BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> well well well.... just look at what i found here
Trip like I do
post Jul 04, 2012, 03:38 PM
Post #1


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5156
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
From: Earth^2
Member No.: 3202



god

.... it looks to me that we are at a branching point: the observation of this new particle indicates the path for the future towards a more detailed understanding of what we’re seeing....
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jakare
post Jul 04, 2012, 04:41 PM
Post #2


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 589
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Member No.: 32635



Good lord! Without such particle one could easely think of this reality as a simulation.
Not that we can rule out the simulation theory yet but it seems less likely now.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
aethor
post Jul 05, 2012, 02:49 AM
Post #3


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Feb 16, 2010
Member No.: 32629



Why?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KoolK3n
post Jul 05, 2012, 07:32 AM
Post #4


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 455
Joined: Aug 20, 2011
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 33523



QUOTE(Jakare @ Jul 04, 2012, 07:41 PM) *

Good lord! Without such particle one could easely think of this reality as a simulation.
Not that we can rule out the simulation theory yet but it seems less likely now.


Sorry but could you elaborate? My knowledge of physics is severely lacking.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Trip like I do
post Jul 05, 2012, 06:41 PM
Post #5


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5156
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
From: Earth^2
Member No.: 3202



QUOTE(KoolK3n @ Jul 05, 2012, 11:32 AM) *

QUOTE(Jakare @ Jul 04, 2012, 07:41 PM) *

Good lord! Without such particle one could easely think of this reality as a simulation.
Not that we can rule out the simulation theory yet but it seems less likely now.


Sorry but could you elaborate? My knowledge of physics is severely lacking.

really? you could not fathom a guess as to why that would be?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Trip like I do
post Jul 05, 2012, 06:42 PM
Post #6


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5156
Joined: Aug 11, 2004
From: Earth^2
Member No.: 3202



timeline of the higgs

It's turned into science's worst-kept secret. Tomorrow, physicists at CERN near Geneva in Switzerland are expected to announce the discovery of the Higgs boson, the culmination of a 50-year quest to find the elusive particle that gives others their mass. Here's how they got there.

1964

Peter Higgs is the first to explicitly predict the particle that would eventually acquire his name in October, but other physicists can also lay claim to the idea of a mass-generating boson. In August, Robert Brout and François Englert independently detail how the mass-generation mechanism could work. Another group – Dick Hagen, Gerald Guralnik and Tom Kibble – also produce similar ideas independently, publishing shortly after Higgs in November.

Identifying exactly who came up with the Higgs could be problematic for the Nobel committee, as the prize can only be shared between a maximum of three people.

1995

Even without the discovery of the Higgs boson we still have evidence for the Higgs mechanism, as it allowed the Standard Model to make a number of successful predictions, including the discovery of the heaviest known particle, the top quark. In 1995, CERN's Chicago rival, Fermilab, finds the top quark using its Tevatron particle accelerator at around 176 gigaelectronvolts (GeV) – just as predicted.

2001

Before the Large Hadron Collider, CERN had the Large Electron-Positron (LEP) Collider, which spent five years looking for a Higgs with a mass of around 80 GeV before closing in 2000. Conclusive analysis the following year rules out a Higgs with a mass below 115 GeV.

2004

During a gap between the closure of the LEP and the switch-on of the LHC, Chicago was the most likely place to find the Higgs. Data from the Tevatron places the Higgs above 117 GeV, just above LEP's reach, with an upper limit of 251 GeV.

2007

The LHC is capable of colliding particles at higher energies than any previous accelerator, so experiments pointing to a lighter Higgs increased the Tevatron's chances of discovery. With pressure from CERN mounting, Fermilab reduces the upper limit to 153 GeV.

2008

One billion people watch as proton beams circulate the Large Hadron Collider for the first time, amid unfounded fears that it could produce a world-destroying black hole. The Higgs hunt is back on at CERN, but only briefly, as a gas leak shuts the accelerator down until the following year.

2009

With the LHC out of action until November, Tevatron researchers say – somewhat hopefully – that they have a 50 per cent chance of finding the Higgs by end of 2010.

2010

Physics blogs buzz with rumours of a Higgs signal at the Tevatron that ultimately prove false.

2011

April sees another round of rumours flourish after an unreviewed LHC study is leaked online, while in September the Tevatron shuts down, having failed to find the Higgs. As the year draws to a close, the LHC's ATLAS and CMS experiments both show hints of the Higgs at around 125 GeV, the first signal at nearly the same mass.

