Archiv für das Schlagwort ‘Reality

Seen in the light of the day….   Leave a comment

Light...the cause of reality? Picture: Helmut Dechert/

Light…the cause of reality? Picture: Helmut Dechert/

…. it shows frequently, that things are not really like they seem. Why so? How does reality occur? And what does this have to do with quantum physics? Let’s approach these questions step by step.

You might be familiar with the term „photon “. The light particles, that revealed the wave/particle-state of quants in the double-slit experiment, for example. Those tiny, little guys are responsible for transferring all electromagnetic forces. These are brightness, warmth, magnetism and so on. Further on we know, that they can be teleported, „beamed“ so to speak, and that they are able to transport an impressing amount of information, considering their size.

Load photon emitters “or: „open your eyes! “

It most probably astonished the discovering researchers immensely to learn, that eyes don’t only absorb photons, but emit them aswell! Do you know the feeling of a look in your neck? Most probably, the person looking at you is a very good photon emitter. There are considerations in the meantime, that the question how a look „feels“ has to do with the amount, and pulsation of photons emitted by the person, looking at you.

Even when we think, we measurably emit photons. Experiments have shown that humans concentrating, contemplating or praying emit enormous quantities of photons around their heads. So the gloriole to be seen on paintings of saints may not just be a means of the artist to show the Holiness of someone. Within some areas of the brand-new quantum neuroscience the question is discussed, whether the procedure of seeing possibly represents an interaction of photons rather than only recepting them on the retina and proceeding the information in our visual cortex.

To see and to be seen

Let’s play with the idea for a moment, that seeing could be actually an interaction of photons. What happens?

– You look at something, sending photons at it. These photons carry information already, like for example, what you expect to see.

– The regarded object also emits photons, and/or reflects them.

– In the moment of seeing, the photon jets meet and set free their information. Now your brain is in demand, because it faces the ungrateful task to form a more or less good midpoint from which you expect to see and what actually comes in as information. The more emotions are tied to your expectation, the more „heavy“ it gets, meaning the more it does affect what you eventually see.

– This midpoint computed by your brain, now appears as a picture in your head. Since this is the „process of seeing“, is what you see exactly what is to be seen? Probably not. That might be the reason, why two people looking at the same object can get an entirely different impression of it! It also might be one of the causes for optical delusions or mirages. This effect can be watched very clearly in hallucinations or under hypnosis, where you can make someone see for example blue, whenever the person sees something red. What you expect to see obviously has a lightly stronger influence on what your brain presents you as „real“ than what is really there.

Of course you can use this effect. You might have suspected it already, the question, how you feel about yourself, see yourself, realize yourself… has an enormous influence on how you are realized by others. The reason? See above.

Reality vs. Truth

The word reality is often equated with the term truth. Undoubtedly both are similar, but I doubt that both are accurately the same. Reality occurs, because we realize something and, as a matter of fact, in the way, how we realize it. Being realistic, we must confess, that what we call reality is a very subjective and personal impression of what is existing. Why are we so eager on producing an objective, or at least widely as such accepted reality? The answer is very easy: On what do we react? What are we dealing with? Correctly! With what we consider as to be real. If we are conditioned on what is allowed to be real and what is not, by education for example, our behaviour becomes marvelousely more computable. Unfortunately we give up a lot of freedom with this comfortable, unreflected repeating of what we were taught to consider as real.

On the quantum level one could say, the „detectors for photonic information“, our eyes, are „turned down and adjusted“ from our very young age on, until only such is left to be realized as true, what is allowed to be true. But absolutely everything is around us and also within us, be we aware of it or not, as the enlightened-ones of mankind taught us throughout ages and still do. Wait a minute!… Enlightened-ones? ….Photons?? ….Yes, my love, my dearest soul, you are right! Continue the thought and take the liberty back, to enjoy ALL light of which you are capable of to realize. Take your liberty back to shine, to reflect and to see. Maybe the so-called „light of reality“ comes from within us? Maybe it is this very light, that allows us to see, what we see? In this case, WE OURSELVES allow us to see, well, what we are allowed to allow us at least. So many things are restricted in this world. Maybe it would be a good start, if we freed ourselves from the restrictions on how to see this wonderful, scary, magical, raydiant world in the first place, and try to make it a better place afterwards. Why? Because we might find out, that it is already better than anything, we ever dreamt of. We just hadn’t realized yet. And in improving it, as we thought, we cause severe damage, for you can’t improve, what is perfect already.


