[^^zix home page] [HYPER-SPACE (mfa)] [Quick Index/Map]
-[Promenade/Galleries]-
ma: z^scientist
See also: [L/D] [S/D]
See also: [af/art3/pkda2001 - pizoig gaming projects]
Ab Fr
\ /
+----------------+
/| /|
/ | / |
/ | / |
Fu / | / |
\ / | / |
+----------------+--Hu |
| | "RS-3" | |
[Quick Index] | Jz--+----------|-----+
| / | / \
| / | / Sc
| / | /
| / | /
|/ |/
+----------------+
/ \
Sp Ar
"Reality Structure 3" (mark II) [Learn more about the Iconosphere]
[Cross Product Space] (entry port SCxSC)
[Semi-linear blog-o-sphere] (and duck crossing)
This iconosphere owes much of its
existence to Phillip Glass:Symp #3 & #2.
-^_6
z^scientist
(table of contens follow...)
More Triple-Cross Products
NOTE: Recent theoretical work on the possibilities of Quadrupple (4-tupple) Cross Products has been
suspended due to a lack of funding. Data processin continues - un-abated.
AxB (v) :: C -[ SC x SP (Earth) :: (expressed via) ART -> Eco Psychology, etc]-
See also: The name re-makes the thing (HUM x SCI (word) :: EXP as JAZ).
-^_6
On this page: {Intro}
{The Sciences}
{Arthropology}
{Archaeology}
{Biology}
{Chemistry}
{Computer Science}
{Computation, Turing Machines and "The Matrix"]
{Geology}
{Linguistics} (our special guest today)
{Mathematics}
{Lost Mathematics}
-[Spiritualist Philo(Logic))]-
{Mathematical Trees} (latices, decision trees, etc)
{Randomness}
{Laws of Form}
{Physics}
{Psychology}
{Sociology}
{Science: A quick history}
{The Scientific Method}
Key concepts: {Matter}
{Energy}
{Za-car}
{Space}
{Time}
{Universe}
{Science is?}
See also: -[Spiritualist (Philo(Logic))]-
{Core Concepts Science}
{Analysis/Reduction per se}
{Analysis/Reduction via Bifurcation}
{Determinsim}
{Control} (feedback, systems analysis, etc)
{Cosmogony}
{E & M} (Electricity & Magnetism)
{Philosophy}
{Psychic Powers (ESP)}
{Quantum Mechanics}
{Goedel's non-time Theory}
{Robotics}
{Systems Theories}
{Thermodynamics}
{Science and its opposites}
Scientist
-^_6
The following "keys" are given after the list of the sciences,
a brief history of science, and a brief essay on the so-called
"scientific method".
Keys: {Matter}
{Energy}
{Za-car}
{Space}
{Time}
{Universe}
But first....
Following a brief descriptions of "the sciences", there will
be two introductory essays on the history of science, and the
so-called "scientific method".
In this section: {The Sciences}
{Science: A quick history}
{The Scientific Method}
An introduction to the scieneces
Or if this Thursday, then it must be Physics....
-^_6
Our serving selection for today: {Arthropology}
{Archaeology}
{Biology}
{Chemistry}
{Computer Science}
{Computation, Turing Machines and "The Matrix"]
{Geology}
{Linguistics} (our special guest today)
{Mathematics}
{Physics}
{Psychology}
{Sociology}
-^_6
Anthropology
Anthropology (Greek: "Man Knowledge/Words") is the study by man of
man. As the British englighment period poet, Alexander
Pope, put it "The proper study of man, is man". By this, he was not
just setting man apart of nature, but apart from the Churdh of the
time - primarily of course the Catholic Church. There are several
sub-areas of antrhopology of interest.
Physical Anthropology - dealing with the minor (and sometimes not
so) differences between the physical
structure of humans -(see map)-. It deals as welll with the
biological evolutiojn of primates, cenring of course on the
roles that have lead to humans.
Ethnology and Cultural Antropology - dealing with how
One of the most important impacts from the "theory of relativity" (physics)
was towards helpting to justify the concept of "anthropological relativism"
or more general:
Cultural Relativism.
Early on, the impact of Darwin's theory was mis-interpreted as saying
"Survival of the Fittest". Previously, the various European powers had
already been plundering the rest of the world, and many people had
some misgivings of how "the nobel savage" was being treated - this
being part of the *Romantic Movement* of the time to glorify and evny
the simplicity of the savage in not having to deal with the growth
the modern industrial national state, etc. So, with the handy "tonic"
of "survial of the fittest", then it was only *natural* that these
inferior cultural variants of man should die off just as the dinosaurs
and other special variants of animal life had died off to make way for
a better, more advanced and above all: More fit creature; ie,
Christianised/Civilised/Industrialised MAN.
But, when relativity (and finally an awareness of the logical errors
of other forms of absolutest thinking) came to light and reason, the
practice of anthropology stopped being one of simply bearing witness
to the passing of the "Dodo" versions of man's primitive, un-fit
cultures to one of not intervieing too much, as well as being more
of a "participant/observer". Of course, one of the earliest to arrive
at this was Franz Boas, who had many student revitalised and more
relativised by his views. It is interesting to note, that the works of
the great ethnologist of Black Americans, Zora Neal Hurston was a pupil
of Boaz as well.
CROSS PRODUCT LINK: -[ HU x HU (anthropology, perception) --> Cultural Relativism]-
An important area (in terms of all areas of the "arts") is the concept
of ritual and the following references are recommened:
Grimes, Ronald L. (1996) Readings in Ritual Studies. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice-Hall. A superbly varied introduction to
all aspects of ritual. Makes an excellent follup from
Van Gennep (see below).
Turner, Victor (1969). "Liminality and Communitas" in The Ritual
Process. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. This is a superb
classic showing much of Turner's original research and
a wealth of ideas that can be applied to all things
human/dolphin/robotic/etc.
Van Gennep, A. (1960). The Rites of Passage. Chicago, Ill:
The University of Chicago Press. Although old (originally
published 1900), it is far from dated. And is still a
standard reference work, as well as an excellent
introduction to all things ritual. Van Gennep's style
is easily approachable and well orgianised.
The following two works are considered standards in the areas of
anthropology of ritual as well as the aesthetics and easily read and
assimulated, as well as excellent reference books.
Eliade, Mircea. Myths, Dreams, and Mysteries. 1957. For better or
worse, Eliade is generally credited for giving us
the idea of "shaman" as guide/guru/seer/intercessor/etc.
This work is especially to artists of all types.
NOTE: The role of the shaman, etc is discussed in: -[humanist]-
Langer, Susanne K. (1957, 3rd Ed.) Philosophy in a New Key
- A Study in the Symbolism Reason, Rite, and Art.
Harvard Press. Cambridge (Massachusetts). A modern classic
of cross-product development of ideas.
Archaeology
Archaeology (Greek: "Old Knowledge/Words" is the science dealing
with man's ancient past - primarily with "pre-history".
Thus, archaologists talk of the "paleo-lithic" (Greek: "Old Rocks")
and "neo-lithic" (Greek: "New Rocks") eras and of course this borders
on the areas of physical anthropology (see above) as well.
More to the point, archaeology is concerned with not just "digging
up the past", but re-constructing as closely as possible the culture,
mores, behaviours, beliefs, and practices of our various ancestors.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks to anthropologists was (and is) the
destruction of sites by amateurs and treasure hunters. In fact it was
not until the middle of the 20th (1900c) century that there was by
international agreement groups of professional societies. This is by
no means a small matter, even the most gifted amateur may be ignorant
of much of the history of a region, the geological structure of the
region (as well as its recent geological history -- thus, bordering
on the "holocene" and "pliestocene" periods of very recent geology).
As such, much valuable (and yet seemingly non-existent or uselss) data
has been lost in many "digs".
Obviously the study of archaeology (in its proper form) goes hand in
hand with the study of art -- escpecially "ancient art" (or as artists
are want to say "Art History I" (as opposed to "Art History II" - the
renaissance to the modern era - and "Modern Art" - 1848 or so forward).
One of the primary cross-products of archaeology and art practice (ie,
art technique) is in the re-construction of HOW ancient peoples made
certain objects that we know they did not have modern technology to
accomplish. Examples of this, are carefull reconstructions (to a high
degree of certainty) of how Stonehinge, The Pyramids (both African and
American), the Statues of Easter Island, etc, were built using the
technologies of the time and the materials availabl at the location.
