Zero-point field

[Stillwater]

I have read (and heard) recently some commentary upon the idea that the famed zero-point field of modern quantum mechanics, from which the entire universe supposedly emerged, as ice from an ocean, may actually be one and the same with the famed Akasha. There is ample reading to be found from both a metaphysical and physics-based perspective, and I have also accessed an interview on Streiber's Dreamland webstie dealing with this topic.

I was wondering what others thought about this connection- are there any physics majors out there willing to step into the pool? (lol)

There has always been a clear distinction between the world of science, which has always attempted to find a cold and impersonal view of the workings of the universe, and the perspective of relegion which has, if a little naively, always accepted the idea of divine inspiration...
It would simply be wonderful if we were somehow now finally wandering, with all our telescopes and radio-waves, into the palm of God.

Stillwater

[Telos]

... the world of science, which has always attempted to find a cold and impersonal view of the workings of the universe

That's not true! :/ I don't think any scientist every underwent his or her work without expecting it to be deeply satisfying. I think you're mistaking "cold and impersonal" for "objective and verifiable." And that can be quite warm and personally sublime.

Richard Feynman once said that he could have always simply enjoyed the smell of a flower, but he never would've enjoyed it as much as he did knowing the precise mathematical laws that governed the experience.

And shouldn't the Divine ideally be objective and verifiable?

Sorry to make an example out of you, Stillwater, lol. But quantum mechanics is not uniting spirituality with science. We must realize they were never separate in the first place.

[Stillwater]

But quantum mechanics is not uniting spirituality with science. We must realize they were never separate in the first place.

Maybe this is so, but there is no line of reasoning to take us there...

It is my belief, and perhaps yours, that a greater level of organization exists beyond the simple and random organization of particles in space, and there is slightly more than a series of chemical syncrhonicities behind the formation of what may be called consciousness, but going about proving such things is a tall order.

Indeed, some scientists may have ideologies about the divine which their studies may or may not have prompted, but the better part of science is concerned, as you say, with the objective and verfiable, and beyond a small set of hotly contested phenomena, there is no real agreement in the scientific community that divine action is necessary to explain any natural occurence.

The idea of near death experiences where the patient is brain-dead, and without any EEG readings whatsoever, yet forms detailed memories of what occured in their operation, complete with information that could only be obtained from a third perspective, is more than mildly suggestive of consciousness beyond the monistic body-dependence of psychology, although what I believe is not the only explanation.

I am torn, as I must say I agree with you, in what I understand you to intend, yet I cannot agree with the logic you utilize.

You are more than free to correct me, and point out the any error I have just made; I harbor no ill will.

Thank you,
Stillwater[/quote]

[Telos]

Maybe this is so, but there is no line of reasoning to take us there...

Not one that we have found. We haven't exhausted all lines of reasoning, have we?

It is my belief, and perhaps yours, that a greater level of organization exists beyond the simple and random organization of particles in space, and there is slightly more than a series of chemical syncrhonicities behind the formation of what may be called consciousness

Definitely. I'm currently reading two science books, each on those very subjects. The first is The Fabric of the Cosmos and is on the organization of space itself, and the second is Road to Reality which delves into the mathematical bases for quantum consciousness.

I'm ready to question that everything in these two books is wrong, but they point to ideas that not only seem similar to spirituality but seem to stretch far beyond it.

but going about proving such things is a tall order.

Truly, it is the work of a god. No... a community of gods.

And demonstrating them is an even taller order. Do we have the strength and courage to face such a challenge?

Are we able to let go of a spirituality that limits us?

Indeed, some scientists may have ideologies about the divine which their studies may or may not have prompted, but the better part of science is concerned, as you say, with the objective and verfiable, and beyond a small set of hotly contested phenomena, there is no real agreement in the scientific community that divine action is necessary to explain any natural occurence.

There is disagreement in the scientific community about a lot of things. Some scientists don't think there was a big bang, others don't accept the existence of black holes, and even others disagree on some of the findings in general relativity.

Thankfully, that disagreement is never permanent. Impermanent disagreement breeds discussion, and discussion breeds understanding, and understanding breeds growth and creation. We should not be afraid.

I am sad because I do not see the Pope and the Dali Llama talk very much, nor do I see the Pope talking to Muslim leaders. Instead they evangelize their own message, uninterested in (or afraid of?) objective and verifiable growth.

The idea of near death experiences where the patient is brain-dead, and without any EEG readings whatsoever, yet forms detailed memories of what occured in their operation, complete with information that could only be obtained from a third perspective, is more than mildly suggestive of consciousness beyond the monistic body-dependence of psychology, although what I believe is not the only explanation.

Yes, I agree... psychology is due for some serious re-identification. That's why I think we must trust in the power of our experience, the energy that provides us with our knowledge, to eliminate such a useless model.

