String theory and mind/body dualism

During my last manic attack I was thinking mainly about cosmology. One idea that I had which still seems compelling is a parallel between cosmology and mind/body dualism. We think of the cosmos as being two things: matter and immaterial dimensions. These seem utterly distinct. Yet in the twentieth century the discovery was made that matter has an effect on dimensions: it can make space/time bend. How is it possible for something material to have an effect on something totally immaterial?

One way is to say that space/time is a kind of material. I suspect that when people first learn of the bending of space/time, this is what they think. Nevertheless, physicists tell us that we are to in no way consider space/time a type of material.

All of this parallels mind/body dualism. The mind is an apparently immaterial entity that "bends" the body this way and that. When we look out into the cosmos we see matter, an apparently material thing that "bends" immaterial space/time this way and that. This is not as trivial as it may seem: scientists after all are people consisting of mind and body, and when they look out into the cosmos, they see something which is the mirror image of the human mind/body experience.

Perhaps physics could take a cue from the current state of philosophy. Most philosophers today believe that the mind is a type of body, perhaps identifiable with the brain; although as of yet no one has quite figured out how this works. If dimension/material dualism parallels this very plausible resolution of mind/body dualism, then perhaps we should consider that matter could be a type of dimension, even though no one has quite figured out how yet.

I do believe that physics is moving in this direction in the form of string theory. String theory postulates that massive particles are "vibrated" into existence by innumerable strings, each vibrating at a distinct frequency. These strings are believed to exist within microdimensions: dimensions so small that we are not aware of them. Personally, I believe that string theorists are "seeing" matter as dimensions. I believe that perhaps instead of zillions of tiny strings there exists only one, which is a two dimensional string. These two dimensions are closed and open, keeping with string theory's notion of closed and open strings. Instead of multiple strings vibrating at distinct frequencies, this gigantic string vibrate at different overtones, similarly to how a guitar string vibrates.

How can a string be closed and open at the same time? Well, of course, "closed" and "open" are just handy visualizations. If the string is two dimensional, it can have "closedness" and "openness" at the same time in the same way that two dimensional space can have height and width at the same time.

I like this idea because it has a certain balance to it: three dimensional space, two dimensional string, and one dimensional time. This metaphysical satisfaction makes the whole theory scientifically suspect, I suppose. Nevertheless I've had some fun working it all out.

[0 Comments]

The news of the hour

So I've begun to play chess again. I've joined an online community called gameknot and have completed four games. What I have found is that chess sharpens my thinking skills and that this sharpening helps in other areas as well: for example in cosmology and religion.

The other thing that I have found is that my confidence in my thinking is much less than I thought it would be. I have been playing three games at once, and at times find that overwhelming. Three seems to be the right number- currently I have two games going on and things seem boring. Part of this may be that my particular opponents are not moving very frequently.

The previous cosmological ideas posted on this blog were not very coherent and mainly the outcome of a manic attack. My medication must be working, because, first of all, I recognized the attack as such and, secondly, the attack did not appear to be as severe as previous attacks.

Most interesting game so far:

1. d4 Nf6 2. g3 c5 3. dxc5 e6 4. Bg2 Bxc5 5. Nf3 d5
6. O-O O-O 7. Bg5 h6 8. Bxf6 Qxf6 9. c3 Nc6 10. e3?!

(10. Nbd2 e5 11. e4 d4 12. Nb3 works better)

11. Nbd2 e5 12. Qb1 Be6 13. Rd1 e4 14. Ne1 Ne5 15. Nb3 Bb6
16. Nc2 h5 17. Ncd4 h4 18. Nxe6 fxe6 19. Nd2 Ng4 20. Rf1 hxg3
21. fxg3 Qh6 22. h4 Qxe3+ 23. Kh1 Qxg3 24. Rf8+ Rdxf8 0-1



Prettier would have been:

22. h3 Qxe3+ 23. Kh1 Qxg3! 24. h3Xg4 Qh4+ 25. Bh3 Qxh3#


[0 Comments]

American Recorder Society, Columbus Ohio

A short time ago I made the decision not to use this blog for personal info anymore, especially my feelings. I tend to be emotionally stunted and it shows in my writings about personal stuff.

Nevertheless last few entries were pretty incoherent despite having nothing to do about personal stuff. I was in the midst of a manic attack, during which I feel I have these brilliant ideas that will change the world. I still feel my ideas are somewhat noteworthy, but as I keep researching I realize how little I know about the world of physics. Therefore it will take a lot more research and thought to fully develop my ideas. Perhaps I will never have the time.