Veröffentlicht 5. Oktober 2015 von Ina Ewers in Quantumphysics

Getaggt mit , , , , ,

Liberty of thoughts – an alternative concept on Universe Part 1   Leave a comment

Glowing sparks in the darkness...maybe the cause for universe? picture: Gabriele Mehl/

Glowing sparks in the darkness…maybe the cause for universe? picture: Gabriele Mehl/

Many brilliant heads pondered on some questions for centuries: What is time, how does the universe function and what is it all about with dimensions? It could be read frequentlly in the last time, that considerable physicists like for example Brian Greene would like to see alternative approaches, more fantasy in science. Well, my thoughts are surely not necessarily considerable, I can serve with fantasy, however. Please regard the following as a thought experiment, some crazy idea if you like. Its fascinaction on me is strong enough however, that I don’t want to reproach it to you.

The following idea developed, due to my inattentiveness. I went walking with my dogs. Deeply in thoughts, I suddenly found myself in the brook. If 80 kilograms of dog, distributed on two animals decide, it’s playtime now and the human behind, doesn’t watch out, this can happen. So I stood in the brook, looking against the river direction. And suddenly there it was, this certain idea: This is exactly, what time looks like! It flows through me, while I stand still. The flow of the time produces the effect that it seems to elapse, which is correct from my point of view at least. Doing this to me and all other matter and energy being located in the flow of time, it takes quants with it. Constantly. All the time. After a while, atoms collapse, followed by complete cells, I’m aging. Since we know the phenomenon of the quantum entanglement, I have access to the quants being taken away at any time, I am able to remember! „The tooth of time “…. “leave things (information) behind “….“Looking back “… all this suddenly had an entirely new dimensions.

The inspiring effect of wet feet

Talking of dimensions! In a spell of iconoclasm, I had begun to rip apart what we believed to know for centuries about some basic questions. All or nothing, right? Let’s go on! According to modern physics we live in a four-dimensional world. The three dimensions are well-known, as fourth one spacetime got accepted. What, if that was not correct!? How can three further spatial dimensions be accepted to spacetime? Is there space and „extra space “? I do not think so. So, what if spacetime was a kind of a „superdimension “, containing the three others and possibly still many more? Or if the classical three dimensions were characteristics of spacetime, but not really independent dimensions? In this case, researchers as for instance Lisa Randall could be right with the theory that there were extremely many little dimensions „rolled up“ in spacetime. The dimensions which we normally call such, are „rolled down“, meaning in action.

This consideration can be only correct, if time also had a kind of „inside “. And…it has! We know, that time doesn’t elapse in a linear manner. If it would, we wouldn’t have to adjust even atomic clocks now and then. If it would, one minute on ISS would be just as long, as it is here on earth. We know, this is not the case. Could the „inside“ of time be flexible ? Possibly. And what about our sense for time? We have one. Quite some biologists are searching for the location of the body clock, its effects are unquestionably proven. With this body clock, timing our metabolim for example, we seem to have an „inner timer“. It may be difficult to determine the exact time of the day, if we were sat in a dark room for long enough. We nevertheless sense the elapsing of time.
Let us draw a mental picture. Regarded from the outside, spacetime could look like a tube, or better like a hose, because of the pliancy. If cut open, there is to be found a lattice structure, causing the space characteristics, and a floating wave. If it hits the „lattice knots “, it changes its behavior, producing higher or smaller ridges. This movements of the inner wave inflicts tiny moves on the whole system. This is of minor influence, for my imagined „super-dimension“ of course is infinite.

Because spacetime is flexible, it flexes. It forms a loop and by this creates….A universe. Here I meet the boundaries of my imaginative power. I hold it likewise to be possible that it did this only once, sort of a „misshap “ if you like, and we are inside of this „misshap“. However I also can imagine, that it really liked „looping“ and did it over and over again. Since spacetime is infinitely large in my hypothesis, it could do this really many, many times, producing a whole bunch of universes. Of course it is also able to curl up itself like a snake, then we would live in a Multiverse, as some physicists actually do believe.


