My current research

In between daily life I am currently engaged in extending the work published in my article “On Will“. I plan to expand the theory therein to a more comprehensive “Subjective Reality theory“.

To let you in on my current research:

  1. If our physical reality is a co-created consensus reality, and its persistence is dependent on it not being seen for what it is (a Matrix type illusion), then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle may be the preservation mechanism as it disallows exact certainty. At the same time, there exists evidence that exact perception of one’s own created reality is possible (not what is accepted by others or entered into the broad consensus – the physical universe). The exact relation between the Uncertainty Principle and Consensus should be further researched.
  2. The Wave Function may be seen as an individual’s creative freedom within the consensus reality. Further research should reveal the accumulated freedom in the consensus reality given by the Wave Function.
  3. The Collapse of the Wave Function may be the mechanism of a created reality being accepted by another. The relationship between communication and Wave Function Collapse should be determined.
  4. The basic actions seem to be Consideration (creation of realities) and Communication (co-creation of consensus realities). The exact relation between Consideration and Communication and the mechanism from there to the co-creation of consensus reality needs to be mapped.

This and other related points will be published sometime in the future.

38 thoughts on “My current research

  1. Great, I’m looking forward to reading more of your thoughts on this. All the best for 2011!

  2. If you want to understand the Heisenberg uncertainty principle better it may help to investigate Fourier theory, which is the actual foundation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

  3. If I was the creator of this universe I’d simply put out real atoms and molecules, much simpler to just let it exist that way and invent some physical laws to abide. 🙂 However, the double-slit experiment indicates that observation alone collapses the wave-function to a particle. Some say this is because of the measurement apparatus interfering with the wave/particles. I haven’t really figured out how the elite physicists consider this experiment though.

    One interesting thing to ponder: The only thing that reaches your eyes are photons. Objects, matter or space doesn’t reach/hit your eyes, only photons do. Who knows what’s really in front of our eyes? Perhaps there’s some truth to the movie The Matrix?

    And wouldn’t the COOLEST THING in the world be to think that you’re a mortal body who dies when your body dies, only to discover that you’re an immortal soul who have lived many lives before with an infinite paranormal capacity? Perhaps that’s why we agreed to this game?

  4. I love metaphysical discussions, Geir. Our lives are more like The Matrix than most people would want to believe. Personally, I find that taking this viewpoint, makes one exceedingly OT and increases responsibility = cause.

  5. This is a great idea for further research as there is considerably advances in this field sins Ron studied it. As the M.E.S.T universe IS a big part of our problems and a thing that we might want to keep and work with,this angle is needed.Maybe getting in contact whit scientists (doing fronter research) is a good idea:)

    1. I don’t see MEST universe as a problem as Hubbard did. MEST universe is just out there presenting a wonderful opportunity for investigation. That is all.

      .

  6. Yes, this is an interesting area to look into, and I may do just that. My background both as a Nuclear engineer and as a Hindu may come handy. I just have to apply it. Exposure to Scientology is of great help too.

    You and I seem to be on the same “wave-length,” Geir.

    .

  7. Consider an office reception area. The office policy is that the receptionist only needs to be there when a visitor enters. At any other time, the receptionist may or may not be there.

    Any number of visitors could get together and discuss whether or not the office is continuously manned. All they can agree on for sure is that when one of them has entered the office, it has been manned. From this they may conclude with near certainty that the office will be manned at any point in time that they arbitrarily enter. If they were bright, they would also agree that the only rule that could be said to be true was that: when observed, reception was occupied.

    The ‘office’ may be comprised of multiple rooms, each serving a different or multiple of functions and each of which may have one or more personnel per room. Sometimes, on demand, these personnel meet in one of the rooms, and, as a group, perform a function that cannot be performed individually.

    The particular state that the entirety of the office is in is driven by the need of the visitor. To the visitor, the office is nearly magical – it can do so many things. The one thing the visitor is unable to do, however, is be in two rooms of the office at the same time, thus the visitor is left with an uncertainty of personnel distribution throughout the entire office, as well as the moment to moment functioning of those other personnel. Also, some rooms are closed to any possible entry by the visitor, while other rooms are simply unobservable and can only be speculated upon – as to their function – based on the general appearance and function of the whole office.

