Awesome post. I'm very impressed by your research and knowledge on the subject. It is very enlightening, and I'm beginning to expect I'm going to spend the rest of my life thinking about this subject. I sadly, haven't much to add to the discussion at this point. Though I'm fascinated by your metaphysics views. You've allowed me to consider everything in a different light.

My best friend is a philosophy major, and while talking to him I made two realizations. That either
1. Something came from nothing
or
2. Something has always been.
Both are completely counter to the ideas of cause and effect. One of my friends views God as the energy that caused the big bang, and you view God as the medium in which we exist. If you're a pantheist It seems to me that pantheism is about as close as you can get to defining God in terms of science. And given my two recent realizations, defining God as the cause of those apparent paradoxes seems most satisfying to me, a complete skeptic, ironically enough.

thnx Abra, i also believe similiar to you and also in multiple dimensions/parralel universes,but not pantheism - but the problem i see with the quantum field theory is this - something that has always been "is" capable of creation, "nothing" is not - the absence of all (nothing) precludes the possability of creation. there has to be "something" in order for there to be anything else. if the quantum feild "exist" and it is as you/they state "infinite", whether it is in a state of flux or at rest - it is still "something", and if it is something, it had to come from somewhere, if it's nothing, then it could not vibrate or be at rest. it could have no type of motion or non motion at all.yet if it has motion where did it come from?? motion is a force as you well know, so i ask if its a force then where did this force come from? They say it alway's existed, yet there is no real proof of this as you say theory only? Theory and fifty bucks will almost buy you a cup of coffee at starbucks, or a half gallon of gas - smiles, so putting cosmology aside and pantheism, do you have any further thought's? or are you satisfied with what you have studied and accepted at this point???

Maybe a better way of putting it is - if the quantum field has motion, what is causing the motion? Or - if it does exsist - and always has how does it control itself to "know" when to move or cease movement? does this not require intelligence? a knowing of when to move or stay still? Or are you saying it is just a random phenomena? hmmm?
A random phenomena that's eternal? Yet that still does not negate the possible fact that if it does exsist - It's exsistance does not explain how it could have always been there? your explanation sounds plausable - yet to believe it would mean having "faith" blind faith at that - and that sounds more like "scientific religion" (scigion) than factual reality. it can't be measured, or given any scientific validity beyong that which they feel they have from cyclotronic evaluation - which really cannot support the concept as you've stated? "to be" cry's out "creation" To be - with out beginning or end (eternal) - cry's out "god" a "scigion" god to be worshipped by the those who cannot except the possabiblity of an inteelegent being that brought forth all that is. Infinite chaos creative thinking, Core Logic refutes this concept - to much order as we understand order in the universe. especially here where we can see it. Any other thoughts???

I’m satisfied with the conclusions I have thus far, but I’m fully aware that this is not the complete picture.

I work on the principle of ruling things out that I feel can’t be true. Then whatever is left must be closer to the truth. However, I’m also fully aware that what we see may not be what actually is.

Philosophers have often said to me, “As a physicist how would you feel if you discovered tomorrow that our entire existence is nothing but an illusion”. I always tell them that it wouldn’t bother me in the least, because as a physicist all I am doing is studying the nature of the illusion.

If our existence is a dream, so be it. The one thing that we have observed is that this dream apparently follows rules, and physics is the study of the rules of the dream. If the rules were to change tomorrow that won’t change the fact that at one time they were the rules. From everything we’ve observed thus far we have no reason to believe that the rules will change tomorrow. But physics certainly doesn’t rule that out as a possibility.

In the meantime we can only try to make sense of what we see using the rules that we see. Fortunately there aren’t a whole lot of rules. The universe is an amazingly simple dream considering how complex it appears to be.

Having said all of that let me touch on a few things,…



Something From Nothing

This is a big problem when we think in terms of classical physics. Cause and effect. For every action there is a reaction, etc.

However, with the quantum field this is not the case. The quantum field is ‘nothing’ in a physical sense. That is to say that it has no measurable physical properties of it’s own. The only properties that can be assigned to it are properties of probability. In other words, the nothingness of a quantum field has a property that things can spontaneously arise from it without any cause.

Of course, you may say, “Well if the quantum field has this property that things can arise from it spontaneously without cause then it must be *something*”. While this is true in a philosophical sense, it is not true with respect to physics. That is to say that according to quantum theory, not only can we not define the quantum field innately, but the laws of nature actually show that it is impossible to do so. The very laws of quantum physics prohibits this.