Spacetime, toasters and the Big Bang

If spacetime forms a loop, it produces a kind of a „ short-circuit “with itself (spray of sparks, bang = Big Bang; pretty much like a short-circuit in a toaster, but less annoying). Due to this short-circuit the dimensions develop, better, unfold themselves so that our loop and also the inner wave get an interior. „The walls “of spacetime are permeable to spacetime contents. Further spacetime can now interact with itself, which it does, flowing in all directions. It flows through everything that lies within its loop. Through Universe, sun, earth, even through the computer, on which I’m currently typing. Matter particles, spacetime and energy waves like eachother really very much, and therefore „stick“ together, when and where ever possible. For matter, this sticking entails a slow however continuous decay. For energy, it consequences in a change, like friction changes into warmth for example. If we could climb outside of this construction we would see, that neither matter nor energy move by themselves. All that’s moving is spacetime, which carries matter and energy forward and transforms them. „The adhesive “is by the way what we generally call gravitation. Gravitation is a consequence of the spacetime, maybe caused by its waving. It makes the formed loop and its inside „sticky“, so that matter and energy can hang onto it. In this consideration, the strings in string theory would be „pieces of spacetime “ which are formed by accumulation of matter or energy, simply because while flowing by, more and more of them remain sticking. The more is „stuck together“ the more adhesive is present, which increases the adhesive force, more and more, till as for instance on Earth 1 g or even more is reached.

The first important consequence of this hypothesis would be that we do not move at all. Instead spacetime moves us, making it posible for us to float through the „short-circuit field“. If we go somewhere, then we bend or stretch the space around us. Because spacetime forms a unit, the time we need for going from A to B tells us, how much we bent space. Here, dear Albert Einstein greets. Which pleases me in this, freely admitted very unusual hypothesis (of course! It is mine) , is that quantum theories and the general theory of relativity do not necessarily have „to bite eachother“ any longer. The natural laws are not simply there, but represent a consequence of the spacetime loop as well as of the arrangement and density of the stuck together „space-time bits “. Incidental remark: At the moment I consider, whether the strings could also be small „spacetime knots“. If spacetime interacts infinitely with itself, such „knot formations “ are conceiveable.

In plain language, the ultimative question, how our universe actually ticks, would now have to read: „How is the spacetime loop constituted, in which we are? “ Basically, its form and size causes everything that takes place and existsts in our universe. Soles of the foot, stars, solar systems, pulsars and coffee cups are „spacetime concentrations “, which perhaps give us a reference to the form of our loop. If we stayed with my hypothesis we could say, if we really want to understand our universe, we have to understand the nature of spacetime. Possibly we already are on the trace: Could it be that the so far still quite puzzling dark matter and dark energy are the “materials”, of which spacetime consists?

Maybe not all that far off?

We know from particle physics, that atoms contain very much empty space, compared to their size. Why this is the case, is still unknown. Perhaps because this place is needed for the flow of space-time? Does spacetime has to flow through it, because the atom would collapse otherwise? I think, this is quite conceivable. That would mean, the perishability is a fundamental condition for matter, or the price, matter pays for its existence. If it would not be ready for this, it would prevent its own existence by offending the function of spacetime, which builds it up quantum per quantum and reduces it the same way.

Natural sciences and humane disciplines are often considered as the two sides of a coin. Unfortunately the coin, which can be seen as the demand for understanding, is forgotten regularly. For this reason I would like to add a spiritual side to my hypothesis aswell. Possibly spacetime is what is regarded as eternity in many spiritual convictions. Time and eternity are closely linked in Christian teachings only. In most other faiths and beliefs eternity could be seen as „all of time and all of things/energies “. The genesises of mankind, which by the way resemble eachother in almost obvious way, could be seen as they were describtions of the „cord sample “, which was used for our universe. I would like to introduce the idea to researchers in all disciplines, to rather take these legends metaphorically than to take them literally. For example the contentious 7 days of creation. How is one day defined exactly? One day is usually regarded as the time that elapses, while earth turns around itself once. One day is however also a unit closed in itself, which describes the time needed to complete a segment of a project, the well-known and metaphorical day work. I am convinced, that the seventh day, the one on which God rested, was a day of creation, too. With God, creation rested also….or did it stabilize, did it „switch on “?