2012

In February, the LHC boosts collision energy from 7 to 8 teraelectronvolts (TeV), improving its Higgs sensitivity by 30 to 40 per cent. Then in March, data from the Tevatron's last gasp places the Higgs between 115 and 152 GeV.

4 July

This Wednesday, CERN is due to deliver an update on the search for the Higgs, and researchers are widely expected to announce its discovery. Stick with New Scientist for all the latest developments and follow @newscientist for up-to-the minute news on the biggest physics story of the decade.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jakare
post Jul 05, 2012, 10:59 PM
Post #7


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 589
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Member No.: 32635



QUOTE(aethor @ Jul 05, 2012, 11:49 AM) *

Why?


QUOTE(KoolK3n @ Jul 05, 2012, 04:32 PM) *

QUOTE(Jakare @ Jul 04, 2012, 07:41 PM) *

Good lord! Without such particle one could easely think of this reality as a simulation.
Not that we can rule out the simulation theory yet but it seems less likely now.


Sorry but could you elaborate? My knowledge of physics is severely lacking.


If you were to simulate a world, lets say in a computer, at what level of detail would you stop the design? At macromolecular level? At molecular level? At atomic level maybe? At sub-atomic level? At sub-sub-atomic level?
The lower we get on our investigation of our own reality the less probability of living in a simulation.

What will happen if the Higgs boson is never found? Matter with mass without a reason for it like gravity in a video game? Magic. "Ad hoc" properties. Simulation? But simulation from what? Chaos? God?

It is very unlikely that a random simulation in a primordial cloud of fractal processing would need to be so detailed to make sense but will see, we still have got much to learn and discover.

Anyway the source of the computer power is irrelevant as long as is a permanent one (and maybe even that isn´t really needed). It doesn´t matter if our entire universe is running on a Pentium 166MMX, we wont notice any sluggishness at all. Do you know why?

At the moment it seems like we are real, whatever that means. But why living in a simulation makes anyone less real than other who doesn´t? Aren´t both alive?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Jul 06, 2012, 06:19 AM
Post #8


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4043
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



The Conundrum of Consciousness:
Though perhaps counterintuitive, consciousness cannot be easily sidelined from scientific examination. Doctors have found a person’s state of mind can have significant effects on their body’s ability to heal itself.
While that anecdotal observation has not provided enough solid evidence to cause every doctor to prescribe meditation as a form of medicine, quantum physicists have found definitively that at the sub-atomic level, the act of observation actually affects the reality being observed. This fact became known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: one cannot observe a phenomenon without changing or affecting it.
Some physicists have wondered whether the universe in some strange sense might be brought into being by the participation of those consciousnesses that have chosen to participate. The term ‘participator’ then has become an incontrovertible new concept given by quantum mechanics. It strikes down the idea of passive observation, given by classical theory, and shows that the vital act is the act of participation. In this way, there can no longer be a scientist who stands safely behind a thick glass wall and watches what happens in an isolated manner from the observed experiment without influencing the outcome simply by observing it.
Quantum mechanics insists such isolation cannot occur.
Nobel Prize-winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli described that from within one’s inner center our psyche seems to move outward, experiencing, influencing, and even creating the physical world through the act of participation.
Thus physicists have found themselves, through the study of quantum mechanics, to be in the unanticipated field of the study of the structure of consciousness.
Christian de Quincey likened this phenomenon to being in the odd position of having to confront daily the indisputable fact of one’s own consciousness, and yet having no way of being able to explain it.
What is consciousness and where does it come from? That is a philosophical question that dates back thousands of years. We can conclude consciousness is not composed of matter. But we have only assumed thus far that matter does not possess consciousness.
We must still ask, ‘From whence then does consciousness originate?’
Greek philosopher Descartes was famous for his ability to doubt any given theory or philosophy. He could doubt what people said. He could doubt the validity of what his eyes showed him of the world. He could doubt himself; his own thoughts and feelings. He could even doubt that he was present in a physical body. But the one thing that he could not doubt was the fact that he was doubting. This revealed his one and only certainty: he was thinking. Descartes thus concluded if he was thinking, he had to be a conscious, experiencing being. As he put it in Latin, Cogito, ergo sum: I think, therefore I am.
This was and is the paradox of consciousness. Its existence is quite undeniable, and yet it remains totally inexplicable.
For the materialist meta-paradigm, consciousness is a monumental anomaly.
Religious people may claim God is the creator and the source of all creation. But physicists might say the same of consciousness.
Philosophically, the implications of quantum mechanics are mind blowing. Not only does quantum mechanics insist that we influence our reality, but also, at least to some degree, we actually create our reality.
Because quantum mechanics tells us that we can know either the momentum of a particle or its position, but not both, we are forced to choose which of these two properties we will want to determine.
Metaphysically, this is very close to saying that we will create those specific properties because we have chosen to measure them. In other words, it is possible that we can create something at a specific position, like a particle, for example, simply because we were intent on determining some thing existed at that position.
Returning to the discussion of conscious’ interpretation of the physical world, it can even be argued that our entire physical world – everything we can see, hear, taste, smell, and touch; as well as our private, inner world – every thought, feeling, fantasy, intimation, hope, and fear – is a form that consciousness has taken on for our benefit. Thus, consciousness becomes both the source and creator of everything we know.
Consider the concept of correlation. Things are not correlated in nature; they simply are. Correlation then is a concept that humans use to describe connections between objects or events that we perceive.
For example, there is no concept or word, ‘correlation,’ except as is created by people. This is because only people use words and concepts, and ‘correlation’ is a concept. Likewise, particles are also correlations. If people weren’t here to construct concepts, none would exist.
In other words, without people, or more specifically without experiencing consciousness, there wouldn’t be any particles!
This train of thought could be likened to the idea of multiple possible outcomes, or wave functions, of a photon and all realities connected to it – the detector/measuring system, the “observing”/participating technician, etc.