A further important aspect of archaeology is the affect that the climate,
environment, terrain, and bordering peoples had on cultural development,
as well the very day-to-day and long-term survival.
Biology
In this section: {Intro}
{Botany}
{Zoo-ology}
{The Physics/Maths/Arts of The Bio-morphic}
Biology: Intro
Biology is broken down into two "classic" areas:
Zoology (pronounced: zoh ah uh gee; Greek" Life knowledge/words)
and
Botany (pronounced: bah tuh nee; Greek: Plants + "y").
With the growing awareness of the complexity of life and non or near
life; eg, phages, viruses, etc. The traditional "Linean Classification"
system (named after the Swedish scientist who started it) has undergone
many changes. When the evidence of evolution is brought into play, some
of the previously accepted classifications have changed.
Further, there are also the study of extinct (particularlly, very
ancient) speicies which are broken down into:
Paleobilogy (Paleo: Greek "old")
Paleozooology
Paleobotany
Finally, the area of biology has been extended to include the possibility
of life in space or on other worlds than Earth. This area is geneally
known as:
Xenobiology (Xeno: Greek "Strange" or "Other").
At the present time, only life based on DNA (the so-called "double helix")
is known to exist anywhere in the universe. Although, many xenobiologists
theorise that beings based on liquid helium, pure neutrons, or on more
traditional but slightly altered chemistries are possible.
The area bording Astronomy (an area of physics/geology) and biology is
the idea of "SETI" (The Search For Extra Terrestrial Intellegence") and
was started by many science fiction writers, such as H.G. Welles, as
well as scientists such as Drake and Sagan. No evidence of ANY intellegent
life has been to absolutely exist anywhere (even on the planet Earth). And
of course the debate continues.
Botany
Zoo-ology
The Physics/Maths/Arts of The Bio-morphic
The concept of the biomorphic (Greek: "Life changing/changible") came
into being (??) with the -[Surrealist artists]-
who were just begining to be influenced by the science discoeries
of the previous century; and in this case the concepts of
Darwin and Freud.
Darwin gave us the fact that life evolves and is not constant.
Freud gave us "dreams as the royal road to the sub-conscious"
(poss not an exact quote).
Anyway, the idea is that life changes. And of course we go back
to Versalli's "Life of the Artists" -- that is, the realisation
in the renaissaance that the artist is embedded in his/her/nez
time and not just something that fell off Mount Parnassas (Greek:
"Fell out of the sky").
Thus, like John Donne's "crag" (The tolling bell - a eulogy ??),
the artist reflects their time, nationality, etc.
Key to the idea of artistic biomorphism is the cross product
of (big drum roll here; thanks, Shosty!)
GEOMETRIC & ORGANIC
Now this sort of thing manifests itself in maths as such things
as "genetic algorithms", "mathematical economy", "markov processes"
and of course our old nemesis FRACTALS.
Meanwhile in Physics biomorphism has (as far as i know) so far only
manifested itself in the form of life forms in the sf novel by
rocketist/futurist Robert Forward's "Dragon's Egg". Where-in life
is based on neutrons living on the surface (barely) of a neutron
star. Forward also has given us "Camelot-40K" (or something like that)
an sf novel based on sex (er, ahhh), violence, (errh, uuuhmm) Sorry
wrong notes:
Life based on liquid helium.
Look, i didn't invent this stuff. All Mr. Wentworth told me was to
come in here and say that there was trouble at the mill (life in
mutatable forms). I didn't expect a sort of Spanish Inquistion!!!
(meanwhile, Graham Chapman's lovely head - sans, pipe) was last
seen floating (joggling?) down West Sainsburry Street, near the
corner of Lord Grey avenue. So, finally Kermit sighed a big sign,
picked up his banjo, got into the VW (again with a sigh). Ms. Piggy
sighed, wiping a teer from her eye and asked/sed: "South of France
for a week?" to which kermit nodded silently, slowly wiping the
teers from his eyes.
Meanwhile, "a certain duck" was heard to exclaim: Rosebud.
That is to say, such "streams of consciousness" were a main component
of the surrealist's desire to "go beyond" the here and now -- to find
the REAL understructure.
Note that this had already (probably) occured. In one sense, Van Gogh
was trying to do that with his art (as we might see from people who
self-mutilate themselves "i wasn't trying to kill myself; i just like pain"_.
-- a fellow cartoonist, ??name?? (i kept hope-ing that it was just
another hullucination, but it was real (as i would put it: ALL too reel.
Anyway, so when van Gogh writes to his brother Theo that:
Why should i avoid just using white and black out
of the tube, without mixing them? After all, if
i paint someone reading "Le Journal" ??title??
isn't the print black, and the paper white?
-- not an exact quote (looks for Chipp's book)
Thus, the idea was to use the here and now to go beyond
the hear and know. Later of course, things like LSD would
simply re-capitulate (echo) the royal musician of Zaniduu.
That is, (in terms of physics)
The state of the current state + change produces a new state
but, in terms of fractals, the quantum, and of course "ante"
(given by the symbol (lower-case) alpha and an apostrphe; ie,
either
/ (should be smaller font here)
a' or a` or a
(tips towel to Mihai and Mrs. Doctor Mihai)
That is: the the FUTURE state is "somehow" involved as well.
We might think about it like this:
A creatue can not evolve beyond a certain level, since
to do so would cause it to lose a certain level of
complexity; ie, create a toxic flaw causing "cascade
failure", or simply "a stopage".
Think about Jean Tinguely's
"Self destroying machine - portrait of New York"
An artwork is constructed which actually has the ability to
destroy itself. This was first attempted (??) by Man Ray in
a photograph of an object, the title of the work (which one?
the photo or the object itself?) was: "Object to be destroyed later".
Thus, we might say that a black hole is simply an object that
"wants to destroy itself" (which it can't do) - the only way to
do so, is to destroy the entire universe. This is reminiscent of
a short story by Stanislov Lem *** PDE ** LINK *** wherein a
device is created that can destroy everything. But then it stops.
Why? -- ah, but i would never put spoilers in a file like this!!
So, where are we?
bio morphic forms probably are metaphysical (they are certainly
pataphysical - i don't think i need to use 'pataphysical here)
in that they have (like fractals) different representations in
different "views" (eg, phsyics, art, sculpture, modern danse
-- esp the futurers banker's hornpipe, as well as any other
area/way that we can represent/project/extract/remunerate:
the geometric and the organic
(whereupon the learned left-leaning lecturer-er lead too far to
the left, and instead of falling face first into a quite recently
deposited load of horse hockey, sed:
"When it's just sort raining "a bit" and you see
ducks taking cover (they will waddle over under
some bushes, under a tree) -- TAKE COVER!!!
-- that's how i lost "the green" (umbrella/brollie/bumbershoot)
//\\
// \\
||
-||-
(an approximation of the Chinese Gliph for umbrella -- which
(oddly or not) enough LOOKS like an umbrella. Very nice, bamboo
with painted, waxed paper for the "covering" (skin?)
--42--
btw: This article was brought to you by "The Dada Fire Insurance"
company. And by readers like you.
Chemistry
Chemistry is the science involving the combinations of atoms (the most
stable form of complex sub-atomic particles; such as, hydrogen, oxygen,
iron, etc). Combination of the some 110 known types of atoms form
compounds, and more complex compounds are refered to as molecules.
The merging of chemistry with other sciences (such as physics) gives:
Chemical Physics - studying the very intricate (physical) processes
in fairly simple compounds and trying to generalise
this into a "unified theory" of chemistry from a
physics poing of view. (usually only a few (eg, 10)
atoms or so).
Physical Chemistry - studying the physical properties of farily
complicted compounds and molecules. (usually
between 50 and 500 atoms or so).
Biochemistry - the attempt to study the complex molecules involved
in life itself (usually, from 10_000 to 50_000 or
more atoms. Even simple DNA molecules can contain
hundreds of thousdands of atoms).
Computer Science
Computation, Turing Machines and "The Matrix"
See also: -[The Matrix]- (in SF literature; film)
Note this section is designed to be fairly self contained,
so there is probaly a lot of extra needed...
The Turing Machine
The grit: A general purpose computer that has
access to various tapes. Each tape
can contain data (information, databases, text)
or programs (instructions to the computer).
The Turing computer can move the tape forward
and backward (either counting places on the
tape or to a specific location on the tape).
Each "place" has an ADDRESS; for ease of use
these start at 1 and goes to 2, 3, 4, 5, ...
to the capacity of the tape. Each "place"
on the tape can contain a single "character"
of data.
