve in an infinite number of possible different ways, it has to consist of discrete now-points at which choices can be made. If time were continuous, then there would be no now-points and no opportunities to choose. In other words, if time were continuous, that is the same as saying that the future is pre-determined and there is no such thing as free will.
This description of time as an infinite number of now-points stacked side by side is a similar to my previous description of a 1D line as a collection of zero-D points stacked side-by-side. Again, this supports the idea that time is a dimension.
Question: So, what IS time then?
I have just discovered this short video which introduces a new gravity model called "Quantum Gravity From Causal Dynamical Triangulation". The computer simulation of this model reproduces interesting "quantum foam" effects on the small scale and yet on the large scale, generates a universe that resembles our own.
Professor RENATE LOLL - WHAT IS TIME?
(Utrecht University)
Renate concluded (at 09:35) with two preliminary findings:
(1) Time is fundamental: time and causal order exists at the smallest scale
(2) Time persists: it existed before the Big Bang when there is no space.
I interpret the first point to contradict Fay Dowker's idea that, at the Planck scale, time is granular. However, Renate did not expand on her conclusion so I'll have to come back to this point when I've had a chance get more information.
The second point seems to be saying that time lies outside of space and you could conclude from that that she is suggesting time is pan-dimensional. That would mean that time is infinite and does not have a beginning and an end as the Big Bang theory implies.
Renate says (at 11:32) that to fully understand time, we need a consolidated theory of quantum gravity and a theory of how we perceive reality. I hope to see others take up this philosophical challenge in the near future.
Question: Should time be the 4th dimension or the 11th?
I'll let my Twitter friend, Canadian philosopher Rob Bryanton tackle that one for me:
ROB BRYANTON: AREN'T THERE REALLY 11 DIMENSIONS?
Rob points out how time is a bit tricky to deal with since it only seems to go one-way. He resolves this conundrum by stating that time is just a direction in the dimension that he calls duration and we have time and anti-time in the fourth dimension just as we have the directions up and down in the third dimension.
I like Rob's deductive reasoning and I will return to the elusive nature of time in future posts. By placing time at only the 4th level, we are saying it's a subset of the 5th and that the higher dimensions are therefore beyond time. Renate Loll (above) seems to be suggesting that we need to rethink this point and indeed our whole perception of time.
Question: Is time just a human construct?
This is a big question and I'll try to offer a few clues to the answer in my next post "A Subjective View of Time"
From the perspective of THIS universe, I am "The REAL" Jeff Hall
More Information
In the following link, a new theory of space time suggests that time does not exist as a dimension. It's interesting to see the level of angst in the comments to this post http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scientists-spacetime-dimension.html
You'll need to take a deep breath before watching the following video in which Rob explores some of the implications of time lines and granularity
TIME IS A DIRECTION ROB BRYANTON
Monday, 21 February 2011
10 spacial dimensions: what does that mean?
In my previous post I explained why we think there are multiple dimensions. In this post I want to clarify exactly what I mean by "dimensions" and to try to give you a way of visualising what that means in practical terms. The word "practical" is hardly appropriate when we are referring to states of being - of existence - that are literally out of this world, but bear with me.
Esoteric science and spiritual definitions of dimensions include "vibrations" or "planes of existence". For example in the the theosophical and taoist traditions, there are seven named planes: the Physical, Astral, Causal, Akashic, Mental, Messianic and Buddhaic planes. Those who subscribe to a belief in Pleiadian extra terrestrials have a 12 "dimensional" definition of consciousness (more info about this at the foot of this post).
I want to make it clear that the dimensions referred-to in string theory are not (necessarily) the same. In this blog, when I refer to the word "dimension" I am using it as defined by the science of mathematics, unless stated otherwise.
In mathematics the dimensions of a point are the minimum number of co-ordinates necessary to define the position of that point. For now, forget the idea of space-time and try to imagine a dimensionless domain in which there exists a single point. That point has no height, width, depth or any other dimension that can define its position. This is the "zeroth" dimension.
Now define another point, anywhere, and join it to the first by a line. We now have a one-dimensional object that has length but zero width. Another way of thinking about this 1D line is that it consists of an infinite number of points stacked side-by-side in the direction of the first dimension.
Now stack an infinite number of 1D lines side-by-side, parallel to one another. The shortest distance between any two of these lines would be at right angles to the line, measured in the direction of the second dimension. You can imagine that all these 1D lines when placed side by side, define a flat surface or a 2D plane. It has length and breadth but zero height.