When one intends to follow and measure the path of an electron, the possible outcome of the wave function is unknown until a perception is made and mathematically, the wave function collapses. The scientist thus realizes where the electron hit the detector plate once he determined he wanted to make a measurement, but in the absence of that intention, the electron could have seemingly struck anywhere or indeed, nowhere. The wave function collapsed because a perception was made as intended by consciousness. Looking
outward from the photon to the detector to the technician to the supervisor, we could continue until we include the entire universe. But who is looking at the universe, or alternately, how is the universe being actualized?
To find the answer to this question, we must come full circle. All indications are that we are actualizing our universe. Since we are part of the universe, the universe must be self-actualizing. This train of thought compares closely with many aspects of Buddhism. This idea could well become one of the more important contributions of quantum physics to future models of consciousness.
Geoffrey Chew noted one important aspect of quantum theory, known as the hadron bootstrap conjecture, is the logical conclusion that the existence of consciousness, along with all other aspects of nature, is necessary for self-consistency of the whole.
In other words, consciousness (i.e. the light) creates matter, and without which nothing could exist. Consciousness can thus also transform matter and make matter what it wills.
Quantum Field Theory:
With this last statement, it should come as no surprise that some quantum physicists would take the next step and consider the idea that physical reality is essentially non-substantial, but rather a momentary manifestation generated by some underlying energy or influence. This idea is the basis of a branch of quantum physics, known as quantum field theory. Theories, of course, are unproven ideas that tend to have some measure of support, whether mathematically or experimentally, but may not have been definitively proven or accepted by the scientific community at large. Quantum field theory contends underlying and interacting fields, similar to an electro-magnetic field, permeate all of reality, and the fields’ interactions seem particle-like because fields interact both instantaneously and in very minute points of space.
This idea originated from the realization that photons are also electromagnetic waves. Since those waves are also vibrating fields, quantum physicists concluded the photons must be manifestations of electromagnetic fields. Hence they coined the idea of a ‘quantum field,’ or a field that can take on the form of particles, i.e. ‘quanta.’ This was an entirely new concept that has since been extended to describe all subatomic particles and their interactions with one another, where each type of particle corresponded with a different field. Within these quantum field theories, the classical contrasts between solid particles and the space surrounding them is overcome. A quantum field is seen as the fundamental physical entity on which physical reality is formed; a continuous medium that is present everywhere throughout space. Particles, then, become merely local condensations of the quantum field; concentrations of energy that can come and go, losing their individual character and dissolving into the underlying field in an instant.

As noted, there is significant evidence for field theory including a realization that Isaac Newton’s concept of the void of space was false. Quantum physicists determined particles were constantly being spontaneously created and annihilated in vacuums without any nucleons or other interacting particles having originally been present.
According to field theory, such should be expected to occur forever, without end, because the fields permeate all of reality – regardless of the presence of matter or a seeming void.

