Archiv für das Schlagwort ‘Quantumphysics

Liberty of thoughts – an alternative concept on universe part 2   Leave a comment

Light dancing to a cosmic sound...poetic words, or the basis of existence? Pic.: Michael Ottersbach/

Light dancing to a cosmic sound…poetic words, or the basis of existence? Pic.: Michael Ottersbach/

A possible matrix of all existing

There is this spacetime knot. It rotates around itself, like a small sun. It does so, because it expresses its infinity in this circulation as primary characteristic. It fetches some quants. Waves, particles, mixes. The further away the quants are from the spacetime knot, the more probably they are in particle-state. The closer they are, the more probably they are in wave-state. We could say now, if the spacetime knot was our inner nature, our spirit, it begins with the trapping of quantumwaves and interacting with them, to form a soul. The interaction is enforced, quantumparticles are attracted, a body is formed. And again we have the trinity. The question how „big“ a soul will grow, might have to do with the attraction force the spacetime knot has, perhaps due to its position in the „great web“. Perhaps also with the question, how many other knots are nearby to interact with. It hast to do of course aswell, with the condition of the spacetime manifestation in the surrounding, the position in universe, from which our curious little knot wishes to go on discovery tour.

It is only sustainably in a limited manner, to assign human characteristics to spacetime. Possibly however, what we call human characteristics could maybe be a very much slowed-down collection, probably rather a selection, of spacetime characteristics? The theory of evolution assumes intelligence is caused by biological life and above all, a more or less complex nervous system. Now, possibly it is only a consequence of something different, though? It can be read in the Bible: „God created humans after his image “. Mistakenly most humans assume, that this refers to the outer appearance. I don’t know, where this idea came from. Possibly it’s the „image thing “, because you can look at an image, which is a surface displaying surfaces, as we know. Our hypothesis offers a different approach here: What we call God, is the first and most important spacetime knot. It is causal for the existence of the universe and of everything that is in it. And because only one is quite lonely, it created some more, using the appropriate conditions at hand. So, could it be, that what is made after god’s image in me and you, is our inner nature, our spirit, the entity, calling itself „I“?

Due to the experiences, which this „I“ wishes to make and because matter has this „perishability deal “with spacetime, some of those „I“s became humans. To die then would mean, to return into the original condition as spacetime knot until one got curious (or adventurous) again. And suddenly the idea of reincarnation isn’t primarily a question of faith anymore. Also the statement, we all may be not divine, yet carry the infinite within us, is not a romantic desire anymore, but, following this alternative history of creation, a logical fact. If it would not be like that, we would not exist, simple as that.

So how about the mystical „land behind the rainbow“? In our hypothesis this would be simply a range lying in a closer „orbit “around a spacetime knot, than the physical universe. The mythical otherworld would be a range, which is closer to the spacetime knot, which is causal for the earth, perhaps even our solar system or the Milky Way, maybe even our universe. Do you remember the coin, of which I spoke above? I believe, we currently look at it together, and not just at one side. Even I am unable to clearly seperate between spirituality and natural science in this hypothesis, which’s development I watch with great astonishment aswell. (note: I confess, I’m about to think writing. I do this sometimes, being sort of my own medium, watching curiously, where the train of thoughts actually travels)

Panta Rhei (everything flows)

This statement comes from the „great elders“ of science, the Greek philosophers. I use this therm completely intentionally, because in the beginning of research, spiritual and natural sciences were not closely as much seperated from each other as they are today. It seems, like the first great scientists would have naturally assumed that, the universal laws were exactly that: universal. Valid for everything, only different in their effects. Possibly we lost something, when the separation between spirituality and research, between spiritual and natural science was carried out.