The computer can check the value (read it, but
leave the value un-changed) and make a decision
based on the value;
eg, Read CURRENT_TAPE_POSITION value
If value > 0 MOVE TAPE FORWARD 126 spaces.
or If value > 0 BACK_SPACE one space
INCRMEENT THAT LOCATION BY ONE.
The "default" operation after execuing the instruction
at a given location is to forward space the tape one
position, read the next instruction and execute it.
For simplicity the tape is often thought of as TWO
DISTINCT TAPES:
A program
A data tape
The program tape is read and acted on by the tape reader
but does NOT modify anything on it. It **CAN** add to
the program tape at the end. If the program can modify
parts of itself - instead of specifically separate parts
of the tape, then it is said to be SELF-PROGRAMMING.
The Data tape is given as being readable and writable
-- ie, any portion can be modified.
"Niceities"
===========
In generalising, we may extend this to include
*convenient* commands such as,
GET My_string;
READ (a synonum for GET, but can access different
tapes and devices).
where part of the tape (acting as memory) indicates
that My_string is a sequential string of characters
that starts at XYZ address and continues for either
a given LENGHT or until an "END-OF-LINE" character
indicates the end of the stored string.
PUT My_string AT <address>
WRITE (a synonum for PUT but can access different tapes,
and devices).
Note a PRINTER or other "high-level" device is "seen" by
the computer as just a differnt kind of TAPE that can
only be written to. We assume that the printer is
always ready, on-line, has paper, etc. Similarly
KEY_BOARD (aka KEYBOARD) is seen as an input-only tape.
A "file" (eg, a random-access file in a database)
is seen as a ORGANISED TAPE where there are
"logical records" of fixed (or not) record lenghts
and accessed via a fixed set of READ / WRITE
sub-programs (routines). Thus, we "may" define
a high-level language which might look like this:
READ ON Database_2001 RECORD NUMBER 1729 INTO My_buffer;
The operation of such a system can be broken down into
the basic Turing Machine operations - in a deterministic
manner.
Results of Turing's Concepts of the Turing Machine
==================================================
Primariliy, such a simple computer:
Move tape forward/backward
Read tape at current location
Read tape at loation "x"
Write tape at current location
Write tape at location "x"
Compare value at location "x" with "y"
If condition returend (eg, equals, greater than, etc)
then
Can be used to (in theory) represent *any* computer system
that can be concieved of.
This would include such things as stochasitc computers,
super computers, etc. Of course such an implementation
is not very efficient since it only has a very small
number of instructions. Some modern computers tend
to model this; eg, RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computers)
and tend to be very efficient at certain tasks.
Regardless, the model (when formally defined - which i
most certainly have *not* done here) can be treated
in strict *formal* mathematical fashion and present
several problems of a similar nature to those un-covered
with Kurt Goedel's undecidability investigations.
Chief among these is the so-called "stopping problem".
Given a general tape of data, can it be determined
whether the turing machine will reach a "conclusion"
-- that is: In every case, can it have a FINITE set of
computations/decisions that it will go through?
For small, and finite tapes this problem can be solved
by simply submitting every possible combination to the
machine and see if it does in fact *terminate*.
For large problems (eg, factoring large numbers, or
almost all operations research problems) the answer can
some-times be proven mathematically. In many cases
(such as modeling or with systems with "open input tapes")
the answer can only be "at best" bounded by "guesses"
-- even though they are v. good guesses.
SIDE BAR --20--
By the way a good cross-reference: A Beautiful Mind
some of his (like Ramajaunan's) results are
so unbelievable, that i can't believe they
can even be concieved up, let alone shown to
be true.
That is: Game theory lends itself (as does
Operations Research as well), to many
problems that can in theory by solved (but just
not in a finite number of steps). The problem
is that if we adopt a "strategy" that will solve
a problem - it may involve either a countable or
un-countable (non-poly time) number of steps.
And the prize goes to: An algorithm that specifies
other algorithms that when
coded can be shown to "solve" a problem". And the
GRAND prize goes to: If the algorithm for specifing
algorithms (at any point) is ITSELF is un-bounded
un-countable - and yet able to be un-ambigously
specified.
Eg, (from "Stories about Sets" ??author??)
Take an infinite (but countable) number of bellboys
Have them move the person from room X to X + N
where N = the number of people that that bellboy
must move TIMES the number of bellboys
So, to solve this problem, all we need is an infinite
number of counters to count to some countable number.
Now, what if any of the values is a (countable) number...
This problem is easily solved by
using Maxwell's Demons to do the
calculations. But, in a sympathy
vote to the train porter's union
they have threatened to strike if
management doesn't agree to return
to the bargaining table - in good
faith (Satre-ian, or otherwise).
Meanwile in Selma....
Reports posted as they come in...
--30-- (listening to "The Three Penny Opera") go figure...
"open input tapes" include things like a keyboard. If
a person is allowed to type ANYTHING into the keyboard,
then a general "input program" may in fact not have a
"stopping state" due to the limitless input possibilities.
This doesn't mean that is may not in fact stop (ie, reach
a conclusion), but that there "may" be input sequences
which cause the program to not stop.
That's about all that i know.
Turing Realities and the Matrix
The idea is that we can "save the state" of a system
onto disk (or onto a tape of course; a tape is "just"
a sequential disk-file). This means that in theory
as a system changes, we can save EVERY state of the
system, thus:
System: State n (saved)
Input(s): X (or, x, y, z, ....) but a finite
number of them
changes the system
System: State n+1 (saved)
And thus in theory we can re-create all of the steps at
any step. This goes back to the "God's eye view" of a
determinstic universe of the Deists (eg, Alexander Pope,
Voltaire, etc).
Now note: That it "seems" (steps out on limb) that
we can construct a computer system which
is not limited by the quantum. This means
that certain systems would have to be
determined by random (actually psuedo-random)
inputs - but these can all be stored as
alternate world-lines.
But, meanwhile back in our universe which DOES have
quantum effects and (presumably) actual random processes.
(whether these are "merely" pi-random or "treu-random"
- whatever that means remains an open question).... regdarless...
The problem in such a model is that in reality there would
not be a single computer that encompases all of the system
as well as all inputs at any given instant of time. There
must almost necessarily be some FIRST and THEN... seqence
in which the inputs are processed. This problem becomes
unbounded in many cases where the inputs are infinite or
at least can potentially be of any value.
The simplest representation of this idea is that of
the observer/observed issues of Quantum Mechanics. This
extends into classical philosophy that not only can't
we step into the same river twice, but that by stepping
into it (or even contemplating to do so) we affect the
river itself.
The other problem (in various states of "solution") is
whether *every* computational problem can be modeled
by a Turing Computer. This includes the idea of being
able to *analytically* specify an algorithm to model
various components - even if there are an infinite
number of them - so that it can be shown that in an
infinite amount of time, we could in theory construct
a Turing Machine that would solve the given problem
-- again, whicn in itself might be infinite.
The problem arises from there as to the various kinds
of infinity we are talking about:
1) A countable infinity which we can map 1-to-1 to
the integers (1, 2, 3, ....) - even though there
are an infinite number of them.
2) Un-countable infinity #1 (the real numbers) which
we can specify some method (algorithm) by which
the mappings are to be constructed - even though we
can't count them - and by a series of (again countable)
algorithms produce a scheme to model the system we
are looking at.
These concepts arise out of "cross products" (if i may
be so bold) between things like:
1) Georg Cantor's various infinities
2) Kurt Goedel's undecidability theories; two main one,
and many variants since his original work.
Althought totally un-related, see: {Goedel's non-time Theory}
3) Self-referential problems; first highlighted by
Bertand Russell in his review of Otto Friche's
Set Theory work; see also, "Russell's Paradox".
This has been (partially) solved by one of Russell's
stuedents, G. Spensor Brown and his work in
"The Laws of Form".
And out of this came all of the "stuff" on modal and non-modal,
etc. logics. It's all a big mess, but of course with films
like "The Matrix" (or like Scotty's teleporter on Star Trek)
it can "magially happen" in the realm of SciFi.
Of course in terms of either "simple" iconospheric double and
triple cross products, we might write things like:
Philo x Jazz ("I'm lying") ---> Goldberg Variations
written in terms of Jazz
(or, eg, "The Bull on the Roof" by Darius Milhaud), etc
Or that it might lead to something like live performance work;
eg, Nam Jun Paik, etc. and variations of interactions there-in.
(just another of my random thoughts),
frank 2008.03.24
Geology
Geology is the study of the physical and historical processes of the Earth.