So in a very real sense, modern quantum physics does say that matter and energy spring from nothing. However they do so within very well-defined parameters. For example, matter can only appear out of nowhere when it is paired up with an equal amount of antimatter. So there is no sum total of matter being created. In short, you still have a sum total of nothing.

So in a sense you haven’t created something from nothing, all you’d done was change the face of the nothing.

So as a philosophy you argue, “But still there must have been something there to have these properties in the first place!”

This is true. Yet, that nature of that something is non-physical. At least in terms of physics as we understand it. You can’t detect a quantum field in any physical way. All you can detect are the things that arise from it. And they always arise in pairs of matter/antimatter. Pairs that would annihilate each other to become nothing if they meet. So now your face with the fact that we observe things that exist, coming together to completely disappear from reality without a trace.

Well, if you can accept that things that exist can completely disappear without a trace, then what’s so hard about accepting that pairs of things can come into existence from nowhere?

At this point in the game, I just accept that this is what is observed to be true. I don’t worry myself about how it works. According to quantum physics it’s impossible to know how it works. Not because we aren’t clever enough, but because the equations actually tell us that this is the end of the road. The equations actually say that it is not possible to know anymore about this.

At least this is true of our current equations. Many physicists are under the belief that our current equations could be wrong. I have something to say about that myself. However my comments about that come under the heading of Pure Mathematics rather than physics.

Force and Energy

There is a slight difference in the technical definitions of Force and Energy. But it is true that energy is required to apply a force. So you’re asking how could the first thing have been put into motion.

Again this comes from the laws of quantum physics. It’s just a matter of observation of how the actual universe behaves on a quantum level. It’s wrong to think of the quantum field as a sheet of rubber that needs to be vibrated. That’s thinking entirely classical. You’re trying to create a Newtonian universe with that line of thinking.

It’s the observed nature of the quantum field to spontaneously produce matter/antimatter pairs of particles, and these particles already come complete with energy fields and other properties. It’s just what they are. However, the point being that no energy is required to create them! That the main point here.

There is no energy required to create them because they offset each other perfectly. That’s just what the mathematical equations tell us, as well as what we observe in nature. So while this may be an intuitive problem for you, it’s not a mathematical problem. No energy is being created or destroyed because it comes in pairs that can annihilate each other to become nothing once again.

Does this make intuitive sense to me? Well, not really, but it’s what we observe to be the true nature of the physical world we live in.

I might add here also, that time is a big factor in all of this. Unfortunately I really don’t have the time to get into that (not pun intended). But Albert Einstein has shown us and it’s been confirmed via observation that time and space are malleable, in fact they are interchangeable. Time is a property of our manifestation. There is no such thing a time for the quantum field. And since our very concept of energy is intimately dependent on time as we perceive it, this very concept of energy does not apply to the quantum field itself. This is a whole topic in and of itself. I could explain this better using the Twin Brother’s Paradox and a Black Hole, to better illustration the erroneous nature of time as we perceive it. However, for now I’ll pass on that elaboration.

From a pure physicist’s point of view, all you can do from this point forward is talk about how these particles behave to create the universe we know and love. If you want to go in the other direction and investigate where these particles come from, then you must enter into the realm of metaphysics because physics can’t say what’s on the other side of that door. Physics deals with the observable world, and the place from whence these particle arise is not observable.

So to be a physicist, all you can do at this stage is move forward to see how these particles create the universe that we know and love. If you want to go in the other direction you must become either a philosopher or theologian.

Let’s investigate physics first, then come back to philosophy and metaphysics.

The Physics of The Universe

Most people don’t understand the physics of the universe nearly as much as they think they do. Nor do they understand the Big Bang, or how the universe evolved to it’s current state. Nor do most people have a clue how large the universe is, or the nature of mathematical probabilities.

How Old Is The Universe

We know that the universe has to be at least about 14 billion years old. That’s an observed fact. Light from distant galaxies simply couldn’t have reach us yet if the universe is any younger than that.

How Large Is The Universe

We have no idea. It could be infinite. However, what we do know is that the observable part of the universe using our very best telescopes contains about 70 sextillion starts (that about 100 billion galaxies).

These are, of course, rough figures, calculated from samples of the sky. To the best of our knowledge the universe is pretty much the same in every direction so we can extrapolate. When we do the extrapolation we arrive at the a count of about 70 sextillion stars.

That 70 thousand million million million stars.

Keep in mind that this is only the observable part of the universe. We have reason to believe that the actual universe is far larger than what we can see. In fact, the part we can see is most likely the tiniest faction of the actual size of the universe. The universe may well even be infinite.

We also know from observation that the universe is made up of the same atoms in every direction we look. The make up is also in the same proportions. We can tell this because of the make up of the starlight. If stars were made from vastly differnet stuff we’d see it in their spectrums.

So here’s something to ponder,…

There are only approximately 100 naturally occurring elements (or atoms). And for all intents and purposes that number can be reduced to about 30 very common elements that appear to be in the same proportions throughout the universe. These (approximate) 30 atoms are the atoms required to create life as we know it on planet earth.

So the universe is a soup of about 30 differnet kinds of atoms in the perfect proportions to create life as we know it on planet earth. And there are 70 sextillion stars (potential solar systems) where life can evolve.

Plug that into your calculator and the probably that the universe is teaming with life is just about 100%.

Life is an extremely likely event in this universe. We are not alone!

The Anthropic Principle

Many people work backwards from this and say, “Look! In order for this universe to be so perfect for life, all of these variable had to be just so! It could not have been an accident”

That may or may not be true. However the major flaw with the Anthropic Principle is that it is backward-looking. It’s looking at the finished product and saying how perfect things would have had to be for this to occur precisely the way it has occurred. Well, that would be like looking at spilled milk on the floor and saying that in order for it to have spilled precisely as it is all the initial conditions would have had to have been just so!.

But there in lies the problem. There is no reason to believe that the current state of the universe was pre-planned. Of course things would have had to been just so in order for us to exist they way we are. But if things would have been different then something else would exist, and those creatures would be looking back saying precisely the same thing!

So the Anthropic Principle in and of itself is really an unwarranted notion that carries no merit.

However, we do know that the quantum field does appear to have specific properties of potentiality. And that our universe does have consistent laws of behavior and the ability to evolve into complex and even sentient life forms. So we should look into this a little bit more and see where it leads.

Again we’ll look at this from a physics point of view.

The Physics of Evolution

When most people discuss evolution the often talk about biology and the history of the earth. They seem to be concerned with trying to prove whether species evolved from other species, etc.

From my point of view, that’s extremely naïve and elementary. As far as I’m concerned the fact that all life on earth evolved from common biological ancestors is water over the dam. The DNA evidence alone is enough to confirm that even if we didn’t have the conclusive fossil evidence that confirms it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

However, evolution began long before that. Evolution began before the earth was even formed. The code for evolution is in the atoms. And even more than that, it’s in the very nature of the stars. Stars naturally burn and give off light and heat that is required for life. However, much more than this they also create the heavy elements that are required for life. The most important of these being the carbon atom.

The carbon atom holds the true blueprint for life. Of course it requires other atoms as well to use as building blocks. However, we have no idea of just how diverse those atoms could be. In the universe we live in there are only a handful of different types of atoms available for the carbon atom to combine with. Yet it can combine with those few atoms in many complex ways.

Without getting too far off track, let me also add that even the carbon atom as well as the other atom actually arise from a very small set of quarks and leptons, and those emerge from the quantum field with absolutely precision and regularity.

It is the carbon atom that will spontaneously evolve into amino acids when placed in a suitable soup of other elements. And that soup apparently can vary dramatically. The recipe is not required to be precise like many claim. In fact, water is not even required. Sulfuric acid as well as other liquids will suffice.

We are a water-based animal, (as are most animals on earth, but not all). There are extremophiles that are not water-based life-forms on earth. This implies that life can indeed evolve in conditions that are extremely different from earth as we know it. So the earth is not a miraculously perfect place for life to evolve. We just think so because we like it here.

Given this wide berth for evolution it would be utterly absurd to believe that earth is the only planet with life in a universe that contains over 70 sextillion stars, just in the observable part that we can see.

Intelligent Design?

Given all this can we conclude that the universe was intelligently designed by a sentient being?

My person guess is, yes.

However, let’s not jump off the deep end here. Let’s thing about this a minute. What would it mean for the universe to be intelligently designed, and how might that designer have done his/her/its job?

Well there are many ways to consider this question, let’s break them down into sections,…

1) The Pre-designed Universe

This would be a universe where our current situation was predestined to be the outcome. In other words, the universe was designed specifically to evolve into humans. I personally find that highly unlikely, although not entirely implausible. I do believe that humans were certainly among the things that could arise (obviously we did arise), but I find it highly unlikely that humans would be the only creatures that can achieve sentience. In fact, I’m thinking that its more likely almost any animal can evolve to sentience given enough time, although some are more likely to than others.

2) The Baby-Sitting God

This would be a universe where an external supernatural being is baby-sitting the whole process guiding it along.

I find this to be counter-intuitive to what has been observed. The elements appear to already have the ability to evolve into more complex states of being. Why bother with a baby-sitting god when the process is already on autopilot by it’s very nature? The universe simply doesn’t need a baby-sitter by its very design.


3) The Random Dice Toss

I’m thinking that this is the most likely scenario. The creator (the god or quantum field) that gives rise to this universe, has already built-in the possibilities before the universe was created.

It’s totally random (yet controlled).

Just like when we toss dice. We have no idea what precise number will come up. But we know what can and can’t come up. For example, we can roll a 2 thur 12 or any whole number in between. We can’t roll less than 2, more than 12 or any fractional numbers. So even though we have no clue of precisely what will come up, we do know what can’t come up. We also know what possibilities can come up.

I think this is how the universe works. Humans are on possible roll of the cosmic dice. But there are many other possibilities as well (we can see that just on our own planet). In fact, there were almost two different species of humans!!! Just on planet earth alone. So we know that these things are possible.

I personally believe that this is how the universe operates. But there are other possibilities,…

4) Thoughts Create Things

We already know that this is true to some degree. However, there are those who believe that thoughts create everything, not just some things. In other words, there are those who believe that the quantum field is nothing more than a holographic screen upon which dreams are played out. It is the dreamer who creates the quantum fluctuations that become manifest as a physical reality.

This very well may be the truth of reality. In fact, in latter years I have been leaning toward this as a very real possibility myself. In fact, it seems to be the most likely possibility in come sense. However,… There are problems with it!

In this kind of universe we are the creators and we create everything first by experiencing it, and then by explaining it. Our very explanations give rise to the mechanisms that we believe cause all of our observations.

However the problem with this is that in the past, it was widely believe that the earth was flat. That turned out not to be true. It was also widely believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. That turned out not to be true. At one time it was believe that the Milky Way Galaxy was the extent of the universe. That turned out not to be true. In fact, there were a lot of things that people believed that turned out not to be true.

So this flies in the face that we create the universe as we go. However, there could be a combination, in which we create some elements of it via thought whilst other elements of it are more objective.

My Personal Thoughts

I’m totally convinced of #3. The universe is a controlled toss of the dice.

Who tossed the dice? Well, for the answer to that question I’m leaning toward #4. We did!

We are the creators of this universe. Not just us (humans) but all living creatures within the universe. Not only on earth but everywhere within the universe.

Our true nature is that we are this unobservable entity that we call “The Quantum Field”. Or “God” if you like.

For me, the idea that God is a separate egotistical being with an agenda that is just raising humans in a terrarium that we call “The Universe” makes no sense to me at all. It doesn’t explain anything. It only serves to complicate things. Moreover, who would truly want to be nothing more than a pet to another being? It’s not even an attractive prospect. And, of course, there’s absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever anyway. So there isn’t even any reason to make it up in the first place.

The idea that we (the only sentient minds that we know exist), are indeed the consciousness of this universe is really the only reasonable conclusion we have to draw at this point in time, until we have reason to believe otherwise.

Actually this last part did fall into the category of metaphysics, but the point I was trying to make is that observations point to #3. And there are good reasons to rule out #’s 1 and 2. Also #4 can be ruled out as the sole explanation for the reasons I gave. But it might still be a factor that can have some degree of validity once a sentient mind has evolved. It is possible that thoughts can affect the manifestations of the quantum field, and quantum physics has even suggested this in some experiments, especially concerning those associated with quantum entanglement.

Just a Quick Note

Everything I post here is a very brief summary of things, and will most likely be grossly misunderstood because of so many popular misconceptions concerning these topics.

However, keep in mind that none of this is to say what actually is, but rather to say what is more likely based on observation of the world in which we live.

Pure Mathematics

One thing that we must also face is that much of science is based on our understanding of mathematics. Actually our current modern mathematics is incorrect. I can say this with absolute confidence because I know this to be the truth.

Modern mathematics is indeed an invention of man, and mistakes have been historically made in this journey. This is particularly true with respect to the work of George Cantor and the notion of infinity. It’s not that Cantor himself made mistakes, but that he was basing his conclusions are premises that were erroneous to begin with.

The bottom line is that everyone believes that if aliens came here from another planet they would agree with our mathematics because mathematics is supposedly a universal language. But in truth they would not agree with our mathematics! Because our mathematics is ultimately incorrect.

I’m actually writing a book about this and I’m not interested in even attempting to try to convey the problems in forum posts. However, the point is that our quantum mechanical description of reality is based on our flawed understanding of mathematics. Fortunately our understand is not that flawed. In other words, the quantum mechanical picture does indeed yield the correct numerical results. However, in the language of mathematics the true nature of what is causing those results is being hidden from us.

When we repair the flaws in mathematics we may be able to see beyond the ‘quantum barrier’. In fact, I feel very confident that we will be able to see much further. Until then we are stuck with the quantum picture as it is currently described.

String theory is totally off track and heading down a blind alley. It may produce some interesting and useful things, but it is off track from reality because it is based on a flawed pure mathematical foundation.

On a Personal Note

I’m not concerned with having a full technical understanding of precisely how the universe came to be. It would be interesting but certainly not necessary. I know that I am and that’s all I need to know.

well stated Abra - you've given me much to think and study on, those were exceptional responses. Though as i stated i have "a good background in quantum theory" it is no where near yours and your insight's, I'm to ignorant to dispute the pure mathematics you talk of but i can still agree that present math is not right. I personally believe we will find the answers in sound not math, but that is a personal belief I dont think anyone else has explored that I know of, though i surely wont claim originality for it.i will look forward to reading your book when you finish and publish, let me know of it's title and whether it will be under the suedonym of Abracadabra - smiles, or will you use your real name??

most sincerely, SAM/TRIBO

sorry ABRA, I also wanted to thank you for the time you so generously put into your replies, I have done the same at times and I am truly grateful for all your post. may the "quantum field" be with you - smiles

I would be interested in hearing why it is that you believe this. Although, I should point out that math most certainly doesn’t rule out the study of sound, math is merely the method we use to describe sound quantitatively.

I would also think that there would be a very fine line between sound and other types of vibrations. I think if you actually studied quantum field theory you would see that it actually is nothing more than the study of vibrations. These vibrations can be expressed as wave (the Schrödinger wave equations), or as matrices (the Heisenberg matrix approach).

The interesting thing is that ultimately the waves (or matrix patters) end up describing the vibrations of probabilities. In other words, there is no physical entity associated with these random (yet controlled) vibrations of the quantum field.

So if you are using the word “sound” to simply mean vibrations, and you are not limiting that to merely acoustical “sound” then I’d say you’re right on the money. But you’re a bit late since this is actually what Quantum Mechanics is already doing.

The universe is a song of many vibration (as String Theory suggests). The only problem with string there is that they are trying to define the quantum field in terms of our current mathematical understanding of this world. What they are actually doing is using reflections of the quantitative nature of this world to try to build a mathematical model of what is underneath it. This would be like looking at the surface of a pond and recognizing that there is a landscape showing on the surface. So you paint that landscape thinking that you are painting a picture of what’s in the pond, but in reality all you are seeing is the reflection of the terrestrial landscape on the surface of the pond.

String theory is painting a picture of that reflection. Clearly they will succeed in painting that picture, but it make be quite some time yet before they realize that what they have actually painted is just a reflection of this world.

One the see the error with mathematics they will understand precisely why this is so. They cannot penetrate the surface of the pond using current mathematics. They don’t even truly understand the nature of what they call irrational numbers yet. Once they fix mathematics they will fully understand the true nature of irrational numbers and that will be a major breakthrough. That will actually open up a whole mansion of doors.

It’s not so much that current mathematics is ‘wrong’. It’s more that it’s incomplete, and it’s hording ideas. By that I mean that current modern mathematics is attempting to define and express non-quantitative ideas as “number”. The problem with this is that these non-quantitative ideas are not being studied in their own right as “non-quantitative” ideas. In other words, if we are calling a concept “number” and sweeping it under the carpet of mathematics, then it has been suppressed to be viewed in that light.

Irrational “numbers” are one such concept. Irrationality is not a quantitative idea. Yet mathematics is attempting to treat it as such. It is actually an idea of self-reference. However, the mathematical community does not know this yet. They are totally unaware that all irrational “numbers” are the result of self-referenced situations. They aren’t “numbers” at all in the cardinal sense of number. They are irrational relationships, they have no absolute stand-alone meaning. Yet mathematics treats them as though they are absolute stand-alone concepts. As long as they continue to do this, not only are they contaminating mathematics with erroneous ideas of ‘quantity’, but they are also hording these non-quantitative ideas from being studied in their own right outside of the field of mathematics.

This will all come to a head, in the very near future. They can’t go on much longer heading in the direction they are currently heading. They will soon realize that they are just beating their heads against an immovable wall. I think a lot of mathematicians and scientists are already aware that there is something wrong, they just don’t know what it is. They can’t put their finger on it.

Lee Smolin (a physicist) recently wrote a book called “The Trouble With Physics”. He’s also feels that String Theory is heading down a blind alleyway. He’s encouraging other physicists to seek out more original ideas, and to explore other theories in more depth, (such as loop quantum gravity, etc).

However, in all of his concern, he never even mentioned the possibility that modern formal mathematics could be wrong. This is where the real problem lies. Physics can never make anymore progress until mathematical formalism is repaired. The repair is actually quite simple. It has to do with the empty set in Set Theory. I already know the solution of how to correct mathematics so that it would match any alien who might visit earth.

But then there’s the problem of how the correct math will affect physics. I don’t pretend to understand advanced mathematics well enough to fully understand all of the consequences of the change. I only know that Group Theory will change radically, because it is heavily based on the concept of the empty set, which is the error in mathematical formalism. Also, Group Theory has much to do with quantum mechanics, in ways I’m afraid I’m not well-educated on.

On thing that’s interesting to note about String Theory is that it doesn’t even address the problem of the collapse of the wave function. All String Theory is attempting to do is to meld together the four known forces, in particular gravity and electromagnetism. Or to put that another way, String Theory is attempting to find a solution to the Grand Unified Field Theory. However, even if it should succeed in that it still will still not have answered the questions concerning the collapse of the wave function, or the mystery of quantum entanglement.

So while String Theory might have the promise of becoming a Grand Unified Field Theory, it still doesn’t offer any real solutions the deepest quantum mysteries. Also, for a theory that claims to have the key for unifying Quantum Mechanics, and General Relativity, it has yet to actually produce the equations that actually do this. All String Theory appears to be at this point is a huge hunch, that may not even pan out on its own promises, much less with anything else.

And finally, since String Theory is extremely mathematical and it is based on a flawed mathematics, it’s bound to give incorrect results anyway. String Theorists really need to fix mathematical formalism before they continue with any more calculations. The answers they are getting right now could very well be like a dog chasing its own tail.

From my point of view all that really matters is that they are having fun doing the calculations. As long as they are enjoying themselves it really doesn’t matter whether they make any headway.

Same goes for all of us. I hope you enjoy your exploration of sound. As long as you enjoy it that’s the most important thing.

The beautiful thing about thinking is that you will almost certainly come across interesting and fruitful ideas whether they solve your original problems or not. And, who knows, you may even hit the jackpot and solve the problem you originally set out to solve. That would be cool.

hi Abra, yes i was talking to an extent on what i know of vibrations, leaving out the quantum field which i will have to study in depth, that i was not aware of. I'n not a physicist or mathematician, but i have felt for a couple of decades now that sound was key to knowing about the universe my book i'm writing "trueness of being" which i probably won't finish til 2012 or later (now that i have more research to do, (thnx alot !!!!!!) has at it's core the fact that all/everything is vibratory, including light and magnatism. I hope to present a case that once we tune into this music/tune/vibrastion frequency, we will start to have real core answers as to what this life/world/universe is really all about.If by chance the quantum field fits into this core idea(s) it will even explain it more clearly, for that i thank you.You have been most helpful in that extent. though i'm sure you and other's may find flaw with my work, that is normal, just as i see flaws with that which you discuss, thats just the way life is - but that does not negate what one can see or derive from such speculation or theory. like you - i am at peace with life but still as curious as i have ever been about why we are and what we are and what everything else is or has been or will be, some call me a dreamer - i call it a TESlA state of mind. This i know for sure to be a core truth, though it's probably best stated by Einstien - " There are two things that are infinite - the universe and MAN'S STUPIDITY, and I'm not sure about the universe" That's what i would like to correct both in myself and the world at large - if i can accomplish a part of thet through my work, I will rest pecefully in the Music of the quantum field,

sincerely, SAM/TRIBO

Your book sounds intriguing Tribo. I’m always fascinated by the work of highly intelligent yet uneducated individuals. They haven’t yet been contaminated by the status quo and therefore can often come up with some quite unique perspectives.

A friend of mind, who recently passed away, was quite intelligent but had almost no education at all. He was emotionally challenged, and treated by many as being mentally handicapped. He flunked out of high school and was thrown onto the battlefields of Vietnam where he instantly had a nervous breakdown as he watched is comrades being shot up and blown to pieces all around him. He wasn’t emotionally stable enough to be put into that position in the first place. He just passed out I guess. Miraculously he was saved without a scratch and returned to the states on a medical discharge. Ironically, this was actually fortune for him because he was proclaimed disabled and given a lifetime pension.

Sorry, didn’t mean to get carried away. But the point being that everyone treated him like as if he was a complete idiot, but he was far from it. He was quite intelligent and I discussed many deeply philosophical issues with him that most people would even be able to follow. He never ceased to amaze me at how well he could grasp and follow the deepest of concepts. In our conversations we visited universes and spiritual worlds quite unlike our own. And even though I was always speaking in a ‘hypothetical sense’ he kept up his end of the conversation almost as if he had lived in those universes and spiritual worlds and was speaking from direct experience!

So I am fully away that education doesn’t mean diddly squat. Some people have insights into worlds unknown though an entirely different window. They just innately know what they know. They may not even know why they know it. They just do.

So if you feel that you know something, you’re probably right.

And that information may help someone else to understand things better as well. I don’t think it’s important that you prove any paramount conclusions. If all you do is share your insight, that can be used by others to help steer them in directions they may have never thought to go on their own.

I’m afraid that my book probably won’t be out much before yours. My problem has more to do with procrastination than content. I already know precisely what needs to be said. I’m just too lazy to write it all down.

hahahaa, i find the same to be true - i get so little free - time, when I do i push it off to the side rather than get down to it. I like life and try to enjoy as much as possible. By the way i do have a degree in chemistry (decorative and protactive coatings chemistry) Which will force me to write another book for the professinal wood finishing industry some day also, if i feel i can spend my time to do so. most likely this will all take place starting in a few years. What i know about myself is that once I do sit down to the key board or paper things go along pretty quick, some times a hundred or more pages a day.But then comes the editing and proofing, and all else and i get sidetracked and dis-interested alot of the time. Anyway Abra, i have sincerely enjoyed talking with you on this, i'm sure we will meet on other post also, i look forward to it and if you have anymore to add to this one be my guest, i still hope others in the near future chime in on this subject. till then may the Q force be with you.

Abra, again, amazing posts.

It's interesting to consider antimatter and matter as two parts of 'nothing'. However, I was under the impression there was a great deal more matter than antimatter in the universe. If the universe as it is now, is simply another configuration of nothing, then shouldn't there be equal amounts matter and antimatter to "balance" the equation?

I'm also curious as to whether or not antimatter experiences something similar to gravity?

All the previous posts are immensely thought provoking. I'll have to read them again.

im going to put this simply..i believe what will be will be as what was has

Where's JeannieBean when we need her?

There is no way I was going to make it through all of abra's posts without a professor of physics in here to explain all of that. Anti, you got some serious grey matter too.

So, as for the uninformed masses (that would be me, I'm admitting my lack of knowledge before I start my theory so no browbeating), here's their two cents.

Everything in nature has a flow or cycle to it. We as ethnocentric humans sometimes forget that not only are we part of nature, but the universe around this little globe is too.

That being said, if cycles occur here, they occur everywhere. Now the time scale could be greatly increased or decreased depending on where you may be, but the flow is still there. Where did the matter come from? It's always been there. The univers expands until the energy from the inital explosion is desipated. Then gravity does it's job and it collapses on itself (much like a stars life cycle). When the density is great enough it blows (much like a super nova).

We are just in this current phase of the universe. We won't be around to see the collapse, but it is coming, give or take 100 billion years. First law of physics boys and girls matter can neither be created or destroyed (same holds true for antimatter). It's always been here (just like God for those of you who don't believe in science).

Yes, absolutely.

There is really no difference between matter and antimatter at all (other that the fact that they annihilate one another on contact).

In other words, if our universe were made almost entirely of antimatter instead of matter, we'd have absolutely no way of telling the difference The naming convention is just that - a naming convention.



There very well may be equal amounts and we just don't know it. And this actually comes out of the Inflationary model proposed by Alan Guth.