One of the questions, that keeps physics violently busy is, why the universe does obviously not adhere entirely to its own laws? If it would, it would have collapsed shortly after Big Bang, as many researchers do believe. The Big Bang is an absolutely fascinating thing. „The fashion“, to discuss away this for all of us most important singularity, might be finally „out“ with the proof of sound and light in the infrared spectrum still echoing. Let us look at the facts for a moment:

– The Big Bang is still audible as cosmic background noise
– We still see the „lightening “ in the infrared spectrum
– The universe expands with increasing speed

What, if the Big Bang had been only the ignition of a gigantic explosion, which is still ongoing? Our universe would be the explosion cloud then. Due to sound, light and movement, all three results of an enormous energy unloading, it does not collapse, because it has not finished exploding yet! Dear Professor Stephen Hawking could be quite right with his calculations that the universe would have to collapse after Big Bang. Probbably it even will….when we reach „after the Big Bang “.

This would mean for us, that everything we see, including ourselves, consist of two basic ingredients: Sound and light, as results of an energy unloading. Light can have a particle character. If enough photon particles came together, they might merge into larger particles under the gigantic sound pressure . Depending upon arrangement and on the sound waves to be met, different combinations would become possible. These combinations are tied to others, and others, and…suddenly, really lunatically many connections from photons to atoms get considerable. The whole periodic system can be built this way. I really mean the whole one and not only the part, we know so far.

Herrmann von Helmholtz, a German universal scholar who was concerned intensively with sound and resonance, could even support this thesis with his work. We know that everything swings. Matter does it, energy too, light, simply everything. Depending upon weight and density our universe swings differently fast. Why does it do that? I consider it possible that the cause of this oscillation is the explosion, that still sounds as high frequency hissing in our cosmos. Oscillation produces energy, which is converted into movement, heat or light. The Big Bang then would be „the engine “of the universe. All of us and everything surrounding, are direct effects of this event. The laws of nature can be regarded as a kind of „operating instructions “. This enormous sound pressure would have to work actually destructively unless, and here I am supported in my thesis by Mr. Von Helmholtz, we would be with this sound in harmonious resonance. We only can do that however, if we are made from sound at least partly aswell. We, also all heavenly bodies do not only seem to consist at least proportionately of sound. On Youtube you can listen to the sounds made by planets. Do yourself a favour and omit yourselves the earth sounds. In this sound file you primarily hear really infernal noise, produced by us humans.

Day seven

If you asks scientists for the different creation stories known by mankind, you are generally smiled or even laughed at. The standard reason why the biblical genesis for instance can’t be real, are those very seven days. It is an impressive and shocking prove for the human arrogance that these seven days of course have to be understood as Earth days, as we know them today. If one endeavors however only the order of creation as it is described in the Gensesis, it suddenly fits amazingly well with what we know from the theory of evolution and physics. It is exciting that all creation myths assume that the universe origins from water, at least something liquid. Water is one of the basic conditions for life. It was shown that water is substantially further common in our universe, than we assumed so far, despite of being in liquid state or not. Even „superliquids “clear as water however very much more dense, were already discovered. The state of aggregation „liquid “is possible for each chemical element.

So, let get serious. How about the creation myths? Could they be closer to the truth, than natural sciences feel comfortable with? Could science and research entirely fail in the passionate attempt to disprove the spiritual principle, call it God, omnipotence, high light or however you wish? I absolutely consider this to be possible. Perhaps it will never be such a thing as a direct God proof (if only because it would be for many humans more terrible and more shaking than all ignorance), I’m convinced, we’ll sooner or later will have to calculate willy-nilly with „the factor God “, if we want to really understand who we are and what surrounds us. We could come to the result, that we are on day seven of Genesis, God rests and watches his creation. What will happen, if HE is finished with resting?

Admitted, the idea that we are still right in the middle of creation, is a bit ambitious at first sight. I want to tell you, what made me consider this. The universe still expands, the Big Bang still sounds and still shines. However there is still another further reference that our creation is still in process: The evolution. Still new species are discovered and all present ones still improve and evolve. If the creation act would have been finished, this developments would make only little sense. Since stars are however born, generations develop, I cannot recognize a dismantling, rather the opposite.
Here, another highly admired scientist comes into play: Rupert Sheldrake. He drew a lot of attention with his theory of the morphogenetic field. Simplified expressed, it is an information field which contains absolutely everything as potential, which a species can possibly be. It causes the genome, which makes the actual manifestations of the potentials possible. It would be conceivable that all species have a kind of „superfield“ in common, to which all development heads. Perhaps genome and field „communicate“ regarding the sensibility and successes in forming out potentials. Could there even be a superordinate superfield for all living beings? Then we would again reach a phenomenon, which we could call God, considering its characteristics: Overarching, One, all-powerful and eternal.