The general areas are:
Physical geology, including minerology, hydrology, vulcanology,
oceanology, atmospheric studies, etc.
Historical geology - an attempt to piece together the history of
changes that have occured on the Earth in its
almost 5 billion (ie, 5 thousand million) year
history.
In addition, geology has been expanded to study the structures of the
various planets in the solar system, which consist of several types:
Terestrial - ie, earth-like; eg, Mars, Mercury, Venus.
Gaseous giants - ie: Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus.
Planetesimals (also known as "asterioids) - most are located
between Mars and Jupiter's
orbits and are thought to be a planet that dien't quite
form.
Moons - which in many cases include captured asteroids, as are
presumed (by some) as in the moons of Mars, and some moons
of Jupiter, Saturn, etc.
Cometary, Kupier, and other objects - the so-called Kupier belt
begins with Pluto and Charon
(the currently known closest plutons to the sun), the
so-called "Oort Cloud" (named after the scientist who
studied) contains much comet-like materials.
Note: The the geological study of such systems is tied closely to the
astronomical and chemical studies as well.
Linguistics
Our special guests today are three rather odd groups of people:
The Brother's Grimm
Ferdenand de Sausure and his students
And the magician Kurt Goedel (with special arragement with
Jacques Derrida and the Alfred
Jarry institute for 'Pataphysics)
For the most part of human history, linguistsics (and primarily a
"linguist" (also known as a "polyglot" -- Greek "many tongues") was
a person who studied or knew many languages. Not until recent times,
was the idea of language itself as a subject study given *any*
consideration. Of course "linguists" of old would compare and
contrast how languges were related to each other, and once discarding
the myth of the "tower of Babel" (not much more than a ziggurat mound,
that (like several early attempts in Egypt) didn't quite "get off
the ground" - or rather fell to ground all too well). Anyway, linguists
would surely noted that the old Sanscrit name for bread is "nana"
while the much more modern language of Hindi in the form of the word
"nan". Such thinking led to the concept of languages evolving,
intermixing and even dieing out (the most usual example of a "dead"
language is usually can-tied-to-tail: Latin. To which i can only
respond: Verbum sapientius (Latin: "Words of wisdom" - although i
may have confused the 3rd and 4th declinsions; again).
Finally, as Dr. Johnson was in England compliting the first dictionary
of the English Language (The King's English, no doubt) this sort of
thinking culminated with our good friends from childhood: The Brother's
Grimm (??names??), in addition to compiling the first dictionary of
the German Language (perhaps the Hapsberg's German? - searches, vainly
for copy of "The Fall of Eagles", but does find a penguin paperback
copy of "Polotical Anthropology").
NOTE: This idea of "The King's English" is NOT a moot point (actually
a moot point is one that is debatable and not already decided).
In the case of Spain, the so-called "Castillian" Spanish was
considered the only proper one. The Castillian family being
affected by a slight king of lisp, and the word "Castillian"
would either be pronunkiated: Cass-tiLL-yun or Cas-stee-yohn
depending upon ones local/ethnic background, education, loyalties
to the crown, etc. One has only to read George Bernard Shaw's
"Pygmallian" or view the very nicely expanded musical film
"My Fair Lady" to see see what power language has.
Anyway, the main thing (other than the stories colllected from German,
Bavarian, Hungarian, and Gypsy) origins) that we thank the brother's
Grimm for was the first idea of how languages evolve; namely, the
so-called "Grimm's Laws". For example, "father" in Latin is "patter",
which in German became "vatter" (pronounced "Fah-tur"), and then into
Old Englush as "Faether" and finally becoming "Father". By studying
how common words changed in a CONSISTENT manner, led to the early
stirrings of language as a living/evolving thing.
Finally, a man died (but not without students) and they published his
lecture notes (which were then re-vised by scholars) and so we have at
least TWO versionf of "A General Course in Linguistics" by Ferdinand
de Sausuare. Which lays down the very means by which words mean and
stnd for things, how the human voice can create different sounds with
subtle distinctions. The utility of these studies are indicated by
exposing the myth that the Chevy Nova car didn't sell well in Mexico
because "no va" (pronounced "noh vah") means "won't go". This myth was
laid to rest (formally, and i tip my towel to the fine folks at)
http://www.snopes2.com
In that "no more than a speaker of English would mistake "therapist" for
"the rapist" would a native speaker of Spanish make a similar mistake."
And oddly enough as at almost the exact same moment on a certain
blue, green planet (Earth: see map) Georges Brach and Pablo Picasso
"discovered" that words could be put into a "painting" (or as
artist/chess player Marcel Duchamp was to call the process "assemblage")
TEXT, WORDS, and things like that to create a totally new meaning outside
of the usual path of the artist. Other's beside Frenchman and Spaniard
(and the ever evervescent Duchamp) said "Huh?" and then began to sell
"Dada Fire Insurance" policies without a permit - but that is another
story.
Recommended reading: "Word Play" by Peter Farb. Bon appetite!
Meanwhile: As more and more people are forced
into a kind of King's English thinking
(eg, via American Psychologist Association
formating), and of course the need for
proper citation and reliability (ie,
no wiki!)...
Hmm, we may have already reached the so-called
Asimov-Clarke limit of information storage.
(although i might argue tht it should be
called the LeGuin-ensbible limit, we set
this assid next to Harpo Marx's harp)
So, who watces the watchers?
In the Sartrean sense: we watch ourselves, but
always be open to RFC (Request for Comment).
And of course to self-censure (or mutual-censure
in the case of ego's).
But: They did bring in these hugh wooden structures,
every day i walked by (and i just thought it
was like mall area - but without the parking
lots).
And there *were* skate bording demonstrations
in the evening.
I mean at that point, i didn't even know Marcel
Duchamp existed - i mean other than the general
idea that The Mona Lisa with a Moustache was just
common revvelllry by some rambunctious rabble.
odd thing, time?
So: The duck test can be reversed, and then we
end up with: Yes, it's not a forgery - it
was done by the artist's daughter and so
paradoxically - her work is even more valuable
(money-wise) than her father's. Et tu Tintcurinni?
-^_6
Mathematics
Note: Logic (including mathematical logic) has been moved under
philosophy, and is therefore in spiritualist.
[Logic as Such] (in spiritualist)
-[Spiritualist Philo(Logic))]-
??LINK?? ERROR
In this section:
{Lost Mathematics}
{Mathematical Trees} (latices, decision trees, etc)
{Randomness}
{Laws of Form}
See also: []
Algebra:
1. What ever you do to one side of the = sign
you have to do to the other.
2. To sneak up on X (who we know done it) we
start as far away as possible (so as not
to alert the suspect).
3. When something is going on (conversations
say like 4+5 or 7*9) we do the "opposite"
it's the last thing they'd expect; eg,
4 -5 or 7 / 9
4. Finally when have X, we release it since
it was just acting the part of the perputrator
all the time.
5. In real life, things are rarely so clear - let
alone rewarding or organised.
--30--
Laws of Form
See also: -[Laws of Form]- (index entry)
In this section: {<>Intro<>}
History and Ideas of Delta-evolution
G. Spencer Brown
The Distinguishing Mark
The Catalog and Folder Problems - psuedo-infinites, infinities, etc.
Physics
Physics is one of the oldest of sciences (part of it, Astronomy may
actually be the first science after medicine) and deals with the
observable physical phenomena of the universe, earth, and so forth
down to atoms, and then own down to electrons, protons, and neutrons,
and then down to quarks, photons, and then to the substance of space
and time themselves, with speculations about the universe as a whole.
The great success of physics (especially in the way that it can be
used to construct devices (inventions, machines, etc) is primarily
based on the fact (some would say design, others would say coincidence,
while other speculate that it is a total misuderstanindg) of:
The fact that mathematics is completely compatible with
expressing, elucidating, and extending the ideas of physics.
Physics is genrally broken down into the basic areas of:
Methanics - the movement of both rigid bodies, as well as deformable
masses (eg, liquids, the movement of air, etc).
Electricity & Magentism - studying the properties of both static and
moving charges (electrons (negative) as well
as the positive protons). This area also
extends into the study of the Earth's magnetic field and
the "northern Lights" and "Southern Lights" which result
from the interplay between it and the sun's outstrea of
energy and atom fragments.
Optics - the study of the behaviour of light - both visible, as well
as infrared (heat), ultraviolet, xrays, radio waves, etc.
With the proof by James Clark Maxwell that electricity and
magnetism are simply different manifestations of light, many
areas of physics became tied together.