Another laboratory observation provides a similar oddity for field theory to consider. When an electron passes through a photographic plate, a visible ‘track’ seemingly marks its track through space. This track, under close examination, is actually a series of dots. Each dot is actually a grain of silver formed by the electron’s interaction with atoms in the photographic plate.
When the track is closely examined under a microscope, it may look something like this:
...o...................o......o..o
o.....o.o.o.....o..o......o
.............o
Because the scientist expected to see the track of the movement of an electron through the photographic plate, the scientist may assume the bubbles correspond with one and the same electron. However, this assumption would be a mistake.

Quantum physics tells us the same thing Buddhists have been saying for more than two millennia:
Connections between the dots are a product of our imaginations and are not really there. In rigorous terms, proving the moving object to be a singular particle with an independent existence is an un-provable assumption.
Quantum field theory might suggest instead that each of the bubbles was an independent manifestation of interacting fields that just happened to correspond with an anticipated track of a sub-atomic particle that had been expected by an observer, the scientist, to occur at a certain place and time.
Field theory provides a further basis for at least two other mind-blowing developments in quantum mechanics:
super-luminal connections and Bell’s theorem.
Super-luminal connections:
Super-luminal connections, known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect, have been hypothesized and mathematically proven through the realization that two sub-atomic particles may be instantaneously connected such that their rotational spin on an axis will always match their pair.
Consider if the particles were placed into two separate boxes, and then an outside influence such as an electromagnetic field were applied to one box to change the spin of that box’s particle. The particle in the other box has been experimentally proven to change immediately in response to the stimulus applied to the paired particle, despite their physical separation.
Now take that idea a step further and remove one box to an impossibly far distance. When the experiment is repeated, the instantaneous response of the particle at the farther box still occurs and thus proves that a connection between two particles has occurred faster than the speed of light.
Light has a specific speed, taking a certain amount of time to move between two fixed points, but the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect is instantaneous, regardless of distance.
This discovery in quantum physics implies telepathy or other super-luminal connections that provide for the instantaneous transfer of information may not only exist, but are indeed a part of everyday life.
Bell’s theorem proves that for quantum theory to work, it requires connections that appear to resemble telepathic communications.
The concept of Oneness:
The pioneers of quantum physics observed a strange ‘connectedness’ among quantum phenomena during their experiments in the early twentieth century.
Then in 1964, J. S. Bell, a physicist at the Switzerland-based European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) zeroed in on this strange connectedness, creating a new mathematical proof, known as Bell’s theorem. Bell’s theorem proved that if the statistical predictions of quantum theory were correct, then some of our commonsense ideas about the world were profoundly mistaken: at a deep and fundamental level, the ‘separate parts’ of the universe were connected in an intimate and immediate way.
Bell’s theorem states there is no such thing as ‘separate parts.’ In other words, everything in the universe is connected in an intimate and immediate way that was previously claimed only by mystics and other scientifically-objectionable persons.
Bell’s work found that either the statistical predictions of quantum theory or the principle of local causes (i.e. cause and effect) was false. It did not say which one was false, but only that both of them could not be true. Physicists Stapp, Clauser, and Friedman, confirmed that the statistical predictions of quantum theory were indeed correct. The startling conclusion was inescapable:
The principle of local causes must be false!
However, if the principle of local causes was false, and hence, the world was not the way it appeared to be, then one must wonder what is the ‘true nature’ of our world?

Physicist David Bohm concluded when there was no separate parts in our world, i.e. locality failed, and so the idea that events were autonomous happenings must be an illusion.
Instead, parts must be seen to have immediate, unbreakable connections, in which their dynamic relationships depend on the state of the system as a whole. Thus, one is led to a new notion of unbroken wholeness throughout the entire universe.
This denies the classical idea of the world being analyzable by its ‘separate,’ independently existent parts.

Bell’s theorem may be the most important single work in the history of physics, and has direct applicability to the connection between the hard science of quantum physics and the philosophical science of spirituality.

When one achieves the enlightened state, a common description of the spiritual experience is that of an all-pervading Unity. The concept of separation between entities no longer applies: We are all One and everything is but a manifestation of that Unity.
The Source of that manifestation seems beyond description and is at the heart of the experience itself.

The Source is simply That Which Is, or perhaps more accurately, All That Is. Everything is thus a manifestation of All That Is.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jakare
post Jul 10, 2012, 02:36 PM
Post #9


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 589
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Member No.: 32635



To be honest Joesus I thought of such possibility, a simulation designed to get more complex as the consciousnesses inside look further. It does implies aswell that there was upon a time when the Earth was truly flat and it means we are trapped and I don´t like it.