Now stack an infinite number of 2D planes on top of one another. The shortest distance between any two of these planes would be at right angles to the plane, measured in the direction of the third dimension. You can imagine that all these planes when placed one on top of another, define a three dimensional domain, like the one that we live in which we call "space".
It is a requirement of each new dimension that it must be at right-angles to all of the other dimensions. In mathematics we use an expression to describe the idea of all the dimensions being at right angles to one another. We say they are "mutually orthogonal".
A diagonal line on the 2D plan can't be a new, third dimension in its own right because any point on that line can be defined entirely using 2D coordinates. Tilt that diagonal line upwards, above the 2D plane and you still haven't defined a new dimension because the line isn't at right angles to the plane. Only when the line is orthogonal to the plane is it possible to move along it - in the third dimension without changing your co-ordinates in the first or second dimensions.
I'm using imagery to help you visualise higher dimensions one at a time, but now we have arrived at our familiar 3D space how can we visualise the 4th spacial dimension? I'll let physicist Carl Sagan do that for you in the following videos.
CARL SAGAN DISCUSSES THE 4th SPACIAL DIMENSION
Part 1
Part 2
We can't easily conceptualise what a 4th spacial dimension might look like, but if you've followed my reasoning so far, you will appreciate that the 4th dimension consists of an infinite number of 3D spaces stacked parallel to one another at right angles. Perhaps these might be thought of as parallel worlds?
Continuing the idea, the 5th dimension is an infinite number of parallel 4D realms stacked together orthogonally, the 6th dimension is an infinite number of parallel 5D realms stacked together orthogonally and so-on until we reach the 10th spacial dimension which is an infinite number of parallel 9D realms stacked orthogonally.
The stacking order of the dimensions is important because each higher dimension consists of an infinite number of realms of the next dimension down.
Supposing some or all of the extra dimensions of string theory are below the first dimension? In other words, could they be a subset of 3D space? This would mean that our 3D space might actually be the 8th, 9th and 10th dimensions. The following video describes the model developed by mathematicians Theodor Kaluza and Oskar Klein in which a 4th spacial dimension is described as "curled-up" within 3D space. To my way of thinking, if they are contained within our space then they are lower dimensions.
The Extra Spatial Dimensions of String Theory
We can only speculate about what the individual characteristics of each additional dimension are and how it adds meaning to the ones below. I subscribe to Rob Bryanton's visualisation as described in his book "Imagining the 10th Dimension". His video (shown below) has certainly reached the imagination of the public having scored nearly 1.5 million hits on YouTube.
Rob Bryanton: Imagining the 10th Dimension
Part 1
Part 2
If you are confused by the fact that M-Theory states there are 11 dimensions and Rob is describing a 10-dimensional model, then realise that 10 dimensions are sufficient to describe reality and to unify gravity and quantum mechanics and that the 11th dimension is the one that explains why there are many possible 10D models. Rob has produced a vlog to discuss this in more detail - "Aren't there really 11 dimensions?"
The order of the dimensions is not important to my view of reality - specifically the role consciousness plays in the universe - but exactly where time fits-in is one of those questions that has caused me a great deal of wonderment. In my next post "Is Time a Dimension?" I will discuss this in more detail.
From the perspective of THIS universe, I am "The REAL" Jeff Hall
More reading
Imagining other dimensions
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/dimensions.html
David Roberts 12 Dimensions of Consciousness (Esoteric)
http://www.pleiadianhealing.com/
Esoteric science and spiritual definitions of dimensions include "vibrations" or "planes of existence". For example in the the theosophical and taoist traditions, there are seven named planes: the Physical, Astral, Causal, Akashic, Mental, Messianic and Buddhaic planes. Those who subscribe to a belief in Pleiadian extra terrestrials have a 12 "dimensional" definition of consciousness (more info about this at the foot of this post).
I want to make it clear that the dimensions referred-to in string theory are not (necessarily) the same. In this blog, when I refer to the word "dimension" I am using it as defined by the science of mathematics, unless stated otherwise.
In mathematics the dimensions of a point are the minimum number of co-ordinates necessary to define the position of that point. For now, forget the idea of space-time and try to imagine a dimensionless domain in which there exists a single point. That point has no height, width, depth or any other dimension that can define its position. This is the "zeroth" dimension.
Now define another point, anywhere, and join it to the first by a line. We now have a one-dimensional object that has length but zero width. Another way of thinking about this 1D line is that it consists of an infinite number of points stacked side-by-side in the direction of the first dimension.