Condesnsed matter physics - this is the area in physics corresponding
to chemistry; eg, solid state physics.
Plasma physics - dealing with super heated gasses; eg, as found in the sun.
Quantum Mechnaics - the area dealing with the almost contradictory effects
of the very small realm of the atom and below.
Relativigy and Cosmoology - When Einstein's famouse equation unified
matter and energy, hop arose that a
so-called "unified theory" could be found unifing all of
the forces of the universe. Not so far. Relativity, as well
as the study of gravity, space time, etc deal with the very
lage scale things in the universe.
Astrongomy - physical astronomy deals with cateloging and understanding
the matter and energy in the universe, as well as working
in with the ideas of cosmology, gravity mechanics, and
other (current) speculations such as dark matter, dark
energy, etc. Problems to be dealt with include how the
universe came into being, why it is expanding (and possibly
going faster/slowing down, as well as why the galaxies
themselves stay together since they are rotating, they
should fly apart. Also, the life and death of stars,
planets, etc are studied as well.
Psychology
Psychology (Greek: "Psyche" one of the greek gods, also "mind" in a way)
is the study of human and animal behaviour - particularly with
the reasoning, learning, and maturation processes involved.
Psychology (like biology, to which it is closely linked) also has applications
in treating various disorders: Clinical psychology. Since humans are
psychological creatures, the way that they act in various arenas of
society (eg, war, politics, tribes, family, etc) are of interest in
studying man with an aim to make things less chaotic. So far, the
speclulations of philosopher/futurist Isaac Asimov that a so-called
science of "Psycho History" have not yielded a "magic formula" by
which the ancient dream of utopia might be realised; research in
this area continues not only in psychology, but in sociology which
clearly closely linked.
Behavioural psychology (refer to the debate between humanist/mathematcian
Jacob Bronowski and behaviourialist B.F. Skinner for much on this) is the
idea of styding the patterns of behaviour of both humans and animals. As
yet, no known *scientific* evidence exists for the psychological behaviour
of plants, the earth itself, its air, etc. - such systems of thought are
classifed as "spritualist: gaist or animistic and generally regared as
religion rather than science).
Sociology
Sociology is the collection of oher sciences needed to understand human
behaviour in groups. This includes the individual to some extent
(anthropology and psychology) but mainly on the relation of one or
more humans with each others (siblings, friends, lovers, enemies, etc),
as well as families, tribes, etc.
Sociology takes many of the findings of anthropology (eg, individual
gestures, speech patterns, etc) and sees how they fit into a group
dynamic. An interesting dynamic was observed when the end credits
song from the Monty Python film "The Life of Bryan" ("Always look
on the bright side of life") began to be sung at football (socre)
games during the last minutes of the game by the LOSING side.
Important popular treatments include:
"Sacred cows, pigs, cabbages and kings", by Marvin Harris.
"Man Watching" and "The Naked Ape" byt Desmond Morris.
This concludes our "gift section" of tonight's evening's viewing.
Science: A Quick history
Science is the "fair haired lad" of the so-called "Western Reductionist
Philosophy".
================= INSERT CARTOON HERE =================
Mr. R. (as "ring master) Hello, good-evening, and welcome gentle beings,
today we present Ogg and Agaa, played by our
very own Meepo and Gleeba...
Meepo: (stubs toe on rock) YOW!!!!
Gleeba: (rolls eyes) Again with the toe! Oig! If i'e told
you once, i've told you four times:
If you'd watch where you were going
then you wouldn't stub your toe!
Meepo: Yes, but then i wouldn't be able to see the stars.
(fade to)
Mr. R. Thus were born the sciences of physics and medicine. As
may have notices, the first doctor - Agaa - was a woman
and the first scientist - Ogg - was a man. And of course
Ogg also played the part of the first patient. And like
most patients, they never listen to their doctors.
===================== END CARTOON ===============
One should note that i don't even DRAW the cartoons anymore.
They've become text only. Think about this (ie, cf/qv) with
many new cartoons (eg, "Red Meat") that have no moving images
but only the text (with a CHARACTER + simple SET) carrying
the CONTEXT.
Thus, my cartoons have become text objects. Sooner or later
we'll ALL become "just" text objects, me-thinks.
Initially (many eons ago), no one knew much of anything; possibly the
only things really known were such basic things as bodily functions
and emotions. It has been speculated that the first science (if such
it could be called) was medicine. Evidence for this is supported by
early attempts at surgery. The next science would have been a mixture
of animal husbandry (or at least the study of migration of animals
in the case migratory cultures), animal behaviour (in either nomadic
or hunter/gatherer cultures), and finally culminating in a knowledge
and study of agriculture and astronomy; the former as a practice of
increasing the "yield" of land and the latter as necessary to understand
the concept of "crop seasons".
Finally, early philosophers (or scientists -- in those days there could
not be any difference) came up with the so-called "4 elements".
Fire, Earth, Water, Air
Actually, other philosophers came up with 3 or 5 or almost any number of
elements. It was from these elements that all other things were said to
have been made from (of). Still other philosophers decided that there was
a 5-th (or n-th) element which was outside of the entire process. The
various names for this "outside" element have been "god", "gaia", "the dau"
(or "the tau" as i often use it), etc. Still other philosophers came to
the conclusion that EVERYTHING was the "other" -- that is, there is
NO OTHER: All are one.
Regardless of the numerous religious wars that were fought or not, finally
a series of in-escapable things occured. These were called "experiments".
The foundation of which are the concepts of "repeatability" and
"cause/effect".
As it turns out the universe of discourse (our universe, commonly refered
to as "Reality Structure 3") apparently has both of these two
properties; ie, repeatability and cause/effect.
As such, science abandoned all non-materialistic view points in favor of
the observable, measurable, and tangible.
Once these areas of "natural philsosophy" had given rise to "sciences";
eg, naturalists became biologists, astrologers became astronomers,
alchemists (seeking the "elixr of life", etc) became chemists, and
"natural philosophers" became physicists, and all the rest.
All was well and good until the advent of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.
Although it is beyond the scope of this work to explore these in any
great detail, we will deal with these in the area of philosoph; {below}
With that, the absolute nature of physics, biology, and even mathematics
was called into question. And thus, we find ourselves in the beginning
of the 21st century (2000c).
The Scientific Method
Although in reality, there IS a scientific method, it is NOT the way that
new theories are made. Actually, the process of OBSERVATIONS reveals much
about the world/universe/reality around us. It then is the CREATIVE process
that makes the "leap" to find a PATTERN or a MODEL that can explain or at
least help to make clearer what is observed and what is already "known".
Useful links: [sci buddies pages]
[wiki entry]
Briefly, as Santiago Ramon y Cajal has said,
I shall assume that the reader's general education and
background in philosophy are sufficient to understand
that the major sources of knowledge include observation,
experiment, and reasoning by induction and deduction.
"Advice for a Young Investigator",
[More here]
And now for our feature presentation: [isd77.k12.mn.us]
1. Make initial observations (see what is going on and see
what seems the same/different, worse/better, etc).
2. Gather information (attempt to organise into "data" -- ie,
try to systemise how you gather data so that it is as
complete and un-biased as possible).
3. Create a project. (Title, the purpose, and hopefully a
working hypothesis of what you hope to find out).
4. Make the hypothesis (or hypotheses, me-thinks).
5. Design experiments to TEST the hypotheis. Make sure that
you include ways to FALSIFY (dis-prove) your hypothesis.
6. Make observations and/or experiments -- record carefully.
7. Analyze your data and work it against your hypothesis.
Note carefully observations/results that both DO and
DO NOT support your hypothesis.
8. Draw conclusions and then repeat the process until everything
(mostly) can be explained.
If you do this correctly your work will contribute a greater understanding
of the world/universe/things around us (usually refered to as
Reality Structure Number 3).
If you don't then you are not practicing science but either
psuedo-science or some sort of art/performance thing at worst
case, you're in the realm of spirituality -- in which case:
You're on your own, kiddo!
--30--
And now... The key concepts in the sciences
Keys: {Matter}
{Energy}
{Za-car}
{Space}
{Time}
{Universe}
{Matter}
{Energy}
{Za-car}
{Space}
Time
See also: -[time]- (futurist pespective)
-[time]- (spiritualist perspective)
-[Time Travel]- via: Fut x Abs (time)
Note: There is NO absurdist, artistic, fractalist, humanist,
or jazzist perspective of time; everything is "just" is;
that is, "is is"
-- (commonly refered to as "the is that is now").