The very first cause is…Devine

What is God in this hypothesis? Does He have a place? Per definitionem, yes! If spacetime forms its loop, it interacts with itself. For the very first time. It exchanges itself with itself, changing and exchanging over and over again. This information exchange, as well as the reaction to it could be regarded as a very pragmatic definition of intelligence or consciousness. I borrow a term from Stephen Hawking. He calls God a kind of „superconsciousness “. This term pleases me, because it fits well with my hypothesis of „primal intelligence “ which spacetime receives by its entanglement with itself. One could say very simplified, God, natureful, intelligently and infinitely in its potentiality, has made all possible as he was the „first spacetime knot “ in our loop. Then, dear readers, he has indeed created and caused everything, because his presence alone makes ours possible. The less „particles to be bonded “at the spacetime lattices, the „more divine “ are the entities, they represent. So all Gods humans ever knew and still will become acquainted with ,would have a spot in this concept. Contrary to the other spacetime entanglements the Gods seem to be able to „put on and off“ matter and energy, very easily, perhaps on their own choice and decision. If more or less complex spacetime entanglements result in intelligence, then they make the freedom of will and of choice possible, don’t they?

It is very likely, that the internal nature of all existing is at least one spacetime entanglement. If we set above views away, it becomes due to this asumption not only conceivably, but logically that everything which is, carries „a spark of God “ within. This idea is as old as mankind. If we assume further the fact that after the law of harmony „like attracts like“ , this could explain the striving for the higher and „purer“ in all of us. I write „purer“in quotation marks, because I think matter isn’t better than energy or vice versa. Both are conditions formed, so that the spacetime entanglements in our hypothesis can express themselves. Where does the desire for self-expression come from? Perhaps spacetime „knows“ that it is eternal and universal. Perhaps it got curious, and that’s why it entangled? Going like: „How about trying boundaries? I never knew them before“ Now it tries to express itself in all possible varieties and within the selected, or chosen boundaries. That could be „the engine “ driving what we call evolution….
…………………………………………………………..To be continued…………………………………………………………………………………

Veröffentlicht 18. September 2015 von Ina Ewers in my own considerations

Getaggt mit , , , , ,

Thoughts on the time concept of Supergravitation   Leave a comment

A clockwork....does it make time? Picture: sprisi/

A clockwork….does it make time? Picture: sprisi/

One of the thrilling newer theories is the idea of supergravitation. This insists,that there might be a field, pretty similar to the Higgs-Field, that emanates bosons, which interact with other quants , causing what we call gravitation. These hypothetical bosons are calld Gravitons, the “super” – part shows the connevtion with supersymmetry, which means there is an „anti-version“ to Gravitation aswell, caused by Garvitinos.

A recent time concept

Going with time is a genuine challenge, because it seems to have occasionally the desire to reinvent itself, at least this works for our understanding of time. Einstein shattered the time concept by proving the relativity of  time and by that “degraded” it from a quantity to an effect. According to Einstein the time is a geometrical characteristic of space, the fourth dimension to be exact. This launched the new term Spacetime.

The supergravitation theory opens a recent and extremely interesting time concept: Time does not exist at all! It is a quantum effect, which appears as gravitation’s “side-effect”. So far, so good, be it quantified or not, what is the difference? It is enormous! As we know, quants can appear as waves and particles. In the wave condition quantum waves behave theoretically like all other waves, which means, quantum waves spread almost with speed of light in all directions continuously. “Wave time” would therefore be an infinite amount of time at any point….or the eternity, if you prefer this poetic expression.

Wait a minute! Time in wave state….is that time at all?! A very justified dissent. And here I come into play. As you rightfully feared, I have been on a „thought-walk“ again.

Time a quantum effect?

If you ask a physicist, what time exactly is, you will basically experience one of two possible reactions:

1. He will suddenly get really hectic and will have no time at all, to discuss time.

2. His glance transfigures, he sits down comfortably and then… you should better have plenty of time to reflect upon time.

In one point, all physicists are common-sensed at least: Time in the physical sense is completely different from our understanding of it. We are pretty fit already in our efforts to understand the quants, right? Remember the observer’s effect? Exactly! A quantum system is affected substantially by its observer. This means: the diffuse, potential wave condition collapses into particle state, the potential turns into a phenomenon. If time is actually quantified, could it be that we only experience it, because we observe it? That is by far less confusing, than it sounds. Let’s express it a bit differently: Does time emerge from eternity, the undefined and infinite amount of time, because we observe a certain part of it?