Why we can’t look outside

It seems as if the largest problem with describing the universe is the fact, that we cannot regard it from the outside. Even if we could ever reach the edge, we could not step outside, I think. We are parts of this universe. Effects of the Big Bang like the universe itself. Trying to step out of it, for an outside look would be pretty much like a human heart, deciding to try to leave its body and regard it from the outsinde. It cannot because it is a part of the body, in which it must stay, if both should stay alive. It will all come down to the fact, that we can’t leave our universe, as much as we can’t litterally jump out of our skins. Our brain is not appropriate to seize something outside of this universe. And why should it? Its inside will surely keep us busy for generations, especially when we stop knowing and start to understand instead.

Attention, philosophy!

Unfortunately many humans believe something is understood, if it is known how it works. That is not right at all. Let’s look at ourselves: We know very exactly, how the human body functions. Why it does it in exactly this way,, however, is unknown. For which purpose do we have for example approximately 90% of unused brain mass? Why does every human think and react uniquely and more or less differently from relatives for example, who have a similar genetical code and even a similar enviroment? We do not know. Maybe the reason for this lack of answers is that the small word „why? “ is much too little strained. The reason is further that still the conviction predominates, that the scientific disciplines are strictly to be seperated from eachother. We live in ONE universe, how can there be distinct, non-coherent realizations on it then?

A pleasing trend is that there are built „bridges“ between disciplines, like for example in medicine, biology or also physics. Maybe we allready have all „puzzle-pieces“, needed to build the Theory Of Everything. We just have to connect them. Setting together simply everything, we know. I mean, really everything. Including the spiritual knowledge of mankind. The myths and legends, visions, dreams and intuitions, side by side with meassurement results and mathematical achievements….


Veröffentlicht 25. September 2015 von Ina Ewers in my own considerations

Getaggt mit , , , , , , ,

The observer’s effect – you realize your reality   Leave a comment

Sunrise or sunset? It's in the eye of the observer. Picture: Rainer Brückner/

Sunrise or sunset? It’s in the eye of the observer. Picture: Rainer Brückner/

„Bought, as seen, “„to see and to be seen “, „as I see it….“, oh yes, the observer’s effect is very present in our language. In quantum physics it is one of the very important bases, a reliable source for certain frustrations and a starting point for a frightening reality concept. A scene from the film „matrix “occurs to me, which is very descriptive for what the observer’s effect actually is. Do you remember, when „Neo“ waits to meet the Oracle? In the waiting area sits a small boy dressed like a Buddhist monk. In his hand a spoon, which turns and winds. Neo watches the whole scenery fascinated, and the boy asks him to try it aswell. Highly concentrated, Neo (played by Keanu Reeves) focuses the spoon and tries to bend it with his thoughts, in vain. And here we are, attention please!

The boy says correspondingly to Neo: „Don’t try to bend the spoon with your thoughts, for that is not possible. Simply try to imagine the truth instead. The spoon does not exist. It is just there, because you see it and how you see it. Bend your thoughts, and the spoon will follow“ Neo glances relaxed at the spoon….which begins to bend and wind! I rarely saw a more descriptive representation of what the observer’s effect actually is. We know about it as scientificly proven on the quantum level only so far. Since the quantum level however is the basis for everything existing, this effect might very soon draw attention to itsself in additional and larger areas aswell.