Now stack an infinite number of 1D lines side-by-side, parallel to one another. The shortest distance between any two of these lines would be at right angles to the line, measured in the direction of the second dimension. You can imagine that all these 1D lines when placed side by side, define a flat surface or a 2D plane. It has length and breadth but zero height.
Now stack an infinite number of 2D planes on top of one another. The shortest distance between any two of these planes would be at right angles to the plane, measured in the direction of the third dimension. You can imagine that all these planes when placed one on top of another, define a three dimensional domain, like the one that we live in which we call "space".
It is a requirement of each new dimension that it must be at right-angles to all of the other dimensions. In mathematics we use an expression to describe the idea of all the dimensions being at right angles to one another. We say they are "mutually orthogonal".
A diagonal line on the 2D plan can't be a new, third dimension in its own right because any point on that line can be defined entirely using 2D coordinates. Tilt that diagonal line upwards, above the 2D plane and you still haven't defined a new dimension because the line isn't at right angles to the plane. Only when the line is orthogonal to the plane is it possible to move along it - in the third dimension without changing your co-ordinates in the first or second dimensions.
I'm using imagery to help you visualise higher dimensions one at a time, but now we have arrived at our familiar 3D space how can we visualise the 4th spacial dimension? I'll let physicist Carl Sagan do that for you in the following videos.
CARL SAGAN DISCUSSES THE 4th SPACIAL DIMENSION
Part 1
Part 2
We can't easily conceptualise what a 4th spacial dimension might look like, but if you've followed my reasoning so far, you will appreciate that the 4th dimension consists of an infinite number of 3D spaces stacked parallel to one another at right angles. Perhaps these might be thought of as parallel worlds?
Continuing the idea, the 5th dimension is an infinite number of parallel 4D realms stacked together orthogonally, the 6th dimension is an infinite number of parallel 5D realms stacked together orthogonally and so-on until we reach the 10th spacial dimension which is an infinite number of parallel 9D realms stacked orthogonally.
The stacking order of the dimensions is important because each higher dimension consists of an infinite number of realms of the next dimension down.
Supposing some or all of the extra dimensions of string theory are below the first dimension? In other words, could they be a subset of 3D space? This would mean that our 3D space might actually be the 8th, 9th and 10th dimensions. The following video describes the model developed by mathematicians Theodor Kaluza and Oskar Klein in which a 4th spacial dimension is described as "curled-up" within 3D space. To my way of thinking, if they are contained within our space then they are lower dimensions.
The Extra Spatial Dimensions of String Theory
We can only speculate about what the individual characteristics of each additional dimension are and how it adds meaning to the ones below. I subscribe to Rob Bryanton's visualisation as described in his book "Imagining the 10th Dimension". His video (shown below) has certainly reached the imagination of the public having scored nearly 1.5 million hits on YouTube.
Rob Bryanton: Imagining the 10th Dimension
Part 1
Part 2
If you are confused by the fact that M-Theory states there are 11 dimensions and Rob is describing a 10-dimensional model, then realise that 10 dimensions are sufficient to describe reality and to unify gravity and quantum mechanics and that the 11th dimension is the one that explains why there are many possible 10D models. Rob has produced a vlog to discuss this in more detail - "Aren't there really 11 dimensions?"
The order of the dimensions is not important to my view of reality - specifically the role consciousness plays in the universe - but exactly where time fits-in is one of those questions that has caused me a great deal of wonderment. In my next post "Is Time a Dimension?" I will discuss this in more detail.
From the perspective of THIS universe, I am "The REAL" Jeff Hall
More reading
Imagining other dimensions
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/dimensions.html
David Roberts 12 Dimensions of Consciousness (Esoteric)
http://www.pleiadianhealing.com/
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Why we think there are multiple dimensions
As promised in my introductory blog post, I now want to explain where this idea of multiple dimensions originated. I need to talk about mathematics and physics. At this stage, I don't want to go into detail about the implications and ramifications of multiple dimensions but merely to describe the scientific basis for the claim that there are several more dimensions than the ones we are immediately aware of.
Prepare yourself for an introduction to the leading edge of advanced mathematics! I promise I'll make it as easy to understand as I can, but don't worry if you don't follow everything. There are a couple of videos at the bottom of this post that may be of some help. The important thing is that you get to the end of this post with a realisation that all of this is for real. It's not a flight of fancy. Here goes....