    Multiple offices may join together to form a conglomerate. In this case, some personnel may get shared between formerly different offices. Personnel distribution will be a function of the purpose of the conglomerate and some of the rooms of the conglomerate may appear empty. However, those rooms could be re-occupied as needed.

    Efficiency aside, there may be almost no reason a stable conglomerate could not maintain a conservation of personnel and available rooms: seemingly empty rooms may again get occupied – as needed to satisfy a visitor – without addition or deletion from the rooms of the conglomerate or its complement of personnel.

    Why all this nonsense about an office?

    The current quantum model predicts that 10 dimensions (rooms) are sufficient to describe the goings-on of particles in ‘this’ universe. (Add an 11th dimension and we get multiple universes.)

    Ten to eleven dimensions? In this universe the average person is aware of the apparency of 3 physical dimensions and a fourth dimension of time.

    What then of those other dimensions? While they are not physically detectable, like the unseen rooms of the ‘office’, the prediction that they exist provides a satisfactory explanation for the behaviour of the bits that compose other bits.

    Perhaps, like the unseen rooms of the office modifying the activities and functions of the personnel in that room, the different dimensions can alter the behavior and appearance of the ‘quantum bits’: the particles, waves and what-nots that make up the conglomerates we know as atoms.

    This would explain, for instance, why the particle we see flying by as an electron can leave one room (dimension) and emerge out of another room (dimension) as a wave.

    Many intriguing possibilities emerge from the multi-dimensional concept of the universe. For instance, for a thetan to be in this universe – and seemingly stuck in it – the thetan must be in resonance with some dimension of the universe.

    Is that what we need to view? to understand?

    What about time? Is anything more capable of slipping around on that dimension than a thetan? Some of the old OT stories were about just that. Fact or fiction? Can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube? Can’t make a cow out of sausage? Maybe. But quantum physicists figure that a universe potentially exists where the cow is not a sausage, so maybe the door is open, if just a crack.

    1. How do you imagine the Creation Pulse to occur? Is a sine wave adequate to describe its duration? And how long do you imagine the creation pulse to last? For 1/2 the sine wave? or less? and then is the other half of the sine wave a destruction pulse?

      or is creation instantaneous? with the duration of the Planck Second dedicated to what . . . maybe the fizzling out of existence of that which was created until the next Basic Moment when the Creation Pulse occurs once more?

        1. ah, instantaneous appearance. All reality propagating every Planck second. EMR — changing coordinates every Planck second. Almost everything in the universe barely changing coordinates, almost frozen in time as the Planck seconds tick rapidly away. Only EMR is “changing coordinates” every Planck second. I wonder why this is? And I wonder what this is?

          1. Chris, have a look at my reply to your comment down below starting with “I used to think that the universe was at its basis an analog system. “

      1. The Planck units seem to be very good contenders for describing phenomena in this universe. Like the effect of a pebble dropped in water, the effect of creation is still measurable and seems to resolve in these Planck units. The sine wave is a good starting point to describe the effect of a continuing cycle of action that started with creation. There may well be a create-survive-destroy to this cycle of action (at the Planck interval) as “stuff” cycles between matter and energy in the particle-wave duality dance.

        What began creation is another topic, but the effect of the moment of creation must be very much akin to the pebble dropping in water: a fundamental wave is generated that radiates outward from the creation point. The length and period of that wave define the limits of all other waves that may be generated on top of the fundamental.

        Whether creation had an instantaneous component (like the initial strike on a bell), or not, what we see now is a continuing ringing (like the struck bell), the frequency of which will be represented by the Planck units. Why those units? Just as different sized bells or bells made of different materials have different ringing frequencies, the stuff this universe started with had a quality that ended up defining the Planck units of this universe.

        My own figure on this is that in order for a thetan to enter this universe the thetan must be able to go into resonance with the fundamental wave of the universe. It may well be that such an action could trap a thetan. But, if such a mechanism could trap, then understanding and being able to duplicate the mechanism should enable a thetan to release from the trap. In short, get to a tone level where the wavelength corresponds to the Planck length and you might well be able to choose to remain or leave this universe.

        1. Interesting take.
          I would add that I believe the universe to be discrete and that fundamentally there is no such thing as a duration to any creation and that everything is created afresh every Planck Second or so.There would be then a minimum time and a minimum length.