-[(map entry)]-
In this section:
physics of time
relativity and time travel
physiological/biological time (physical)
perceptual time (thought)
(this section still under construction;
we appologise for the in-convenience)
See also: -[Fut x Abs (time)]- (major time travel entry)
relativity and time travel
Universe
A key idea is that the laws of the universe form a coherent whole.
What is Science?
{Core Concepts}
{Reductionism (per se)}
{Analysis/Reduction via Bifurcation}
{Science and its "opposties"}
Science as REDUCTIONIST system
Core Concepts
Quick idea-jogger: Systematic,
Consistent,
Analytical,
Skeptical (not true until proved),
Experimental,
Produces the technical (engineering, medicine, etc)
Reductionism; per se.
Note: Determinism is dealt with BELOW {maths section}.
The CORE concept of "reductionism' (often refered to - a
bit scathingly - as "western reductionism").
It states that the whole is exactly the sum of the
parts. There is no mysticsm, synergy of interactions,
etc. That is: What you see is what you get.
It also postulates that things (real things; eg,
processes, toasters, people) can be broken down
into a set of processes that act on forms. And
that these lawas are un-varying (invariant in time),
understandable (the universe is rational and
predictable), and CONSTANT.
Of course, in view of such things as quantum
phenomenon, {chaotic, catastrophic, and glpytic} (below)
systems there "are complications".
Analysis/Reduction via Bifurcation
One concept is that the dis-assembly of an object is usually using
the scientific method to keep things straight.
NOTE: Here we do NOT take that as reading as "deconstruction"
in the philo/literature sence. However, an example of
this is given in the SCI x ART (text) ---> formal to semi-formal
views of art objects
See: -[Scientist x Artist (text)]-
Bifurcation is basically the two-way branching of things. This
was made immensely popular by the classical Greek concept of
"the excluded middle"; eg,
That is A is either X or not X.
This works nicely with biology (tips towel to Lineaus)
Given "x" let us proceed to derive its taxonomy,
Is x an animal; eg, a dolphin? no.
Is x a macroscopic object; eg, tulip bulb? no.
Is x a mega-scopic object; eg, a rain forest? no
DEDUCES: x is MICRO SCOPIC. Is this true? yes.
and so forth (in this case, it turns out that x is either
a red fungus or a volvox colony. Unfortunately, which
is the case will have to wait until i get back
from taking my Mom shopping....
,
-^_6
Cosmogony
In this section: {Intro}
{The Big Bang}
{Black Holes}
{Quasars, White Holes, and Worm Holes}
{M Theory; Parallel Universe Mechanics}
Black Holes
white/black holes
Hawking: Leaking black holes lead to the signularity exposed.
or not: the quanum limit
the htac/black-hole super computer, etc
Quasars, White Holes, and Worm Holes
energy balance - a star per year into a central black hole
M Theory; Parallel Universe Mechanics
11 dimensions
overlapping waves - one time occurence, causes a universe to
begin, mutliple overlaps cause new universes to begin.
martin rees
just six numbers
but, if there are other universe, there might be more than just six numbers
in fact there might be a whole slew of special numbers
like c, h, G, q, etc but in our universe, they are all
set to zero.
E & M
This section describes the seeming incompatible ideas of Electricity
and Magnetism.
The ancient greeks (and thence) had the idea of a magnet - basically
from naturally occuring iron ores. As it turns out, you can make
a magnet by using the Earth. Take a piece of iron and point it
pretty much north/south and hit it with a hammer. After a while,
it will become magnetised. What you are basically doing is lineing
up the nucleuses of the iron atoms in alignment with the Earth's
magnetic field.
Of course this is a *static* magnet. An example of a static "electric"
(if we can talk about such a thing) is where we create an object
with an excess of negative (or a deficienciny of) charges - electrons.
When Benjamin Franklin flew the kite in the lightening storm, he mainly
showed that lightening was just a very large version of static electricity
that had been studied for a century or so. In the same way, when Michael
Faraday started experimenting with magnetic fields and electrical
phenomena, he was gathering the experimental evidence that would later
go into the analytical (maths) expressions that are usually connected
with the physicists who studied them; eg, Ampere's Law, Volta's observations
and building of the first battery, the Biot-Savart (French: Bee-yoh, Suh-Varh),
etc.
So, what follows is a QUAD (Quick and Dirty) view of things...
Electrical fields are created by either protons (positive) or
electrons (negative). We can use a so-called Van de Graff generator
to "separate charges". This builds up on the sphere of the generator
a large negative (or positive - depends on how we make the generator)
charges. When we touch it, the hair on our heads stands out in all
directions (if we have long hair ;) because the charges are transfered
to us, and since "like charges repel", the hairs repel each other.
This goes back to what is called Gauss's Law. Imagine a metal sphere
(made of, eg, copper or aluminum) and we introduce just two electrons.
They would position themselves as far as possible from each other and
thus form a "NORTH and SOUTH" ELECTRICAL POLE - note that this is
*similar* to (but not really like) a magnet with its "NORTH" and
"SOUTH" MAGNETIC POLES. As far as scientists know, there are NOT
any NORTH or SOUTH magnetic particles, as such where was an electorn
is an "electical monopole" (of negative charge), and a proton is
an "electrical monopole" (of a positive charge), there are no such
things as "magnetic monopoles" - but the search continues.
Faraday was one of the first (if not the first) to notice two important
things:
If we take a piece of wire (preferably copper) and move it across the
magnetic pole of a magnet - and perpendicular to it. As the wire "cuts"
the lines of magnetic force, it creates an electrical flow in the wire.
If the wire is in the form of a loop, we have a generator. As it turns
out, the more wires that cut the lines of magetic force, the more
electical flow (current) we will get. Thus, a generator uses a large
number of loops to cut the lines of a magnet's field to create the
familiar electricity that we get out of the wall (110 volts or 220 volts
depending mostly on tradition).
By the same way, if we put electricity into a *slightly modified*
generator, we can get it to turn - and thus, an electrical motor.
Finally, it fell to James Clerk (Bristish English: "Clahrk") Maxwell
to unify all of the experimental information into his so-called
"4 laws". Although a bit more complex than Einstein's famous
relativity formula, their simplicity even predicted some of the
ideas of relativity - about 25 years before Einstein (studying
just "pure light") came to the first of this two equations.
As it turns out: Light is an electro-magetic wave (normally the
E (electrical) and M (magnetic) fields are at right angles and
travel at the same speed - the speed of light. That is, the speed
of light in a vacuum. If light goes thru a medium (eg, glass, water,
or even through a wire), it's properties change. Mainly the so-called
"index of refraction" comes into play. We know that light that goes
into a glass of water at an angle will be bent by it. An important
equation (again for a perfect vacuum)
c (speed of light) = wave length x frequency
Finally, just to get everyone on the same page: Visible light
is just one tiny part of the total RANGE of electro-magnetic
spectrum. From the very low frequency (and thus large wavelenght)
radio waves (eg, 100 MegaHertz (FM band on your radio dial) has
a wave lenght of about 3 metres). Compare this with a so-called
microwave oven where the wave lenghts are in the range of 1 or 2 cm
or so (ie, 0.01 - 0.02 metre) and the frequencies in the gigahertz
range. Heinrich Hertz was the first one to show that electrical
waves could be "transmitted" across empty space - not needing wires.
Of course, elecrticity in the home is only 50 or 60 Hz so it needs
a wire) - this allowed people like Marconi, Zworkin, Pharnsworth, etc,
to start making radios. If you google, "electro magnetic spectrum",
you'll see 'em all: Infrared, visible, ultraviolet, xrays, cosmic rays,
etc.
And this final bit of mind bending stuff: Just like we can create
a permanent magnet by using coils of wire wrapped around a soft
iron rod. We can use an electrical field to create a permanent sort
of "electical magnet" - called an "electret"; it turns up high
quality microphones, and other applications. The electrical field
is "permanently" frozen into the material, in much the same way
that a magnetic field is "permanently" frozen in a magnetc. I say
permanently, since if the magnet or electret is mistreated (banged
around, heated up - see "The Curie Temperature" of a magnetc), the
device goes back to being random instead of highly organised.
Also remember: The electrical properties of matter is mainly due
to electrons (and to a certain extent protons of course), but a
magentic field is almost entirely a NUCLEAR phenomenon - the
nucleus'es of atoms become "flipped" and then allign themselves,
adding up to a large effect.