Einstein's general theory of relativity beautifully describes the physics of the universe on a large scale. It is also referred-to as the theory of gravity. It describes the motions of an apple falling from a tree, the rotation of a planet around a star, a star round a galaxy and even the motion of a galaxy itself. The mathematics of geometry are used in its formulation. However, it breaks down on the small scale. For example, it can't describe the motion of an electron within an atom.
For that, we need to turn to a different theory: that of quantum mechanics. A "quantum" is the name given to the smallest unit of any physical entity that is involved in an interaction. Quantum mechanics uses (amongst other things) the mathematics of probability to describe the behaviour of sub-atomic particles and is widely regarded as the most validated branch of science. In particle accelerators such as the European Large Hadron Collider and the US Tocomac at MIT, it predicts the outcome of atom-smashing experiments to an incredible degree of accuracy.
Just as general relativity can't explain quantum interactions, quantum mechanics can't explain interactions at the cosmic scale. The two branches of scientific theory are at odds with one another and yet we know from experiments and observations that the different worlds they describe are actually part of the same universe: the one we live in.. There must therefore be a bigger, overriding theory that unifies them at all scales.
This was one of the major scientific quests of the 20th century and Einstein went to his grave without a satisfactory answer. This all changed in 1985 when theoretical physicist John Hagelin developed a revolutionary idea that finally appeared to solve the conundrum. The "Grand Unified Field Theory" as it was called (GUFT), used the vibration and rotation of one-dimensional superstrings to model the behaviour of sub-atomic particles and the four fundamental forces of physics: the nuclear strong force, the nuclear weak force, electromagnetism amd gravity. "String Theory" was thus born.
Within a few years another four, apparently different, competing 10-dimensional GUFT's were developed. Clearly the universe couldn't exist in all 5 states - or could it? In the early 1990's one of modern physics' most revered theoreticians, Professor Edward Witten put to rest the growing doubts about string theory by unifying the five unified theories into a single theory which he called "Membrane Theory".
He did this by adding yet another dimension to the model making it 11-dimensional. Each 10 dimensional GUFT could now be thought of as a different aspect of the higher dimensional model. Think of it like a 3D cube that that can cast a number of different 2D shadows on a flat surface. Each shadow is a different representation of the cube in the lower (2D) dimension. Witten subsequently became sceptical about membranes and the theory is now referred-to as just "M-Theory".
An argument soon broke out amongst those closest to string theory about how to - or even whether to - interpret M-Theory in practical terms. I will discuss the concepts and meaning of dimensions in detail in my next post but, for now, suffice it to say that another SEVEN dimensions beyond the familiar three spatial dimensions plus the dimension of time has deeply profound philosophical and religious implications when taken literally.
Internationally famous physicist, Richard Feynman is reputed to have retorted "Just shut up and calculate" when asked to speculate about the implications of a multi-dimensional universe. The 11D GUFT model was very good at mathematically verifying the results of particle collision experiments and as far as he was concerned that's as far as it goes!
Needless to say, this whole blog is predicated on the assertion that it is right and valid to interpret M-Theory in words. The implications are massive in terms of where we humans fit into the true picture of reality. When I was employed as a professional mathematician by the Coal Board in the UK, we created models of economic and logistical systems that fitted all the data that we knew. We then purposely interpreted the models to tell us things about those systems for which we had no hard facts. Sometimes the revelations were unexpected but they invariably proved correct in the longer term as more data became available.
I therefore have an answer for those who doubt the validity of interpreting M-Thory: "Shut up and stop being afraid of the child you have given birth to."
Before I end this post it would only be fair to point out that we don't know for sure that there are multiple physical dimensions outside of space-time. M-Theory is just a theory and there are other interpretaions that have been put forward that don't include multiple dimensions. Having said that, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is, as I write conducting experiments to try to test the theory, and according to a recent on-line news story the first tangible evidence may be discovered very soon.
My next post will be called "10 spacial dimensions: what does that mean?"
From the perspective of THIS universe, I am "The REAL" Jeff Hall :)
Further Information:
And the great man himeself, John Hagelin talks about the unified field. Today he has moved on a long way and in fact is one of the major influences for the subject of this blog.
Prepare yourself for an introduction to the leading edge of advanced mathematics! I promise I'll make it as easy to understand as I can, but don't worry if you don't follow everything. There are a couple of videos at the bottom of this post that may be of some help. The important thing is that you get to the end of this post with a realisation that all of this is for real. It's not a flight of fancy. Here goes....