Strictly speaking, quantum physics does not produce evident results…

… for the comparative part, which is extremely important in science, is here missing. In the macro sciences the denominations won in an experiement are always compared with the neutral ones. So why isn’t it done like that in quantum sciences aswell? Good point! The catch is, that the observer effects a quantum system by observing it allready. What is observation actually? Of course, if someone looks at something, one observes it. But that’s just half of the story. If we listen to something, or are even just aware of it, we also observe! It is indeed impossible to win quiescent denominations of quantum systems, because one would have to observe it, without observing it. Even just the intention, to ask „how? “and „why?“ works on quantum level as effecting observation already. We could say in summary, whenever someone somehow directs attention with the demand to experience or to not experience something, observation takes place.

This effect made some scientists assume, that our reality might only exist, because we are aware of it. That means in plain language: We have to look at something, in order to find something to be seen. And the way, how we look at something, influences heavily, what we see. Firstly, the world of sciences considered those, having set up such a statement to be freaks and thought this was pretty hilarious. The revolutionary observations made in the last years however ensured that the laughs got very rare recently. In the meantime this consideration is no longer doubted in principle. All that’s left is to actually investigate, how extensively this effect is working.

A strange and sometimes frightening impact of this effect might be familiar to most of us: In traffic for example, another car or a pedestrian suddenly seems to emerge out of nowhere right in front of our bonnet. Possibly this happens, because we were simply not aware of the other one. In our world, our reality, this other one actually does emerge out of nowhere. Since it is to be doubted more and more that there is an objective, independently from ourselves existing reality at all… finish the sentence for yourself, if you are courageous enough.

„The eye of the observer “ is crucial

We had read above, „what and what “and „as and as “, meaning what we want (fear, refuse, hope…) to see determines what we see, how we want to see it determines, how we realize it. The media might be great friends of the observer’s effect, because we see the world exactly, how they show it. Our attention is not only drawn to selected incidents, it is also „shaped“, meaning we get „directions“ on how to realize them. Like this, my friends, life circumstances and also history are created in a very active and intentional manner. If we react to a possible scenario with fear, then we ensure that it happens. We are aware of it, so it gets real. It seizes, you suspected it already, the observer’s effect again. The whole trick works like this: What is fear? Fear is, correctly described, a violent reaction of refusal coupled with a reflex to fight or to flee. Am I right? For acting this out, whatever frightens us has to be right in front of us first! If one scolded as many minds as possible into this process, the whole thing turns into a no-brainer, creating the intended reality. We are made to create what we fear, in order to be frightened of it! What was sold to us as possible result of a development, a potential threat, is set into action by ourselves. Greetings from the observer’s effect. Not very fair, if I was asked. Fair is however that this of course works into the positive direction aswell, and just as effectively.

How about the increasing discoveries in astrophysics? Progressing technology made it possible to look deeper into the universe and new star systems are discovered regularly. Now, could this mysterious effect seize again here? Who observes? Are we observed? There is a hypothesis, which I personally find very fascinating: The universe and everything within only exists, because someone is aware of it all! Consequently, the universe is awareness itself. With the view into the infinite widths, we might see the (in-)direct proof for the existence of God, or the Gods, for it takes a God’s „ superconsciousness “, to be aware of all this. It speaks for this idea that the universe mostly adheres to the laws of nature, but not always. It confirms furthermore what you hear sometimes from astrophysicists or cosmologists, that the universe in its behavior seems to have an intention or to follow an intention. If we explored the observer’s effect more deeply, because we assumed that it might be substantially more fundamental than considered, excitement would be guaranteed.

„Change the view and you change the reality “

A conclusion from the observer’s effect could read pretty much like that. Even if it is not finally proven yet, we do know about this posssible conclusion not only from science fiction films. There are experiments, which suggest at least the acceptance of the view having an impact on reality. As an example: Cancer patients were asked whether they would like to participate in an attempt. After their agreement „triggers“ were appointed, like a symbol, a number, or just the name of the patient connected to it. A group of students only knew about the patients, that they were in hospital, that was all. These students now concentrated each day for 10 minutes on visualizing „their“ patients to be happy and healthy. Some „miracle“ occurred, it was reported that the cancer patients withstood the normally very arduous and sorrowful chemotherapy substantially better, than expected. This „better withstanding “ went that far that one patient even doubted at all, that he received medicication! This all provably happened because they were visualized as healthy and fit by five young people during the chemotherapy. In „the chemo-reference group “there was no other patient, who showed such deviations from the normal process. The attempt was a so-called „double-blind study “, that means, neither the patients nor the test conductors knew, who was „visualized through“ the therapy and who wasn’t.