Let me offer a mental picture here: Let’s insisit, that time (the eternity-version of it) is an Ocean, in which we swim. We walk into the „water“ and get „wet“. This „moisture“ on us is what we experience as our personal time. Everyone of us swims in a different manner and speed. From our point of view, the Ocean moves by. In reality however, it is us moving throught the Ocean. Every movement causes waves, floating through the entire Ocean, interacting with the Ocean and all the other waves, caused by other „swimmers“. This also might explain, why we cause effects and chains of causalities, that „echo“ quite a while later, or in this picture, when we had swum a certain range already.

Relativity of time – a question of how you look at it?

We all know: Minutes can feel like decades, weeks like a few hours. Surely, that is a subjective perception. But, disturbing as it is, we all have a body clock, that works pretty exact. We sense it, when we try to estimate, what time it probably is, or also in estimating how long something might take. So this our “Onboard stop watch” might only randomly have to do with the EXPERIENCING of time. its function is, to PERCEIVE it. So what makes us experiencing time relatively then, when we run out of it, for example, or when something seems to go on forever? I could imagine that indeed the observer’s effect seizes here! It depends a lot on how we look at the „entity time“ in a process. “Entity” is in the physical sense not compellingly an aware being, but, quite flatly expressed, a component of a system, which causes an effect.

Does time only come into effect, if someone with a sense for it observes it, and additionally entirely in the way, how it is observed? For the latter there is indeed reference, some quantum phenomenons can prove the expectation of the observer having a relevant influence on the system. Some quants are “behaving”, they show outstandingly often, what is expected. Others are quite “missbehaving”, they show outstandingly often anything else, than what is to be expected. If one asks the representatives of the supergravitation or the supersymmetry what causes the time waves, the answer is almost frighteningly simple: Space is not static, but can warp. Okay, we already knew that since Einstein. While this warping, space emanates waves. These waves “shoot” the time potentials. Gravitation warps space… et violà, here it is! The connection between gravitation and time.

The more space is warped, the more „time flares“ fly out of it. The shorter the wave-lengths of the time waves are, the more densely the quantum particle packages are packed and in reverse. Could it be, that the “packing density” has to do with the “speed of the time”? The more densely, the more slowly, for example? Similarly as with the viscosity of liquids, the higher it is, the slower it flows. That would explain, why time elapses quicker on ISS than here. There is less gravitation. It would also explain, why close to a black hole, time gets extremely slow and seems to stand still at the Event Horizon. There might hardly be a place with higher gravitation than a Black Hole in our universe.

What we have in common with LHC

It looks like human mind is able to accelerate (time) quants, like changing their motion and speed for example, independently from gravitation and supermagnets. We can make them collide or collapse from waves into particles, or from an idea into an action, if you’d like to. We do it with our consciousness by how we look at something, by deciding and by getting things done. Prove: the observer’s effect and of course our daily lives. We can also do this with other particles, like electrons for example. Don’t you believe? So where do you think, the curves on an EEG come from? It measures the electric activity, meaning the acceleration of electrons, of our brain in action. As long as there is conciousness, curves can be seen…

If we make decisions and implement them, from a physical point of view, we intertwine probability waves and bring them to collapse into a phenomenon, an event takes place. I’m doing something similar at the moment: I make the information (pure energy) in my head collapse into the words you are reading. Maybe world’s largest machine moves and fascinates us so much, because it does something, we constantly do aswell. We can watch this in LHC, to watch it directly inside of us could be a bit tricky, I guess. For a comparatively small function of human consciousness such an enormous machine had to be built. It helps us to observe and understand. Perhaps a little more about ourselves and the mystery of our spirits aswell.

Veröffentlicht 14. September 2015 von Ina Ewers in Allgemein, my own considerations

Getaggt mit , , , , , , ,

What is reality?   Leave a comment

Reality - the inside, or the outside of the bubble? Maybe even both...picture: Sweder van Rencin/

Reality – the inside, or the outside of the bubble? Maybe even both…picture: Sweder van Rencin/

An exciting question, isn’t it? A comprehensive or correct answer does not exist to this question. An attempt could look like this: Real is everything, we consider to be so. Why we do consider some things to be real and do not with some others, is to be seen below.