Meanwhile I'm trying to find ways to connect to other people. Church has been my way of doing this for, oh, thirty years now. I still go to an occasional church event, which is interesting now that I consider myself an "outsider." Your perspective changes, especially on seeing church as more of a social outlet than a religious one. I've joined a virtual chess club with the intention of eventually meeting real people to play chess again. Cafe Kerouac, just south of Clintonville where I live, has real live people playing real live chess every once in a while, if I am not mistaken.

I was also given the name of a member of The Early Interval, a performing group here in town that just celebrated their thirtieth anniversary. I contacted him hoping to find a nearby chapter of The American Recorder Society. I played in one here in Columbus in my high school years, and I was dissapointed to find that it has since disbanded. My hope is that a new one can still be formed, but in the meantime I'm just looking for folks to get together with and jam. (Well, not actually "jam," as that implies improvisation, but to play with anyway.)

So part the purpose of this blog is to create a page that perhaps people with similar interests will find on a google search:

American Recorder Society, Columbus Ohio

Big Bang/Big Bust

After reading more about gravity on the 'net, my initial reaction was one of disappointment. My explanation of how gravitons work doesn't fit observations made about gravity. But as I thought about it, I cheered up. Gravity is too complicated to be described totally in terms of the hypothetical gravitons I have envisioned.

So for now, I'm still holding on to my theory, and I thought of a visualization that would make it clearer. Imagine that at the time of "our" big bang, there was another universe consisting of a ring of a nearly infinite number of particles far distant from our universe. As our universe expands, this "ring" universe contracts in the exact rhythm of our expansion. As the ring contracts, particles must pop out of existence to maintain the shape of the ring. Eventually, our ever more quickly expanding universe will slam into the ever more contracting ring universe, which by now consists of only one ring. At this time, our universe shatters into a near infinitude of micro universes which fuse with this ring. Of course, this visualization isn't totally accurate: the "ring" actually exists neither inside nor outside our universe, since it's spacial dimension(s) are negative.

Gravitons exist of three main components. There is the negative mass component, which is responsible for virtual particles. There is the negative energy component which is responsible for dark energy. And there is the negative time/space component, which is responsible for the hypothetical graviton that everybody is so anxious to find evidence of.

In my model, the expansion of our space is caused neither by dark energy nor by an undiscovered particle called the inflaton. It is caused by the continual conversion of time into space. The common sense idea that "time is running out" is, ironically, the correct one. Thus in our universe space is moving positively (expanding) while time is moving negatively (contracting). The relationship between space and time should be able to be defined by an equation such as this:

S=1/T

where S is space and T is time. Likely there is some constant that needs to be added to this equation. The state of our universe started with T being a very large value and the end will come when T reaches 0 with the shattering of our universe.

Maybe a good name for this model is the Big Bang/Big Bust.

[0 Comments]

The dual universe theory

Well, now I've discarded the theory of my last blog in favor of another one.

Gravitons have long been postulated as a particle which "somehow" causes gravity. I suggest that gravitons are the remnants of a negative universe which has experienced a Big Rip. Everything about them is negative from our universe: they have negative space/time and negative mass/energy.

At the time of our universe's (the positive universe's) big bang, there were an enormous amount, yet finite number, of gravitons. There was plenty of "room" for them, because their spacial dimensions are all negative. Of course, "room" is not quite the right word. Because their dimensions are negative, they can't really be said to be "in" our universe.

Gravitons cause gravity because their space is contracting instead of expanding. On the local level this causes the space in our universe between two masses to contract in opposition to the general tendency of our universe's space to expand. As gravity causes the space between objects to become less and less, there is "room" for more and more gravitons because their dimensions are negative. This accounts for the increased power of gravity as objects move closer and closer to each other. It also explains why there is time dilation in a gravitational field as the negative time of gravitons affects our time.

Since fewer and fewer gravitons will "fit" in expanding space, they are constantly being destroyed. Finally our universe will reach a point where only one graviton is left. At this point our universe will progressively split until it becomes the maximum possible number of universes. This is the Big Rip. These multiple universes will "fuel" the Big Bang in the negative universe by becoming the gravitons in that universe.

Thus there are really two universes: a positive one and a negative one.

[0 Comments]

The Big Switch Theory

It seems to me that one of the strongest arguments for Intelligent Design is that the Universe seems finely tuned to support life- at least life as we know it. The main counter argument to this is that although the universe may appear to be finely tuned for life, it is just as possible that life is finely tuned to the universe. Although this counter argument may sway you, it must be admitted that there is no more evidence for one point of view than the other.