By the way, it seems like there is more disagreement within psychology than there is in any other field of science, except perhaps economics. The "social sciences" are due for a revolution that can only be offered by the impeccable knowledge and experience of OBE practitioners.

I am torn, as I must say I agree with you, in what I understand you to intend, yet I cannot agree with the logic you utilize.

Then I will try to reduce it to a simple syllogism.

• We are powerful and great beings.
• Objectively demonstrating and verifying great power can only be done by powerful and great beings.
-------------------
• We can objectively demonstrate and verify great power.


I'm sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your original question...

I have read (and heard) recently some commentary upon the idea that the famed zero-point field of modern quantum mechanics, from which the entire universe supposedly emerged, as ice from an ocean, may actually be one and the same with the famed Akasha.

The zero-point field is often referred to as "quantum foam" and is a very jumpy, active, and seemingly chaotic place where particles pop in and out of existence. The Standard Model says that this is not from what the entire universe emerged from (as in started from - that was a singularity), but what was present in the moments after the big bang.

It is also hypothesized that zero-point energy is what causes "dark energy," and accelerating expansion of the universe. But no one knows how.

I have been trying to find more specific explanations, but the topic seems enmeshed in a lot of generalization. And mystery!

If the Akasha is the repository for all information about the universe, I'm not sure it is in or "behind" the quantum foam... as the foam is very messy!

You are more than free to correct me, and point out the any error I have just made; I harbor no ill will.

I harbor no ill will either, and please always feel free to correct me as well.

[Telos]

This was just published on Saturday, about the relationship between the quantum foam and the holographic theory.

Spacetime foam, also known as quantum foam, has its origin in quantum fluctuations of spacetime. Arguably it is the source of the holographic principle, which severely limits how densely information can be packed in space. Its physics is also intimately linked to that of black holes and computation. In particular, the same underlying physics is shown to govern the computational power of black hole quantum computers.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403057

[Rob]

With respect to the zero-point, if you want a techy engineering style book on the subject I highly recommend "Quest for Zero-Point Energy" by Moray B. King. Also, if you folks are students, and heavily interested in over-unity devices, I would nudge you into checking the "student discount" area on Tom Beardens new book err "Energy from the Vacuum" I think its called (check his website for details).
Telos - while there is a lot of disagreement in the scientific community, there is still a majority view in virtually all cases. That is, scientists do act as a large community and its relatively rare to see the fundamental tenants of heir faith questioned from within that community. I would recomment looking into work done by Kuhn on the structure of scientific revolutions (fantastically I was actually taught about his stuff on my course! I was very impressed). You mentioned Big Bang - well most scientists do believe in it, even though (from what I've seen) red shift has been shown to have nothing to do with distance eg binary star systems where one star appears to exhibit large red shift while the other doesn't, etc etc. Science is much more conservative and stiff than most people think. Or perhaps its just that the flows of information make it seem that way? Both, to an extent, I think.

IMO we will see ZPE generators on the market within the next 15 years. Licking my lips I canne'wait! Yummy.



Rob

[Stillwater]

interesting:

You say that the red-shift is no longer evidence of expansion? Or is it simply that red-shift cannot tell us accurately about velocity? This is intriguing to me, as I have only had general physics course thus far, and have only read a few sparse selections on the matter...

As I understood the red-shift, it was the distance in the light spectrum of a star which the absorption spectra of hydrogen and helium were pushed to the left, and this wavelength translation could accurately tell us how quickly the stellar object was moving away from us- how have they refuted this recently, as this is what I belief you have said? I put forth this question in full earnest, as I honestly have not heard this bit, although I may be behind the times, lol

Thank you,
Stillwater

[Rob]

Indeed yes! The red shift, well the best analogy I've heard is if a train is speeding past you the pitch will change, due to compression of sound waves coming toward and expansion going away due to the relative effect of the trains velocity adding or subtracting from the speed of sound. Frankly though I'm beginning to have doubts even about the fundamental physics of red shift, ie if its possible at all. Its a difficult question, and very much depends on which model decide to use for the propogation of light. Typically, we talk about this in relativistic, lorentz invariant terms, but there are other models which take into account the source of light as well as the observer. What that would do to red shift....?

Behind the times? Naa!! I only heard about this a year or so ago, but the most suprising thing is that the most meticulous research disproving red shift was done years ago - 20-30 I think. I cant remember the researchers name - you might be able to find it through google or whatever.

You say that the red-shift is no longer evidence of expansion? Or is it simply that red-shift cannot tell us accurately about velocity?

Well the latter leads to the former, doesnt it? But just a teeny tiny correction to what you said - it is, of course, relative velocity not velocity   (aaah I'm so pedantic!!!  )

laterz

[Stillwater]

it is, of course, relative velocity not velocity

lol!