          1. I have mis-wrote. The Planck Second could be considered to be the clock speed of creation. Our “conventional” reality processes very slowly due to the massive universe-full of iterations that must be carried out every Planck Second. Personal “reaction time” slows due to this mental buildup also known as an accumulation of considerations.

            As I collect considerations

          2. At the Planck scale I would agree that everything is created afresh, but at the relatively macrocosmic scale of the atom (compared to the Planck scale), an apparent solidity and time-continuity must exist or I doubt we would see the phenomena of radioactive half lives.

            At the Planck scale I would expect there exists a dimensional relationship that could be mimicked at a macro scale by reactive components in a resonant electronic circuit: Take a perfect inductor and a perfect capacitor, connect them in parallel and provide an initial potential across them. Remove the potential and forever after you would see an oscillation that would be characterised by an alternating between an electric potential (voltage) and a magnetic field. When one is at a maximum the other is at a minimum. But once a maximum is achieved in one direction (dimension), it collapses to again create a maximum in the other direction. This is the phenomenon of oscillation and is the mimic of duality. (It is also interesting to note that radiated electric and magnetic fields propagate in planes that are at 90 degree angles – a perfect analog of our concept of dimension.)

            The duality of state present in electro-magnetic oscillation provides an apparent model for actions at the Planck scale where the duality may be the collapse of the wave condition (space and time) to matter (singularity of mass but no space, no time) and then the reversal from no-space (matter) to space-time (wave).

            Personally I think the “duality” is simplistic and that there may be more dimensions morphing and collapsing. What if, for instance, the Planck interval was defined by the duration of a full cycle of dimensional transform from gravitic force to nuclear force to electro-magnetic force to neutral force? Such a model would explain particle-wave duality and Heissenberg uncertainty (prediction of location or momentum, but not both).

            This could also allow for a dimensional-dominance characteristic where the quantum bit-of-stuff may look mostly wave-like or mostly mass-like because the most-apparent dimension is the dimension that is needed to properly resonate with the next bit-of-stuff, or because the magnitude of one dimension is extra large compared to the magnitudes of the other dimensions.

        2. It seems possible that our”conscious” clock speed (tone) is slogging along at a wavelength of that is barely in motion at all when compared to one planck second. In other words, when compared with the rate of creation, our “motion” is almost as still as stone.

        3. I think “creation” is related to the wave collapse and that once collapsed that “mind” is the result. Mind is the sum total of reality and that reality is discreet to the individual threads also known as ego.

  8. Geir (or anyone), regarding observer effect in the famous experiment, has the experiment been performed with an animal? Does any conscious observer collapse the wave function or only humans? Im just curious 🙂

  9. I used to think that the universe was at its basis an analog system. I thought that at its highest sophistication then that computers would gravitate in that direction and one day that computers of the future would be analog.

    Studying Quantum Mechanics is disabusing me of this concept and the reason is the quantum jump of electrons from one state to another. Analog apparently is an illusion existing in the macro world created at it’s root by digital increments and calculations.

    1. Chris, I was recently considering the basic nature of fundamental particles, such as the electron, trying to visualize a classical analog to the quantum level. Your elsewhere published thoughts on the fractal nature of the universe have nudged me in a direction of interest that I’d like to share.

      My think on this started with the nature of spin: what causes an elementary particle to spin? My think was that whatever happens at the quantum level is probably mimicked at the classical, physical universe, macro level. My visualization was of a sink of water beginning to drain and the vortex created by this. A floating particle will approach the vortex, circle it, gain speed as it gets closer to the vortex and then eventually fall in. If the floating bit is just a smallish, singular particle it will just about always go down the vortex. The idea of the vortex is that it would provide the basis for spinning an object around an axis (the axis of the vortex.)

      As a thought experiment, let’s say the floating particle had a wave shape. I mean like a single period of a sine wave. A little wooden floaty sine wave. If this wave particle is smaller than the vortex we could expect it to fall in. But suppose we had dumped a number of identical floaty sine-wave bits into the sink. We would expect to see the bunch of them spread out around the vortex in a ring and eventually, one by one, slip into the vortex. However, if the sine wave bits had the ability to stick to each other in exactly one way – namely in a manner that allowed the sine wave shape to continue as a continuous wave – we’d see the sine wave getting longer but following a circular path. Eventually we could predict that a complete ring of sine wave bits would form.