One could mention now that there are nevertheless measurable and computable things around us, which therefore must be real. Fair enough, there are enough humans all over the world though, who fear that those parameters for measurement and counting were specified sometime ago more or less arbitrarily. Ergo: something is real for us, if it corresponds with an at least widely as correct accepted system of measurement and definition.

The intellecta programmed “reality generator”

At school we learn the fundamental ideas and the basic information on what is generally accepted as reality. But is that really everything? Yes and no, because the intellect tends to simply and completely ignore information, which does not fit into the “reality raster” we’ve adapted. The closer this raster is and the more rigid, the smaller is the world, in which humans are imprissoned by their own understanding of it. The rasters on what is allowed to be real and what is not are definitly rigid. Made out of preassure produced with school marks, disstress with parents, sanctions at school, pschyoparmical drugs to make children with „ADS“ or „behavioural disturbances“ more equal with the system, the build-up reality raster is as rigid as the walls of Fort Knox.

The intellect functions on a simple principle: Everything, that matches with logical conclusions or is perceptive with more than one sense, must be real. But also its internal “self-destruction mechanism” is found here: What if all applies to a phenomenon, that still doesn’t match with our reality concept, or even worse, goes under „it cannot be, what must not be“? Then it gets tricky, which for instance becomes evident looking at the history of quantum physics, especially Albert Einsteins’s furious fight with this new science.

If reality terms wobble…

….we could find help from an other great physicist, Professor Stephen Hawking. He said analogously, one had to redefine definitions, as to be highly probable however never to be exact. If this was done with the laws of nature for instance , a lot of great physicists all over the world would be healed from sleeping-disturbances instantly, according to Hawking.

How does this concern us? Not at all at first sight, very much yet, if we took a closer look. Do you remember your last controversy? Why did you argue? Probably, because only one of the points of view colliding could be correct, which had to prove the other one to be inevitably wrong. If we try the idea now, that reality is that, which our understanding, our experience and our tolerances present as such to us, the „true-false-pattern“ suddenly fails entirely. If reality is allowed to become subjective, it has the opportunity to survive. It has to become mobile and viably. If it may not do that, it will only survive by strangling our souls sooner or later. And be assured, it will at least try this, driven by its „survival instinct“.

Reality and the truth

Some believe, these terms are synonyms. Not at all. Truth is still much more, than reality. It is something, in which we believe, what founds and carries all that we are. An example: The Ohm’s law is surely undisputed. It proves itself again and again each day. It is reality. But does this turn it into a cornerstone for us personally? Not at all! The quite opposite example is represented by religions. They are partly historically verifiable, but hardly to be set into an objective outlook. They nevertheless represent truths for the believers, which are strong enough to kill or die for..

Let me offer a proposal: Realities are around us and are considered as correct, as long as they are not proven wrong. Truths however are closely linked with us, part of us, which do not require a proof, because something else than the intellect recognizes them as to be true. It gets really exciting, if the borders between reality and truth suddenly get holey. In exactly this „interdimension“, this blog is to be seen. It will represent my very subjective reality, the way how I see these things, perhaps even a bit the “fight for survival” of my intellect, which by the way co-exists with my heart, soul and spirit in friendship.

Veröffentlicht 9. September 2015 von Ina Ewers in Box

Getaggt mit , , , , ,

Hermeticism – The philosophy behind philosophy   Leave a comment

7 Colours of the rainbow, 7 Axioms...picture: Martin Heinz/

7 Colours of the rainbow, 7 Axioms…picture: Martin Heinz/

In English, the blog’s name reads as „in between the mistst“. If physics is seen as one of them, the hermetic philosophy is the other one. The system is named after its founder, Hermes Trismegistos. Hermeticism says about itself however, it never was founded, but Hermes just made it accessable for human’s minds. It can be pursued from western scholars back into the times of ancient Egypt, and finds its resemblances in the spiritual theories of the Eastern world aswell. One could describe it best as an essence of the understandable and in a certain way, of the understood aswell. It is based on seven basic principles, mostly called the Great Axioms.

In the western Hemisphere, hermeticsm is often understood as the theory behind alchemy, however this is only one of its aspects. It is interesting that many great scientists in the early „childhood “ of sciences obviously were hermeticians aswell, trying to observe the effects of the axioms in our world. They were successful. When „the secularization “of science came onto scene, this metaphysical part was entirely dismissed. It seems, as if some scientists thereby would have taken something from themselves and their possibilities. In the meantime it seems however, that it becomes harder and more dificult to deny these contexts, for many Great Axioms of hermeticism look very clearly at us through the newest discoveries.