Yes, I suppose you are entirely right upon this point, however when we judge velocity, I suppose it must invariably be from a reference frame, rather than from absolute, concrete measurements, as we all know it is impossible to determine the location of the point any dust particle occupied ten seconds ago, as although we may semi-accurately determine the velocities of planets, stars, and galaxies within the domain and relative to the universe, we cannot determine the velocity of the universe, or the expansion or contractions of time-space (even Hawkings makes this allowance, after-all!).

But I must re-iterate, in that I really am intrigued as to what led you to this interesting idea; I suppose singular examples such as the binary star system  can be questioned with the proposition of a revolution about the some changing axis between them, where although the rotational motion toward us by one of the stars is greater than the total translational motion away from us, it is cyclical, and only the translational motion has relevance as to the speed at which the binary system moves away from us. What arguments have you found to discount red-shift?

I appreciate your insight, and feel you have a firm grasp of your concepts.

Thank you,
Stillwater

[Rob]

Hey!!

But I must re-iterate, in that I really am intrigued as to what led you to this interesting idea;

Well, first I heard an interview on unknown country with a physicist elucidating these point, which made me sit bolt upright with a "wha?!!?" (first I find out evolution is full of holes and now red shift!! What next eh? Can I trust anything I was taught in school???!! lol!). Then I did a little bit of my own research which seemed to confirm that yes, red shift was in trouble. I actually just did another look for info on this topic, this is a fascinating article:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
The quantisation phenomenon is obviously a huge blow for expansion universe theory proved by red shift.
.....but to more fully answer your question I suppose I am also quite bias against the majority view!!!  

I suppose singular examples such as the binary star system can be questioned with the proposition of a revolution about the some changing axis between them, where although the rotational motion toward us by one of the stars is greater than the total translational motion away from us, it is cyclical, and only the translational motion has relevance as to the speed at which the binary system moves away from us.

Hhhm I am not sure I fully understand you here, so forgive me if I dont hit the mark. Only the immediate relative velocities count, that being the addition of total binary system velocity and rotational velocities. Oops I think I forgot to mention that the one of the stars observed in the binary systems was a quasar (err from memory anyway!). Quasars are very powerful stars which exhibit huge redshift, hence by conventional theory they should be on the edge of the universe, a creation of certain big bang conditions. However, if a quasar is in a binary system with a star that exhibits much less red shift, then the rotational speed of the system would have to be unfeasibly high to cancel the total velocity for the un-red shifted star, and allow red shift to be valid. Further, quasars are to the best of my knowledge the most red shifted of all stars - but if what I think you are suggesting is correct then we would also see the opposite of one star being not redshifted, that is, binary systems with quasars in and the other star having an additional red shift the same but above the difference in red-shift from the system we were just considering, which i am sure is not the case (make sense???). That is, instead of having a quasar and a little-redshifted star together with shift difference, say, -x, we would see a quasar and another star with red shift +x over the shift of the quasar.
Also, quasars have been found at the center of galaxies exhibiting very little red shift (cant be on the other side of said galaxy - think gravitational lensing, it would be blatent...)
There's more, but I think that should suffice! btw the research I mentioned that was done in the 70's and started this whole questioning of fundamentals was by "William G. Tifft", just found him again   .

Yes, I suppose you are entirely right upon this point, however when we judge velocity, I suppose it must invariably be from a reference frame, rather than from absolute, concrete measurements

Ahhh yes, indeed velocity is a vector quantity already so it cannot be anything other than relative (doh!)(unlike speed which is scalar and therefore, as I think you are pointing out, a very human concept).

we cannot determine the velocity of the universe

You might want to review this sentence!!!  The definition of the word "universe" is important

or the expansion or contractions of time-space (even Hawkings makes this allowance, after-all!)

Me no understaaaaand!! Space-time is the very basis of measurement, surely? That is, if a 1m length of space time expanded, it would still be 1m, and so the very concept of "expansion" becomes invalid.....?!

I appreciate your insight, and feel you have a firm grasp of your concepts.

Anytime - I appreciate being able to discuss it!! But to be perfectly honest, thinking about the physics of red shift does make my head hurt a bit!!    

cheers

Rob

[Stillwater]

You might want to review this sentence!!! The definition of the word "universe" is important  

hmmm......

Not all that sure what you mean here, I would love an elaboration.



The article you suggested was extremely intriguing, although part of it went over my head, lol; the idea that red-shift differences across galaxies and pairs of galaxies should occur in discrete quanta is more than a little peculiar, and I have no idea how I would explain it....

Thank you,
Stillwater

[Rob]

Not all that sure what you mean here, I would love an elaboration.

By definition the universe is the only possible plane of reference to measure any absolute velocity.....

Rob