Einstein's general theory of relativity beautifully describes the physics of the universe on a large scale. It is also referred-to as the theory of gravity. It describes the motions of an apple falling from a tree, the rotation of a planet around a star, a star round a galaxy and even the motion of a galaxy itself. The mathematics of geometry are used in its formulation. However, it breaks down on the small scale. For example, it can't describe the motion of an electron within an atom.
For that, we need to turn to a different theory: that of quantum mechanics. A "quantum" is the name given to the smallest unit of any physical entity that is involved in an interaction. Quantum mechanics uses (amongst other things) the mathematics of probability to describe the behaviour of sub-atomic particles and is widely regarded as the most validated branch of science. In particle accelerators such as the European Large Hadron Collider and the US Tocomac at MIT, it predicts the outcome of atom-smashing experiments to an incredible degree of accuracy.
Just as general relativity can't explain quantum interactions, quantum mechanics can't explain interactions at the cosmic scale. The two branches of scientific theory are at odds with one another and yet we know from experiments and observations that the different worlds they describe are actually part of the same universe: the one we live in.. There must therefore be a bigger, overriding theory that unifies them at all scales.
This was one of the major scientific quests of the 20th century and Einstein went to his grave without a satisfactory answer. This all changed in 1985 when theoretical physicist John Hagelin developed a revolutionary idea that finally appeared to solve the conundrum. The "Grand Unified Field Theory" as it was called (GUFT), used the vibration and rotation of one-dimensional superstrings to model the behaviour of sub-atomic particles and the four fundamental forces of physics: the nuclear strong force, the nuclear weak force, electromagnetism amd gravity. "String Theory" was thus born.
Within a few years another four, apparently different, competing 10-dimensional GUFT's were developed. Clearly the universe couldn't exist in all 5 states - or could it? In the early 1990's one of modern physics' most revered theoreticians, Professor Edward Witten put to rest the growing doubts about string theory by unifying the five unified theories into a single theory which he called "Membrane Theory".
He did this by adding yet another dimension to the model making it 11-dimensional. Each 10 dimensional GUFT could now be thought of as a different aspect of the higher dimensional model. Think of it like a 3D cube that that can cast a number of different 2D shadows on a flat surface. Each shadow is a different representation of the cube in the lower (2D) dimension. Witten subsequently became sceptical about membranes and the theory is now referred-to as just "M-Theory".
An argument soon broke out amongst those closest to string theory about how to - or even whether to - interpret M-Theory in practical terms. I will discuss the concepts and meaning of dimensions in detail in my next post but, for now, suffice it to say that another SEVEN dimensions beyond the familiar three spatial dimensions plus the dimension of time has deeply profound philosophical and religious implications when taken literally.
Internationally famous physicist, Richard Feynman is reputed to have retorted "Just shut up and calculate" when asked to speculate about the implications of a multi-dimensional universe. The 11D GUFT model was very good at mathematically verifying the results of particle collision experiments and as far as he was concerned that's as far as it goes!
Needless to say, this whole blog is predicated on the assertion that it is right and valid to interpret M-Theory in words. The implications are massive in terms of where we humans fit into the true picture of reality. When I was employed as a professional mathematician by the Coal Board in the UK, we created models of economic and logistical systems that fitted all the data that we knew. We then purposely interpreted the models to tell us things about those systems for which we had no hard facts. Sometimes the revelations were unexpected but they invariably proved correct in the longer term as more data became available.
I therefore have an answer for those who doubt the validity of interpreting M-Thory: "Shut up and stop being afraid of the child you have given birth to."
Before I end this post it would only be fair to point out that we don't know for sure that there are multiple physical dimensions outside of space-time. M-Theory is just a theory and there are other interpretaions that have been put forward that don't include multiple dimensions. Having said that, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is, as I write conducting experiments to try to test the theory, and according to a recent on-line news story the first tangible evidence may be discovered very soon.
My next post will be called "10 spacial dimensions: what does that mean?"
From the perspective of THIS universe, I am "The REAL" Jeff Hall :)
Further Information:
The Elegant Universe - Einstein's Relativity
Here is a 7 minute clip about Einstien's theory of relativity
Discovery of The Unified Field
And the great man himeself, John Hagelin talks about the unified field. Today he has moved on a long way and in fact is one of the major influences for the subject of this blog.Friday, 19 November 2010
About This Blog and its Author
My name is Jeff Hall and this is my new "existential philosophy" blog. I've summarised my background in my biog opposite.
I also publish an Alexander Technique blog and you can follow ne on Twitter @TheRealJeffHall.