Complete understanding? – Not even close to it!

I fear that it is an enormous for us possibly unsolvable task, to seize all contents and the enormous beauty of these teachings. Therefore I would like to have pointed out in all clarity that the aspects and the way of understanding of the authoress are expressed here, and that I neither claim completeness, nor correctness for it. Unfortunately many hermeticians develop a very unpleasant „intellectual snobbery “, following the slogan: „We stand in the tradition of the universal wisdom, therefore we are better than all other searches “. I do not share this opinion, for a possible consistent view of hermeticism, arising from itself is, that it could be completely right, but also completely wrong at the same time. („All existing carries its opposite in itself. “) Or also: „Everything flows and is constantly moving and changing. “When I define something as a result, I freeze it. In the moment of freezing, it might be correct, but is it still, let’s say, 10 minutes later??

One could come to the conclusion that hermeticism is never really „finished “, because it morphs with each interaction with human consciousness. One could come to the conclusion, that it is in such a manner overarching that, it is understood just a little more every time, someone reflects on it. Each little more understanding of an object, changes the understanding of the entire object, which means nothing really happened, from the view of the viewer.

The Great Axioms

These basic ideas explain simply everything, according to hermeticsm. Since I am not able to understand simply everything, just as you arent’t, dear readers, lacking of brain capacities, I can neither agree, nor contradict. Which I can say however is that these seven are enough to make the world surrounding me much more understandable to me. They help me quite often to understand concepts of physics better. And here they are:

– The All is at the same time thinking and feeling, aswell as it is what is thought and felt (‚All‘ does not mean the universe in this context. The universe is in the ‚All‘. The hermetic term ‚All‘ means exactly that: Absolutely everything. It does not bother about the boundaries of human minds or on what we can imagine)

– As above, so below

– Nothing is ever in rest. Everything swings and flows

– Everything exists in pairs. Each thing has its opposite

– Life is rhythm. Which expands, has to shrink, which ascends, has to sink

– Each cause has an effect and vice versa.

– The male and female forces are in everything. One dominates at times, then the other one. Yet everything contains genders.

With time coming, we’ll have a closer look at the Axioms, and I will offer my way of looking at each of them and the results of my efforts to understand. To be continued….

Veröffentlicht 8. September 2015 von Ina Ewers in Philosophy

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 , , , , , ,

What am I doing here?   Leave a comment

Aren't we all explorers? Let's travel to our boundaries and beyond. Picture: korneloni/

Aren’t we all explorers? Let’s travel to our boundaries and beyond. Picture: korneloni/

If someone starts to think about science, philosophy and life in general, and even publishes these thoughts, the entitled question arises: What for? Approaching this direclty: I am afraid, I cannot answer this question exactly. The reason is that the answer „morphes“, the longer I walk this path.

Let’s begin from the other side, what made me start this blog? It’s been a very long time now, that I’m not longer satisfied with knowing, I want to understand. The difference is a big one for me: To know means to me, to have the insight in how something works, to understand means however, to approach the question „why is that so?“ In the moment, „why? “comes into play, clear and functionning seperations between science don’t function any longer. It can clearly be seen in physics for example: Quantum physics, astrophysics, cosmology and also classical physics can no longer be sharply seperated against eachother. Also philosophy and metaphysics can be no longer absolutely defined, since the triumphant advance of quantum physics. The sciences reached a point of change. We enter knowledge ranges, within which the classical methods fail more and more. „either… or“ retired. „Both“ must be the answer to seemingly „opposites“ more and more frequently, which profoundly challenges everything we thought to know and what we are used to call logic.

What is like how it seems?