      Now, what would this continuous ring of sine wave bits do? (Let’s now call it a wave circle or better, a wave loop since it might tend to get a bit wobbly for as yet unmentioned reasons. Maybe think of a plastic loop that has the wavy feature – slightly flexible, able to be distorted from a perfect circle. Loop-ish more than circle-ish.)

      So what would this floaty wave loop do? It would probably circle the vortex indefinitely as the dynamics of forces and its size (if big enough) and orientation would make it not fit into the vortex.

      A consequence of this structure is that it can only be attained if there are an integer number of sine wave bits making up the loop. That is because the loop must have a continuous sine shape all along it. If, for some reason, the loop breaks, gets smaller and reforms as a smaller diameter loop, there still must be an integer number of basic sine wave bits in the loop.

      This phenomena of integer numbers of waves in the loop goes toward explaining why the states of an electron are discrete (digital) and not continuous (analog).

      To keep this from getting too long I’m not going to go into the nature of the vortex, but I did get confirmation of this idea by wkiing quantum vortex. The vortex noted is at least one fractal level removed from the elementary particle vortex, but the idea is there.

      I look forward to seeing your ideas on this – and from anyone else who has an interest in the quantum nature of the universe.

      1. “6. How Spin Arises from the Wave Structure of the Electron
        The wave structure of the electron is composed of a spherical inward quantum wave and an outward wave traveling at light speed c (Wolff, 1990, 1993, 1995). Figures 1 and 2 show the wave structure of an electron termed a space resonance. The outward (OUT) wave of an electron travels to and communicates with other matter in its universe. When these waves arrive at other matter, a signature is modulated into their outward waves. These outward-wave signatures are the response (Wheeler & Feynman, 1945; Cramer, 1986, Ryazanov, 1991) from the other matter. The total of response waves from other matter in the universe, as a Fourier combination, becomes the inward (IN) wave of the initial electron. The returned inward waves converge to the initial wave center and reflect with a phase shift rotating them to become the outward wave and repeating the cycle again.
        The central phase shift is similar to the phase shift of light when it reflects at a mirror. The required phase shift is a 180o rotation of the wave, either CW or CCW. There are only two possible combinations of the rotating inward and outward waves. One choice of rotation becomes an electron, the other becomes a positron. The angular momentum change upon rotation is either +h/4 or -h/4 . This is the origin of spin. One wave set is the mirror image of the other set producing the CPT invariance rule.”

        Is this in your line of thinking?

        1. This is along the lines of an earlier concept I had of the particle – that it was a 3-dimensional resonance, a harmonic oscillator. This is a very good ref. Thanks. It will take me a while to get through. Much of it is material that I have already encountered, but the spin model resulting from the inward-outward wave action is a new concept. I see that Dirac made the math work. That was essentially where I was hanging up with the space resonant model and why I started looking at a mechanism such as the vortex as a solution. One thing that the Dirac model doesn’t show me is how an emitted photon will have rotation. Have a look at
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization

          1. Thank you. This is more familiar territory for me as electric motors work under these same designs. Power factor is calculated also in this way using the two components and leading and lagging phase angle during rotation.

    2. My speculation about the nature of the vortex that could create the spin of an electron wave loop is this:

      On the macro scale the concept of a vortex at a black hole in space has been pretty well worked out. Here’s a link to a good pic:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

      A very similar phenomena could occur with very little mass if the space occupied by the mass goes to zero. ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_mass#Point_mass

      What this means is that there could be an extremely small black hole associated with each elementary particle. This tiny black hole would have an extremely small range of influence, but enough to provide a vortex trapping the wave loop of an electron and causing it to spin.

      There are a couple of interesting mechanisms relating to the loop shape that are possible here:
      1) the loop could be stable and circular
      2) the loop could be long enough to be unstable, and, just like a string one is winding into loose loops, it could fold over and form a figure-eight.

      When we consider the electron orbitals of an atom – spherical shells; equally sized lobes; unequally sized lobes – we may be looking at the wave loops or loops as they are additionally influenced by a positively charged nucleus. The question of where are the black holes associated with these loops? when we talk about electrons orbiting an atom and, why wouldn’t they interract with the nucleus, or gobble it up? are good questions that are up for group speculation.

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s