And finlly, when you are in an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) machine,
a MASSIVE magnetic field is using the nuclear spin flips in the hydrogen
atoms in your body to "see" what is inside you. And remember: 40 years
ago, MRI's were someone's experimental idea - just like Franklin thinking
about flying a kite into a MASSIVE electrical field; btw: Others tried
the experiment, they weren't so lucky - and when you think about it:
He was v. lucky.
**** FINAL BONUS TRACK ****
The only real difference between a LASER (and all of it's "weird" properites)
is that the atoms in a laser tube are caused to fire at almost the same
instant - and in synchronisation. In a incandescent or fluorescent light
(or the sun for that matter), the atoms are fire-ing at random, as such
the light spreads out in all directions pretty much out of sync, and at
different colours. We describe the light of a laser beam as being
mono-chromatic (Greek: One colour) and coherent (read that as "in step"
we might imagine a set of troops all marching in parade formation).
Maths
-^_6
In the maths division: {Intro}
{Lost Mathematics}
{Mathematical Trees} (latices, decision trees, etc)
{Randomness}
See also: -[spiritualist (philo (logic))]-
Which also covers:
Logic
Goedel and the Failure of Logic
Grammars
While it could be argued that THE maths entry belongs on every page,
we defer to the wisdom of the late, great author/mathematician,
Eric Temple Bell who often refered to maths as "The Queen of the
Sciences".
Mathematics (see also: [Bistro Maths]) is the reasoned, causal and
logical system by which many things in non-space are proved.
That is while it IS true that maths helps to explain much of the
"Universe of Discourse" (as Albert Einstein often refered to what
here-in is refered to as "Reality Structure 3"), it can be argued
either of the following two ways:
1) Mathematics is a property of our universe. As such (and in keeping
with a brief conversation that i had with Wolfgang Rindler), in
the formation of the universe, maths was created first.
2) Mathematics is a purely arbitrary system of thought, indedendent
of any actual (or non-actual) universe. It is a tribute to the
power of mathematical thinking that so much of maths can be
applied to the universe at hand. For instance, it "seems" completely
arbitrary and quite surprising that such a simple thing as the
so-called "counting numbers" could actually be used to count
ANYTHING in a universe that is clearly fractalised (in the physical
sense of the word) as well as (less clearly so) quantised.
There are between these two extremes, many POV's (points of view) that
are possible/impossible, logical/il-logical, etc.
-^_6
Lost Mathematics
}
This section summarises some concepts of maths which although of
vital imporatance never seem to "quite: get covered
Set Theory
Numbers
from 1..3 to 0 to negative to fractions to ...
Transfinite Numbers
Goedel numbers
Number Theory
Analysis
Calculus
Topology
Algebra
Matrices
Distribution Theory
Logic
Goedel and the Failure of Logic
Grammars
Mathematical Trees
(latices, decision trees, etc)
See also: -[Bifurcation]- (in fractalist)
Binary, N-ary Trees
In order, pre-order, post-order
Decision trees
-^_6
Randomness
See also: -[fractalist entry]-
{Determinism} (below)
-[Creativity Search for Patterns]-
-[<>]-
Note: Althought, technically NOT related to randomness,
i have included Chaotic, Catastrophic, and Glyptic
systems to this section.
In this section: {Intro}
{Intro}
{Intro}
{Intro}
{Completeness}
(and the rest... {Chaos / Chatoic Systems}
{Catastropy Theory / Catastrophic Systems}
{Glyptal / Glyptic Systems}
One of the key aspects of the scientific view is that there ARE
patterns in the chaos; see the link ABOVE. However, the randomness
DOES manifest itself in ways that are seemingly in-explicable.
That is why the ideas of probablities and statistics are so
important.
the "full treatment"
the "whole ball of vax"
Intro
Randomness is one of the most profound concepts in many
universes. It is of course quite possible (and probably
probable) that randomness is NOT a property of some
universes; but, we lay aside the metaphysical.
{Intro}
{Gambling}
{Completeness}
Completeness
Chaos / Chatoic Systems
Main ref: James Gleick, James (1987). Chaos: Making a New Science.
Chaotic systems appear to be stable and in fact
can either be (apparently) completely static or
"oscillate" slightly without deviating noticibly
from a given set of conditions. Then, spontaneously
(usually due to internal, but obviously can be
triggered by external factors) change to another
state - which in term may turn out to be either
completely stable (static) or a new
These "places" of semi-stability are refered to
as "strange attractors" - that, is the given set
of variables that describe (even if incompletely)
the conditions of the system. The oscillations
around the stragn
Catastropy Theory / Catastrophic Systems
Main ref: Rene Thom (discoverer of the idea)
The simplest example of a catastrophic system is
a snow slide or avalanch. The system is (to all
appearances) in a stable state - it may change
slightly, or even alternate beween different
behaviours - but they all reside in the same
restricted "space". Then due to some factor
(i'm not sure if these phenomenon can occur
completely without any stimulus) which can
be either internal or external, the system
changes RADICALLY (often) to a new state.
Which in turn creates a new meta-stable
state.
Glyptal / Glyptic Systems
-^_6
Determinism
One of the "opposites" of randomness is determinism.
See also: -[spiritualist (determinsm/free will)]-
{The Illusion of Control} (below)
-^_6
The ability to WILL ourselves sick ma humanist.html#health hypdocondria
the "full treatment"
the "whole ball of vax"
Control
ref notes on feedback, ai, and cybernetic systems goes here
The Illusion of Control
See also: {control} (above: general notes, feedback, theory, etc)
Systems Lecture #12 -- The illusion of Control:
Falacies of non-evolving systems.
-^_6
Many years ago on the planet Earth (see map), some psychologists wanted
to examine the idea of "Management". To do this, they desigend the
following experiment
Of course phyto plankton are one of the least understood (by the lay
public) as to their important role in the Earth's eco system. Hardly,
will the 2007 El Nin~o's impact on the weather be hardly recognised
especially when considering the potential damage to the phyto-sphere of.
There are two monkies in two different cages. In one cage the monkey
gets random shocks. In the other cage the monkey is trained that when
a light comes on, that if it acts quickly enough and pushes a button,
then the shock will NOT be applied. Both monkeys get exactly the same
shock. The monkey with the button is refered to as the "manager monkey"
and the other monkey is the "employee monkey". Variations in the
experiment increase the shock over time, and also introducing the
fact that even if the button is pushed, the shock comes anyway.
The only realy result (that i recall) is that in EVERY CASE the
Manager monkey dies first.
That's the essence of chaos theory as applied to the illusion of
control. The problem is that most systems are not so critically
designed that it's that obvious that we don't have control. For the
most part preservative systems (ones that tend to continue their
system in a non-changing form) pay good rewards to the members of
the system that preserve the system and its operation. The fact
that some (usually many) of the participants in the system do
not benefit from the system is of little regard to the privlidged
few that maintain the system. Naturally (or by a natural system
of argument), for the ones who suffer the most, there is almost
always a much smaller group of privledged few that reap the most
benefits. Thus, the system preserves itself out of social inertia.
It would be interesting to investigate non-social systems and
how they might work. But, the only examples of non-dominant/dominated
preservative systems are such things as sand dunes, strange attractors
in weather patterns, etc. With the advent of new AI programming, it
would certainly be worth modling such a non-social preservative
system; mainly from a mathematically intriguing POV.
Of course, the problem with all reactionary systems (and here, specifically
concerning preservative, social systems) is that they are prone to catastrophic
failure if any simple variable gets too far out of its normal bounds. Take
for example, the problem of electrical power outages in modern society.
Depending upon the scale, the worst thing is the collapse of the sanitary
sewer/water system which leads to disentry, and eventually cholera. In
these cases, since the systems are (for the most part) non-evolutionary
and extremely reactionary (being "market driven" and run as "investiments"
instead of public utilities with open-ended engineering considerations
meaning that many preventative measures are unlikely to be implemented
due to their low ROI (Return On Investment) projections.
Thus, in reactionary systems, even a minor (chatoic, catastrophic, or
fractal) change in any variable (and not just in "covered variables",
but un-disclosed, un-known, or un-covered variables) can lead to systems
failure. The normal means of creating failure-resistant (if not in fact
failure-proofish) solutions would be of course to simulate the behaviours
of the various systems from a varieity of POV's using a variety of
models with varying components; eg, queuing theory, chaos theory,
catastrophy theory, evolutionary theory, etc.