When we take a look at the history of the science we find, that they lead themselves ad absurdum over and over again throughout time! Things, which are considered as secured, are thrown over sooner or later. We believed for centuries, that matter was firm. In the meantime we know that this is a kind of a hallucination. The apparent firmness results from the repulsion of fields, which’s reactions we classify as „firmly “! The things appear firm, because the particles, of which matter consists are so kind to carry a load, which causes electromagnetic interactions, that allows us to grab things. Side-effect: We communicate and interact with absolutely everything. Constantly. Each particular, still so small particle of us with all others. Secondary question: Do we constantly change our environment by this? Is this what we generally call evolution? Remember quantum physics? The observer changes the observed more or less intensely just by his presence…

This consideration could find corroboration in a social phenomenon, the“ illness “ADS. I’m born 1972. In my generation, thing like computers or smartphones weren’t generally available to everyone, or even thought off. If we decrease one more generation, everything outside of the village, city or county seemed to be as far away as a different solar system. We could result in the fact, that the amount of information, our brains have to deal with nowadays, increased in a phenomenal way. Could it be that evolution works substantially faster, than biologists know (or accept)? In this case the precipitously rising number of ADS children would be nothing else but evolution, and we are too arrogant to recognize! Thinking and processing goes much faster in our children’s minds. If these „turbos“ are not used, they keep themselves busy, which is usually called deflectability.
Evolution is the ability to adapt to the environment in which we are living. We constantly change our environment by technical progress. Who actually says that the personal development and adjustment does not keep pace with that?  Babies and infants, whose brains develop fastest, experience tremendous stimulation: In the womb, English is already learned, or mathematics. What they percept, is unequally much more, than we did or the generation before us. The accordingly faster and more intensive networking in the developing brain to be called „ill“, the suppression of it with cemical „brakes“ can be seen as stupid or even dangerous! At the end of the day, it definitetly is futile, for no one ever stops evolution. At present people still squeeze this new generation into an old society with means of medicine and „therapy“. What will this cost us? How many geniuses do we crush by this? Would it be not substantially more sensible to go with the development? To adapt the education to those new brains?

We want to reach the stars, but we refuse to „fly“!

And here is my confession: considering „the catalogue of symptoms “ referring to ADS, I’m ill! I constantly seek new challenges for my mind. I think network-like, processing several trains of thought at the same time. My psychological strain? Zero point zero. I offer even more „food “ to my brain instead. I think multidimensionally. Means, I can link a thought with several connections at the same time.

We call ourselves „homo sapiens sapiens “. That means: Knowing (thinking) humans. Why is it seemingly considered as a privillege for scientists to think? We already use world-wide computer grids, in order to increase the computing power in enormous research projects, look at „the SETI project “ for example. Why isn’t this idea proceeded and transferred? Why don’t we give the opportunity to „co-think“ scientific questions to all, who would like to participate? Because the owner of one of the „co-thinking“ brains is a bricklayer? Or too old? Or too young? Or too unstudied?Why? I passionately claim the freedom to think about theories and inventions that will have an impact on my future life. Try to imagine the impact on our development as a whole for a moment, if the idea of all interested humans „joining thoughts“, found acknowledgement! If all were taken seriously or at least considerably, no matter whether they are scientists or not? It would not surprise me, if we experienced then indeed developments in a few years , for which in former times centuries were necessary.

Unfortunately, the curricula do not contain yet, to introduce common theories to students and to encourrage them, to proceed those. If this happens nevertheless, and if it even finds attention, this is an enormous sensation (or shattering) for science.

The pioneering spirit is common to us all

Pioneering, which is striving for understanding and developping is, what makes us human. Unfortunately the society at present still plans that only an elite, a group of humans, who were trained as scientists due to happy circumstances are allowed to research and to be listened to. Why so? They work for mankind. Okay. Very comfortable, yet unsatisfying. I am also part of mankind and I want to „co-think“, thank you! I want to exchange my thoughts with others and I claim the right to recognize information in the way, I understand it. The objective realization is profoundly doubted by philosophy, theology and also science in the meantime. It has to be feared that the human brain does not have available the necessary efficiency, at least not at present.

So why not gathering as many subjective insights as any possible? They could be seen as „puzzle parts“ that are patiently set together, forming a picture which constantly develops and changes? Ratio, intuition and inspiration should be equally acknowledged. The ratio is only one means for understanding something. We are at least four-dimensional, because we live in a four-dimensional world, according to Einstein. Why do we research only in two dimensions?

Let us research. And talk. And exchange. That is, what drives me. To know, what’s fact may help. But only if we understand, why it is as it is, we start to really understand. Only if we understand, we can act responsibly. It is about high time that we start with the latter, because everything we do, changes our universe and it is considered, that this may not just be true in a metaphorical way of understanding.


Veröffentlicht 3. September 2015 von Ina Ewers in Personal Log

Getaggt mit , , , ,