That we feel, when someone thinks of us, that we litterally heal internally, when someone whishes us luck in a heartfelt way, may not be fancy but simply physics, as it seems. That life and the world appear to us as we look at them, obviously aswell. We should better be careful, with what and how we think. About us and also about others. It seems, as if the observer’s effect could lend us more power, than we know and like. At the end of the day, the boss might just be such a twit, because we see him like this? We will continue discussing this fascinating subject, trust me! Because as I see it….

Veröffentlicht 4. September 2015 von Ina Ewers in Quantumphysics

Getaggt mit , , , , , ,

Why must it be Quantumphysics!?   Leave a comment

Dancing lights...Waves? Particles? Both? Let's agree on: entirely beautiful. Bild: Kerstin Schwebel/

Dancing lights..waves? particles? Both? Let’s agree on beautiful. Bild: Kerstin Schwebel/

It feels to me like I was asked this question approximately 1583 times. What is most fascinating to me about quantum physics is the fact, that it redefines the term „logical “. In quantum physics many things are logical, by being consequently illogical. There seems to be nothing, which is not somehow possible in the world of quants. Think of Einstein’s famous „spooky interactions at distance “, for example: Quants are able to interact independent from space and time. The best is: The quantum theory does not match with the General Theory Of Relativity at all, yet it cannot do without it either!

It seems, as if they would supplement eachother, although they contradict to a large extent. It was Einstein, one of the most passionate opponents of non-determinism (a fundamental consideration in quantum theories) who made important contributions to quantum physics. He received the Nobel Prize 1921 for having discovered the Photoelectric effect, one of the important cornerstones of the quantum theory. A further contribution is the EPR, the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox, which supports the idea of non-locality in quantum theories, much to Einstein’s discomfort, by the way.

Do you know Schroedinger’s cat?

Freely admitted, the attempt to dissolve this thought experiment nearly makes you snap. Here’s a short summary, so that you’ll see, what I mean.

A cat sits in a locked crate, in it a phial with poison. This phial is connected with a little hammer that will break the phial, when a radioactive substance disintegrated completely. Each hour, one atom could disintegrate, but none aswell. If someone should measure the radiation, the phial is destroyed. If someone looks into the crate, the phial is destroyed. What about the cat? Is it alive or dead? Potentially it is both at the same time. If one checks, it is definitely dead, for opening the crate will destroy the phial.

Schrödinger developed that mental image, to explain the wave-particle duality of quants. As long as the quantum system is uninfluenced, it is potentially in wave-particle condition at the same time. Just like the cat, who can be both, potentially alive and dead, in its locked crate. Only if an influence occurs, by an observer for example, the quantum system collapses into a defined condition.

Heisenberg makes the quantum chaos perfect

Heisenberg’s Theory Of Uncertainity is a further cornerstone of the quantum theories. Expressed very simply it says: An observer of a quantum system can win in each case just an indistinct picture of the system: Either it can be known where the particle is, then it is unknown, how quickly and where to it moves, or the parameters of movement are known, then however, its position is unclear. Confusing? Actually not! Do not try to classify this consideration as to be logical in the common sense. Let it affect your mind unfocused and you will get an idea on what Heisenberg means.

That is exactly what constitutes my fascination for quantum physics: It requires a new way of thinking, new seizing, which is not so easily to be done in the logical-arithmetic ways of the classical sciences.

In this category you’ll meet some of my favourite physicists. Added with theories and approaches, which particularly inspire me and of course, you might have suspected it already, I’ll offer my own considerations to you. You will see for example, why I believe that we all use quantum physics constantly, while communicating, for example. Got curious? Fair enough! Come back soon.

Veröffentlicht 3. September 2015 von Ina Ewers in Quantumphysics

Getaggt mit , , , , , ,