IMO the Earth hasn´t ever been flat at all. Such mind influence in matter seems to have a very specific and limited effect in sub-atomic particles and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect it is better understood if we think that both particles are actually the same one.


QUOTE
Because quantum mechanics tells us that we can know either the momentum of a particle or its position, but not both, we are forced to choose which of these two properties we will want to determine.

But that´s not creating any reality, this is choosing between two given options, momentum or position on a very local and short living phenomenom. It does remind me a lot to 'Neverending story' when Bastian finally gets to the ivory tower and has to recreate Fantasy by choosing options or doors.


Lets see how long your universe can survive:
http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

Lets hope I grow up in knowledge just enough to see a part of what you see Joesus, but in my particular way.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Jul 10, 2012, 05:31 PM
Post #10


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4043
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



QUOTE(Jakare @ Jul 10, 2012, 10:36 PM) *

To be honest Joesus I thought of such possibility, a simulation designed to get more complex as the consciousnesses inside look further. It does implies as well that there was upon a time when the Earth was truly flat and it means we are trapped and I don´t like it.

No, it doesn't imply that at all. Consciousness is much more than illusions of the ego. Being that it is not separate from all that is, No SMALL percentage of delusion influences the reality of Universal Law. Just because a person sees a snake in a piece of rope and has a heart attack, it does not mean the rope actually was a snake. It only means that the nervous system accepts the reality and as such surrenders itself to the thought.



QUOTE(Jakare @ Jul 10, 2012, 10:36 PM) *

IMO the Earth hasn´t ever been flat at all. Such mind influence in matter seems to have a very specific and limited effect in sub-atomic particles and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect it is better understood if we think that both particles are actually the same one.

I would say in terms of consciousness that each particle is created equal but has in itself a unique quality.
You could look at the universe in terms of the Micro and Macrocosm being equal to each other in that they reflect each other as having the same potential. The universe moves as a whole like your cells move with your body, yet each individual cell retains its own sense of self or conscious awareness.


QUOTE
Because quantum mechanics tells us that we can know either the momentum of a particle or its position, but not both, we are forced to choose which of these two properties we will want to determine.
QUOTE(Jakare @ Jul 10, 2012, 10:36 PM) *

But that´s not creating any reality, this is choosing between two given options, momentum or position on a very local and short living phenomenom. It does remind me a lot to 'Neverending story' when Bastian finally gets to the ivory tower and has to recreate Fantasy by choosing options or doors.

It also tells us that nothing is fixed in reality but rather fluid. Even tho we can determine ourselves as a fixed idea of personality and habits we never really stay with one single thought. We jump back and forth from thought to thought creating personal realities that are constantly changing within realities that are much more stable. As we expand our awareness into deeper realities more can be comprehended.
The idea that one has to be chosen as an observable phenomena over the other but not both only shows that there are limits to perceptions when instruments are used that have their physical limits. Consciousness itself has none.

QUOTE(Jakare @ Jul 10, 2012, 10:36 PM) *

Lets hope I grow up in knowledge just enough to see a part of what you see Joesus, but in my particular way.

No two individuals ever see exactly the same thing at the level of the ego. They can agree on certain similarities based on shared information that make sense to the patterns of recognition within each personal experience. Where one can share the experience is at an alternate level of consciousness where the individual is seen as a quality of thought and interaction but also where that cognitive interaction is seen as a quality of the One consciousness. Even here tho one does not lose the sense of individuality, its more like you gain the other perspective as part of your own as you are essentially the Consciousness which reflects itself in the many unique patters of thought.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jakare
post Jul 12, 2012, 04:36 AM
Post #11


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 589
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Member No.: 32635



All sciences have always been in a process of evolution.
http://www.anti-agingfirewalls.com/2012/07...of-evolution-2/
I do find the last part of the article relevant to our discussion. The whole article is interesting indeed though.

Maybe soon new sciences will emerge and with it a new consciousness or the so long expected singularity.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Jul 25, 2012, 07:03 AM
Post #12


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 4043
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



Scientific evidence in the existence of God (maybe not the G~O~D of Lindsay King or P-Jay's Jehovah)

http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j11/goswami.asp?page=1
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mahesh
post Oct 22, 2012, 07:54 AM
Post #13


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Oct 22, 2012
Member No.: 34634



what you guys think about higgs particle
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2017 - 09:12 AM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright © BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles