Most of what I write about is a combination of both the natural world and the spiritual world and while I agree with most of modern science to date, I do think there is also a spiritual layer to reality.

Sift through the PAGES and POSTS for more interesting information guaranteed to make you think and question.


#1 Nothing is No Information

#2 Something is Some Information

#3 NoThing is Infinite/Unlimited information

Be careful how you understand NOTHING to be and how the word is used when you read my pages and articles on the web. I hold that the true vacuum energy of our universe and of in fact everything is from NOTHING of Infinite Information, is dynamic, and full --not empty, stagnate, and of zero information.

All the information collected from this process of existence and life is also retained inside of the Nothing. Who knows how many times existence and life have happened. I don't think information is lost or destroyed, and I don't think it returns into a zero-information kind of nothing.

Both understandings of nothing look very similar. They are both undefinable, unquantifiable, immeasurable...but they are opposites. The difference between zero and infinity.

FYI: There is One thing all of life wants, even human life and that is the effects of LOVE.



Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.

Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.
Nothing is everything, but everything is not nothing.

From Spirit to Nature

From Spirit to Nature

Quantum Physics, Gravity, Dark Energy and the CC problem

"The concept of space is not a tangible real thing and cannot have any properties that allow it to expand , twist, contract etc. Space is simply a concept that allows us to visualize the relative positions of matter, energy, forces, fields, quantum particles and stuff yet to be discovered in an otherwise infinitely large volume of emptiness.."

Well to me, what I've read about our laws and the likeliness that they evolved with our universe as well, that they were not absolute. That everything evolved together. Particles behaved a certain way in our space time and then we eventually get our laws. 

But if there were different factors than we could have different laws, possibly. Who knows for sure.  
I've also read a lot about quantum particles and how they exist in many states. The quark is an example.

On the quantum level, to me, it seems like there is a lot of flexibility. That nature is like a "quantum gene" with a lot of different expressions. How it expresses is relevant to its environment, much like biological genes. 

The way the holographic universe is explained sounds a lot, to me, like a 2D reality in which all our 3D information exists. Encoded mathematically. If you understood the math well enough you could read that code and decode it and see our 3D world. This to me reminds me of biological genes, and in my opinion nature tends to repeat itself, its patterns again and again. 

So, it makes sense that our biological physical forms could be represented by genes which are very small codes and that our universe and everything in it could be represented by a mathematical very small code. 

So, when we look at the quantum particles, we see one side, one expression. For the electron that is up and down -because of our fields and laws- but possibly it seems to me that the electron could also express itself differently given different laws and fields in a universe. 

This idea is supported (weakly) to me by the fact that the electron can actually be prepared in different angles, that it can do that. 


So these are my thoughts...
Gravity is just curvature of space-time, it is not a force. It does not have force carrier particles, it works on the very big, it cannot be unified, it exists because of space-time, not because of virtual particles. 

Bu the other forces came out of the virtual particles themselves. 

Gravity is a geometry effect.
It's a space-time thing, not a quantum thing. It's a square peg in the
round hole of unifying theories. But it shapes the cosmos - and that started off very small.

Gravity is a quality of space itself --the curvature of space--so gravity is in fact asserting a location of something. Emptiness or nothing itself is a chaos of movement it seems. No location.
Emptiness is also a property of space. We would call it dark energy now possibly. 

So, it seems to me that the moment SPACE came from nothing --or whatever-- gravity and dark energy were at work from the get-go. 


Forms of energy- 7 forms?

empty space-dark energy
dark matter
very hot energy
very cold energy

In nature we see everything going from simple to complex, from random to non random. All non living things to living things. 

From energy to mass to matter. 

Energy seems to be the most fundamental form of all things. What this energy is fully is what is than the fundamental question. Do we experience fully this energy? Do we see fully this energy? I’d say no to both question, but to both question we also experience it and see it in part only.

We know we don’t see it fully, because the uncertainty principle shows us we can’t know the electron momentum and location at the same time. In fact quarks behave in a kinda similar way where they are both a left quark and right quark at the same time until they ?????

From zero space to empty space to full space. 

Space has TIME and of FIELDS. Anything in space then interacts with both. Unless you are a photon you don’t interact with the fields. If you are an electron you don’t interact with time. If you are a quark you interact with both? but still behave strange. ????

The first field would have been the gravity field which curvature of Space-Time itself. Higgs would have been the second field which birthed through inflation of Space-Time. Other fields came about how?

From absolute nothingness to virtual particles to particles. 

Nothing exists in absolute nothingness/Zero space 
(Except I’d argue an infinite form of energy is needed to maintain it and implied when
Space-Time dissolves.)

Empty space means Virtual Particles and Fields/Time will be present.  

Mass is a side effect -showing us this invisible energy through its interaction with the fields. This is how we know there is a lot of energy there in emptiness, because of all the mass shown by the virtual particles interaction with the fields of space.

But I’d argue that even without this space, without these fields for us to see the energy, the energy is still there. It doesn’t need space to exist. Space simply gives this energy a defining mass (from the fields of space) —An identity.

But its momentum and location are not both known at the same time. Do all virtual particles share this quality? Do all fundamental particles? or just elections? what about quarks and neutrinos? 

So, anything on the quantum scale follows that rule? HUP? 

If our atoms are 1% mass from the matter we know and 99% mass from the empty space then we can clearly see that nothingness takes a lot of work to maintain. Much more work than something. There is a lot more going on in nothingness, than in somethingness. Somethingness is bound to happen, because it is so much easier, it is so much less work to maintain. 

What about time? Without time does this energy still exist? We see electrons rejecting an interaction with time. They behave as if timeless, jumping from one shell to the other instantly, communicating with another electron across the universe. It is as if distance means nothing to this little buggers. 

But then what kind of energy is it?

We can see that electrons don’t interact with time. Photons don’t interact with the fields of space. The HUP shows us virtual particles and electrons and quarks? and neutrinos? and all quantum things are not completely seen. We can’t know its momentum and location at the same time. There will always be uncertainty in nature. A characteristic of nature itself. This is fascinating indeed. 

Because if nature is simply a reflection of a God, a part of a God, and nature is showing us it can’t be completely seen, then why would we assume we should be able to see all of God? 

When you look at the reflection of a light in the mirror…is this reflection measurable? Is there light left behind on the mirror to measure? If you and everyone with a conscious brain disappeared, would the reflection on the mirror leave any trace of its existence?

So, isn’t is possible then that a substance, an entity could be reflecting itself and yet not leave any direct measurable evidence of its existence behind? Yet, we can observe it like we observe light in a mirror. Yet, we are not observing the actual source. We are only observing the reflection.

If virtual particles are in fact like a reflection of “God” not in fullness, but in partiality…then we have something that is not directly measurable, but it is only partly observable and through it and by it we experience a part of this “God.”

Dark Energy/Cosmological Constant Problem

For myself, and I could be wrong, but I don't see gravity the same way as the other 3 forces. Its a force, but it is different. 

 Dark energy is at one end and Curvature of space (gravity) is at the other. Both doing like opposite things. One is pushing and the other is pulling. One is positive. The other is negative. Gravity seems to bring things into visibility, into location. But dark energy does the opposite, it keeps things in the dark, into the very unseen levels of what may not be a location (or uncertainty principle of location).

It seems to me that the other 3 forces come out of this dark energy only because there is now a location (space) for them to exist. Then the particles act accordingly and we call these the natural laws, but this is just our view of what nature is doing, how it must behave. 

But really gravity is not bound by the dark energy -empty space- and exists outside of it because it is curvature on space itself. 

What seems to stump everyone are these things:

Gravity-what is it, from where, why won't unify and why weaker. 

Cosmological Constant Problem --Dark energy problem--because it is much weaker than maths show it should be and our universe is not accelerating as fast as it should if the dark energy were as much as the maths showed.

So, the fact that these two problems seems similar, they are both weaker than what we might expect. And because they both are mysteries to some degrees, makes me think they are in an opposite relationship...and they both would exist in other universes. Because if other universes existed, they would both have to have SPACE curvature -gravity- of some kind whether it be 1-10 dimensions, and they would have empty space.

It seems like the 2 properties  are curvature and emptiness of space. 

So, it seems...if other universes did exist there would in fact be seepage of both dark energy and gravity into them and this is why they are much less than we would expect. 

Of course I have no maths to support this, this is just an idea that seems to make sense, but if we could apply maths to it I wonder if maths could show that if other universes existed "such and such amount of dark energy would be absent from our universe" and in fact that is how much energy is missing and so we know "x" amount of energy is in other universes. 

Also- notable is that I've heard it said a lot on physicist videos that dark energy is just predicted to be way to much than what we show in reality and that one explanation is that there is a negative Higgs field which cancels out a lot of this energy which is why it isn't there. But another reason, it seems to me is that Dark Energy is not as much in reality as in predication, because like gravity, it could simply diffuse into other universes.

The reason I think this is because if it takes Empty Space + Higgs + Gravity to make a universe, then naturally if others exist, those ingredients would be there!

However, I'm not sure if what is predicted of dark energy in our universe has to be accounted for in our universe only. 

But maybe this dark energy "leaks"into other universe through worm holes or something. 

Another explanation I thought of was that maybe Dark Energy changes in power. So it isn't as strong now as we would have thought? That maybe the act of expansion itself takes some of its energy away?

I then read some papers and there seems to be a Dynamic Dark Energy idea similar to that.

No comments:

Post a Comment

What is God?

For myself, I view God as a Spirit. An infinite, illimitable, eternal Spirit. What is a Spirit? For myself, I view a Spirit as the most fundamental form, most simple form of energy.

I think to call the Spirit/God as intelligent or conscious, restricts and limits our own understanding of it. This is because we view life and nature through our own intelligence and consciousness. Ours evolved naturally from simple to complex and is restricted by body/space/time.

A God would not have these limits, would not have evolved and would not be complex. Therefore its "intelligence" and "conscious" would be nothing like we understand.

God is not a consciousness inside a brain or an intelligence inside a brain or even a mind inside a brain. Though a mind might be the closest we can think of it. God would exist outside of space and time and inside of it; therefore, its "consciousness" would encompass past-present-future and even before time. Its intelligence could be much like a mathematical genius quantum computer. Perhaps an Awakened Energy-Spirit- would be a better definition.

There are two kinds of energy in my view. Spiritual and Physical. When we understand virtual particles and fundamental particles better, I think we come closer to understanding what Spiritual Energy can do as well.

Spiritual Energy >>Withdrawal>>Space Forms>>Physical Energy Emerges>>Fields> Virtual Particles> Forces>Fundamental Particles>Everything Physical Forms.

Science examines the natural/the physical, not the spiritual.

I agree with everything from science, except when biologists (not mathematicians) use words like purposeless, without guide, directionless, without goals.

I agree with mathematicians assessment of randomness.

The reason is because in biology, we are talking about things without a consciousness -processes and mechanisms are non living things and can't have a purpose in the sense that they are using the word. They don't have a consciousness. They are not aware.

We are examining processes and mechanisms, but what is this substance (energy) that these processes and mechanisms are using. From where does this substance (energy) come?

Those are essentially the questions at the crust of the real inquiry into what is reality.

Simply because the process or mechanism is not conscious itself, does not mean they were not structured deliberately or without intent or thought, or that a spiritual energy does not exist.

This simply means that physical things and processes and mechanisms without a consciousness don't have a conscious purpose/goal.

Well, Duh.

So, I agree biological evolution doesn't have a conscious purpose/goal in and of itself -because we are examining only the physical Things, the physical processes and physical mechanisms.

This says nothing about the spiritual significance.

However, they do have a natural purpose/goal.

All energy persists toward entropy =Death.
All life persists to survival =Life

Further, all energy follows a pattern from simple>complex, chaos>order, from heterogenous>homogenous, from random>non random, from death>life>death.

These patterns are reflected in our natural laws.

So, all of energy does follow a guide or a direction. It is the direction or reflection of the natural laws.

is Nothing all there is?

Science seems to be going in the direction that true nothingness does not exist. This is because whenever you find nothing, you find virtual particles.

I would have to agree not just with the science, but with that concept in my view of life and reality.

Nothing does not exist, because whenever you find nothing--you actually find everything just in its most simple and fundamental form. Nothing is NoThing, not the non-existence of everything.

The most simple and fundamental form of reality is NoThing and this is why this happens in my opinion.

The real question for me is, how much of life experience and memories is retained in this simple fundamental form that makes up our universe and our everything?

How is it retained?

We can see cells seem to have a sense of memory and experience, but do virtual particles too?

Do all our memories and life experiences retain themselves in some fundamental form of energy?

Could what we call the soul or spirit be an echo of nature itself?

It does seem that virtual particles have to behave certain ways. It pops as a gluon only to become a photon or such...because it seemingly has to conform to the existence it pops into. Some virtual particles might pop into our existence as anti-quarks, but most have to conform and so we see the photon it is supposed to be.

Why do virtual particles conform? What rules are they following? It seems they are somehow aware of what is around them if they are conforming. (Not to imply this awareness has to be conscious.)