In this this blog I want to discuss some ideas about the nature of physical reality and of consciousness. The latest thinking in physics, string theory, suggests that the universe is stranger than our wildest imaginings. Instead of just three spatial dimensions, there are more: another SEVEN more! This raises a number of interesting questions:
To try to answer some of these questions, I will be linking to other resources including videos which you can also view on my YouTube "favourites" at TheRealJeffHall.
Although my interest in this subject began in 1988, it wasn't until 1996 that I started to bore the pants off my friends by talking about multiple dimensions. By 1998 I had started to write a book about the subject but at that time my understanding was increasing faster than my ability to write about it. I had another couple of attempts in the next 10 years but I never seemed to get enough time to complete the project. That's why I decided that a blog was the best way to publish.
At the time that I started, there weren't many online resources discussing real world interpretations of string theory but today there are numerous! I intend to pick a path through them pointing out the things that interest me most. One of particular note in the field of discussing the interpretation of string theory is a blog published by Canadian philosopher and musician Rob Bryanton, author of "Imagining the 10th Dimension" and "O is for Omniverse".
More about this later, but my contribution to this area of philosophy is in using string theory to get a new perspective on consciousness. I believe that consciousness is a field similar to the electromagnetic spectrum. We humans are tuned-in to a narrow band of the spectrum of consciousness, just as we are only tuned to a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum - light.
I think this idea of a spectrum of consciousness is new. Well, I have been researching this field of knowledge for over 20 years and I haven't seen it anywhere else - yet! So, if someone else claims to have come-up with it first then I came to the same conclusion by independent means.
To persuade you that this isn't just a personal flight of fancy and as a starting point take a look at this YouTube clip "Who lives in the eleventh dimension? - Parallel Universes - BBC science" (apologies if an advert appears at the front end of the clip!)
In my next post I want to explain how string theory came about and why it is taken so seriously despite the fact that we don't yet have any firm evidence that it is true.
From the perspective of THIS universe, I am "The REAL" Jeff Hall :)
I also publish an Alexander Technique blog and you can follow ne on Twitter @TheRealJeffHall.
In this this blog I want to discuss some ideas about the nature of physical reality and of consciousness. The latest thinking in physics, string theory, suggests that the universe is stranger than our wildest imaginings. Instead of just three spatial dimensions, there are more: another SEVEN more! This raises a number of interesting questions:
- How can we interpret the meaning of string theory?
- Do these extra dimensions actually exist in any sense that the human mind could grasp?
- Is human consciousness located in these extra dimensions?
- Could this be the first scientific confirmation that a spirit world exists?
- Have we finally defined God mathematically?
- Are there any clues from esoteric and spiritual writings that confirm the scientific theory from the other side?
To try to answer some of these questions, I will be linking to other resources including videos which you can also view on my YouTube "favourites" at TheRealJeffHall.
Although my interest in this subject began in 1988, it wasn't until 1996 that I started to bore the pants off my friends by talking about multiple dimensions. By 1998 I had started to write a book about the subject but at that time my understanding was increasing faster than my ability to write about it. I had another couple of attempts in the next 10 years but I never seemed to get enough time to complete the project. That's why I decided that a blog was the best way to publish.
At the time that I started, there weren't many online resources discussing real world interpretations of string theory but today there are numerous! I intend to pick a path through them pointing out the things that interest me most. One of particular note in the field of discussing the interpretation of string theory is a blog published by Canadian philosopher and musician Rob Bryanton, author of "Imagining the 10th Dimension" and "O is for Omniverse".
More about this later, but my contribution to this area of philosophy is in using string theory to get a new perspective on consciousness. I believe that consciousness is a field similar to the electromagnetic spectrum. We humans are tuned-in to a narrow band of the spectrum of consciousness, just as we are only tuned to a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum - light.
I think this idea of a spectrum of consciousness is new. Well, I have been researching this field of knowledge for over 20 years and I haven't seen it anywhere else - yet! So, if someone else claims to have come-up with it first then I came to the same conclusion by independent means.
To persuade you that this isn't just a personal flight of fancy and as a starting point take a look at this YouTube clip "Who lives in the eleventh dimension? - Parallel Universes - BBC science" (apologies if an advert appears at the front end of the clip!)
In my next post I want to explain how string theory came about and why it is taken so seriously despite the fact that we don't yet have any firm evidence that it is true.
From the perspective of THIS universe, I am "The REAL" Jeff Hall :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