Recognizing this, many naturalists have proposed the possibility of a multi-verse, some system of multiple universes. In such a system multiple universes may co-exist, some number of which may support life but many of which may not. This would diffuse the Finely Tuned argument somewhat.

The problem with this is- where's the evidence?

At the moment there seem to be only theories about how multiverses could come about. I have one that as far as I know hasn't been articulated.

Currently it is believed that the universe started with a "big bang" in which all matter and space/time came into existence simultaneosly. (One question that arises: "What did the universe look like before the big bang?" I'll get to this). Since that time, scientists have observed that the universe seems to be expanding at an exponential rate.

Einstein postulated that, ironically, the speed of light is constant for all observers. Scientists seem to have confirmed this, although there seems to be a little wiggle play for this: under certain conditions it seems that this speed might vary slightly. Einstein also postulated, counterintuitively, that as an object moves faster, time slows down. This has been verified by putting highly sensitive clocks on airplanes, flying them a given distance, and comparing these clocks to highly sensitive clocks that remain on the ground. Given this, it seems obvious to me why nothing can move faster than the speed of light. At this point, time has slowed down to the point that it must move backwards.

So what I'm wondering is: what happens when the expansion of space speeds up to the point where the expansion rate reaches the speed of light and passes it?

One possibility will be that time will make a "switch" and instead of running forward will move backward. Space might also switch its expansion and begin to compress.

If this seems ridiculous consider an alternate theory:

Rather recently we have discovered that matter and energy, which seem totally different from each other, can be converted according to Einstein's famous formula E=MC2. Everyone knows this because it is the explanation for the huge amount of energy that an atomic bomb can generate. This idea is called mass-energy equivalence.

If this is true, why can there not also be a time-space equivalence, by which time can be converted to space, and visa-versa? Rather than time running backwards, I would suggest that at the point of the "switch" in the above example, time converts to space and space converts to time. This would be a cataclysm on the order of the big bang. What would such a cataclysm look like?

At the point of the cataclysm, space has reached a maximal point. It is as big as it can possibly get, yet is still finite. At this point it converts to time which, at the point of the cataclysm, is as big as it can possibly get, but still finite. So what happens to time when it converts to space? Since we have reached what could be called "the end of the universe" time has become as short as it can possibly be. When it converts to space, this "shortness" becomes converted to "smallness." We have a "new universe" with maximally large time and minimally small space. In other words, another big bang.

In this scenario, questions such as "what happened before the big bang?" and "when was the universe created?" are meaningless, because the words "before" and "when" misunderstand the nature of time. Such questions are analagous to the question "what does the world rest on?" This question, which so puzzled the ancients, misunderstands another fundamental property of the physical world, in this case the nature of gravity.

So what happens to all that matter when time and space make the switch?

The Heat Death theory is a possible final state of the universe, in which it has "run down" to a state of no thermodynamic free energy to sustain motion or life. The Big Rip is a theory about the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of the universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, is progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. (I got these definitions from wikipedia)

If we combine these two theories, we have a state in which all matter in the universe is maximally cold and maximally thin. At the time of the big bang, scientists postulate a situation in which all matter is maximally hot and maximally dense. This looks like a switch that is on the order of the time/space switch I have postulated. I would suggest that at the "time" of the next big bang, the universe makes a Big Switch. This "new" universe looks like the "old" one in that it "starts" with a big bang.

I call this theory the Big Switch.

===

After writing all this, I looked on the internet to try to find out if anybody else had the same idea. I quickly found out that I don't nearly know enough about physics to even be able to tell very often what real physicists are talking about when they get into their technical jargon. I did find an interesting page by an honest to God physicist that talks about the conversion of space to time: so at least I'm not off the mark on that point.

On the other hand, there is a definite problem with the idea that the rate of the expansion of the universe can be tied to the speed of light. I realize that I have visualized this expansion as though there were a "wall" on the edge of space- and this is not a proper way to visualize things. Nevertheless I can't help but visualizing a situation of a finite time shrinking while a finite space is expanding as inevitably leading to a cosmic catastrophe of some sort.

The physics page describes the conversion of space to time in this way:

Examined at the microscopic level of quantum mechanics, the conversion of space to time involves the simple "switch" of implicit time to explicit time, the switch of the "wavelength" or spatial component of the electromagnetic wave to the "frequency" or temporal component of the wave.

I found it interesting that the word "switch" was used here- of course, not in the sense of a Big Switch that I have postulated.

At any rate I continue to find the latest theories of physics interesting and will continue to read...

[0 Comments]