When the universe was still quite small it was non-homogenous. Which is what we would expect from a random quantum fluctuation. Parts of it may have contained more antimatter and other parts may have contained more matter. (keeping in mind that there really isn't any difference between these two types of matter other than they mutually annihilate each other)

This very small universe then expanded exponentially due to the mechanisms given by Alan Guth's inflationary model.

Some parts of this inhomogeneous expanding universe became mostly made of matter, other parts became mostly made of antimatter. So in whole it is balanced. This is a feasible scenario, but certainly not an untroubled one. The problem is that the visible universe, as far as we can tell, is entirely made of primarily matter with very little antimatter. We could tell if parts of the universe were made of antimatter because we would be able to see interactions at the boundaries of the matter and antimatter interfaces. We don't see evidence for those boundaries. So we conclude that the entire visible universe is made primarily of matter.

Some argue that this is highly unlikely if the original seed was inhomogeneous. Although, other's argue that the total universe could be so vast that the visible universe we actually observe could easily be a minute part that just happens to be made primarily of matter instead of antimatter.

Keep in mind that we could be made of antimatter, and other parts could be made or matter. There really isn't any difference other than the naming conventions. And that the particles have opposite properties, like opposite charges, and opposite spins. But again, those are just conventions. There's no absolute difference between matter an antimatter. Only relative differences. So you can pick either one can call that matter and the other one antimatter.

If you like you could say that our entire visible universe is made of antimatter and matter is the rare stuff. It's just a naming convention. You're choice. Although, science has already chosen to call the stuff we are made of matter and the other stuff antimatter. So the choice has already been made.

A Second Possiblity

There is a second possibility as well. Much less popular but certain within the realm of Quantum Theory. That possibility is known as phase shift.

I don't know if you are familiar with neutrinos. But they come in three 'flavors', electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos, and tau neutrinos. It has recently been proposed (and partially experimentally verified), that neutrinos can change flavor without any interactions with other particles. In other words, they can change flavor my simply changing their own oscillatory patterns randomly (for no apparent reason).

Well, some have speculated that matter and antimatter particles may also possess this strange property. Given this possibility, it is feasible that during the very early quantum fluctuation (the gave rise to this universe) the original particle and antiparticle pair that randomly came into being underwent a phase change. At least on of the particles did. For this reason they weren't able to annihilate one another.

In fact, this idea actually gives a reason why they may have hung around long enough for Alan Guth's proposed inflation to occur!

Well, if that is the case then the entire universe would be made of only one type of matter (or antimatter). Thus producing the universe that we know and love.

Other Thoughts

Again this is all based on the mathematics of Quantum Field Theory. It fits the math. Given everything we know about Quantum Physics.

It still doesn't say why there is a Quantum Field in the first place, or why it has the properties that it has. It simply explains that once given this quantum field the entire rest of the universe can be explained.

I like to think of this as not an explanation of what God is, but rather as an explanation of how God created the universe.

Whether the quantum field is the essence of God, or just some kind of substrate he uses for the illusion of life is anyone's guess.

My personal thoughts on that lean toward pantheism. The idea that the quantum field is the essence of God, and that we are manifestation of this field. In other words, we are manifestation of God, not separate beings.

But again, there's no proof of that. The quantum field could be God's 'terrarium' so to speak where he raises his human pets. The only problem with that is that would be that we are a direct manifestation of the 'terrarium'. In other words we couldn't be pulled out of the terrarium and survive outside of it because we are a direct manifestation of it.

So for me, it just makes more sense to say that God is the quantum field and we are direct manifestation of God. We are the quantum field vibrating, in other words.

Just meant as food for thought. For whatever it's worth.

As usual very enlightning Abra, Like i've said i've come upon almost the same conclusion's as you but starting from a point of vibrations (universal vibration's) i call or deem -
god's symphony (or music) meaning that all the universe is an instrument that god touches and when touched he put's forth a musical vibration that permeates the entire universe and beyond, including all dimesions and parralel universe's that may exsist also. the onset of this harmonious vibration in motion by his action, created what we can now sense and beyond, and will not cease til he decides it is time. I've come from a different angle than the other's but somehow have ended up with a very closely sounding theory that i really did not know about til here ("Quantumfield") - again thnx for all your knowledge and in-site,should make for a much more iteresting read once i finish it

ps - once i do some more research i have afew other things to ask - but i am hoping i can find something on my own first before approaching you on them.

sincerely, tribo