Regardless, the prevalence of reactionary systems makes for an interesting
study of discarded assumptions that occur during the reduction/simplification
of the implementation model. Thus, even though brute-force methods are meant
to compensate for "possible" functionality losses in the modeling process,
we know that over-buidling the system merely introduces more hidden
variables -- some of which are clearly covered, and just as un-clearly
un-covered (and un-disclosed - worst case scenario).
So, what can be done?
We should approach this realistically:
1) That a problem even exists is likely to be ignored, or if persistently
promoted to be consistenly dismissed as being important. Public relations
comes into play here. If the system progenitors are caught having ignored
some (any) aspect of the system and possible problems, then some sort of
face-saving ploy must be put forth. One common example is that for
every con-critic of the system having legimate credentials, the reactionary
progenitors of the system will bring up a corresponding number of
pro-critics to counter the arguments. (The falacy here is clear. When
informed that the Nazi's had had some hundred or so scientists testifying
that the theory of relativity was wrong, Einstein replied: If the theory
is wrong, it would only take one scientist to prove it).
2) In accordance with Murphy's Laws inside of each seeminly simple problem
(and hence an obvious and simple solution), is a larger, more cunning
problem waiting to get out. This perceptual falacy leads naturally to the
"quick fix" mentality and approach to problem solving. And of course
introducing yet another new (and seemingly simple) sub-system into the
system increases the probablity of creating un-known (or even un-knowable)
side-effects into the system and of course concomitant with that: Creating
new hidden variables, new hidden relationships, and of course altering or
even removing known variables, relationships, etc. This leads to having
to re-characterise the behaviour of the sysem each time that a change
(any change) is made -- an expense un-likely to be undertaken. In keeping
with another of Murphy's Laws: If you don't test a system, then it bound
to show no problems until it is too late.
3) In the process of releasing, fixing problems, re-relasing, adding new
features, re-releasing (even with testing), cascade failures as well
as thrashing are almost certain. Again, a feature that was introduced
into the system (or a fix to a problem) early on in the time line, will
have effects that are non-predictable. Further, problems introduced as
the system is updated (that it is NOT evolving is a given, it's simply
getting more complex) lead to a persistent thrashing of performance
caused by fix/un-fix cycles.
So, what can be done?
1) Carefull design of the system with a strict adherence to Murphy's Laws
(especially those dealing with un-decidability, fault tollerance,
non-predictability, and independent validation) may certainly help
-- it can only hurt when the system enters the non-releasability trap
of "perfection".
2) Often thinking in terms of smaller and independent sub-systems as well
as of course, evolutionarily may help. Or not: Depending on how old
the system is, how little attention has been paid to upgrading and
replacing various components.
3) Avoid quick-fix, large-scale-changes, and other philosophically appealing
but often disasterous ways of thinking about the problem.
4) When in doubt: Test? Ask? Think? (imagine that ;)
Philosophy
See also: -[Humanist Philsosophy]- (man as the measure of all things)
-[Science's View of Philo] (in scientist)
-[Spirutalist Philsosophy]- (philosophy with or without man)
-^_6
The philosophy of science is several fold:
1) Using the scientific method {above}, one can
determine a large body of facts. These facts are based on observation
and repeatability. Also, the facts *must* be self-consistent and
non-contradictory.
2) If there is some problem (ie, facts which do not match), then the "lessor"
fact MUST be rejected. This has in fact led to problems when a "major"
fact turned out to be false. One example of this, is that when the
geologist Alfred Wegner first postulated that the continents moved
and when the naturalist Charles Darwin first postulated that life
forms on earth evolved -- both required the lengths of time and
forces of nature that PHYSICS simply said could not exist. As such,
both theories were rejected. As it turns out the calculation for
the age of the earth did not take into account radioactivity and
as such the earth was some several BILLION (thousand million) years
older than Physics predicted. As for plate techtonics, again the
physics was wrong since it was using a simple model instead of
one even anywhere approximating the dynamic form that IS the Earth.
3) And then came quantum mechanics and relativity in the 1900c (the so-called
20th century -- go figure). With the loss of "certainty" and "an absolute
reference point", respectively, physics limps along as best it can.
Most of the other sciences were less disruppted.
But, in general the scientific POV is usefull for making things
that don't have anything to with emotion; eg: penicillin (good),
atomic bomb (bad), etc. During one of the wars (there are so many,
they all run together after a while), Fleming wanted to share the
discovery of Penicillin with "the enemy" -- nix to that!, during
yet another war, Leo Sillard (who created the theory of the chain
reaction), pleaded for the Atomic Bomb to be dropped on a deserted
island -- nix to that!
Science has NO morality; the scientists should though, me-thinks.
But, of course once the Genie is out of the bottle, then ANY ONE
can use/mis-use it.
The results of this "scientific point of view" result in things ranging from
anti-spiritualistic skepticism to quantum-thinking acceptance of the (currently)
in-explicable phenomena.
Regardless of the position along the philo-scientific axis one chooses, a few
points are in order:
a) Absolutest thinking is probably wrong. This doesn't mean that if you
drop a hammer on your foot there is much of a probabiliby that it
won't hurt. Refered to as the so-called "Mind over Matter Syndrome".
b) Total reduction of the world to the Material is probably not a good thing.
This is not to say that if cut down all of the rain forests, melt all of
ice caps, and kill off all non-edible/non-pretty/non-tasty plants and
animals, that the wealthy can not STILL have their cotillions like
nothing is wrong. Refered to as the so-called "Ostrich-head in Sand Effect".
c) Most of liff (or life if you prefer) adheres to the laws of nature which
the laws of science try to understand. When one brings "an agenda" to
table and tries to "pick and choose" exactly which findings of science
you feel "comfortable with", then you are probably in trouble. Refered
to as "up the creek" syndrome number five.
Psychic Powers (ESP)
See also: -[spiritualist entry]-
ESP - Intro
Interestingly enough, Einstein wrote an introduction and recomendation
to a book on Psychic Phenomenon (early in the 1900c). But later retracted
his support when the author maintained that psychic energies traveled
at infinite speeds. Einstein's theories maintain that nothing can travel
faster then the speed of light. Despite the enquiries and theories by
some scientists, this theory has not been contradicted. Oddly enough,
if pychic energies were (like other forms of "normal" energy) limited
to the speed of light. Then the author might have simply mis-interpreted
the very LARGE speed of light (186_000 miles per SECOND - 300_000 km/sec
or 700_000_000 miles per HOUR - or about "a hunred and ten billion
kilometers an hour!" -- woosh!!) with infinite; hard to believe this,
but it has a LOT more zeres than "just" a million or a billion!
above}-.
This involved the equivalance of matter and energy (think of it
as a "rate of exchange"; eg, Dollars $ to Euros E), given by
the equation:
E = m c2 c is the speed of light
(the exchange rate if you will to change
matter into energy)
The first thing was Max Plank's discovery of the "quantum".
His equation has a similar simplicity:
E = h v h is "Plank's Constant" (the exchange
rate to turn frequency (v) into energy)
Oddly enough (or not), c is very large and h is very small.
Expressed in *compatible units they are:
3_000_000_000. metres/sec
.000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_6623 Joule seconds
(sort of like watts)
As it turns out this isn't so odd (the vast difference in their
sizes) isn't so supprising. What it;s saying these equataions are
saying is:
1. In terms of the cosmos (powering the sun, and even the atomic
bomb which puts out only a FRAGMENT of the energy of the sun)
one tiny little bit of matter contains a hugh amount of energy;
2. But to do that, that energy is held up in the very smallest
recesses of space. (sort of).
As it turns out this creates a couple of really "weird universes"
(and they're both THE universe that we live in). We now look at
that micro micro micro universe called the quantum. Realise of
course that the quantum is a way of looking at the very smallest
parts of our universe; eg, atoms, electrons, photons, quarks, etc.
QM: The two views
Two of the major pioneers of QM were Niels Bohr (renowned as both
a thinker and a teacher -- under his tutildge many of the quantum
scientists (generations 1 an 2) were born) and Albert Einstein
(renowned as a thinker, and a pretty decent teacher as well).
The quantum of course postulates a randomness to the way that the
universe operates. Niels Bohr accepted this, while for the most
part Einstein rejected much of it; recall his dictim that "God
doesn't play dice with the universe". One of Einstein's major
sucessors, Stephen Hawking, was later to note: Not only does
God play dice with the universe; but he throws them where you
can't see them -- namely into a black hole. Neils Borh often
told Einstein, "Albert, stop telling God what to do".
Thus the two views:
1. The quantum (apparently random) layer lays on top of an
underlaying deterministic (predictable) layer. This model
is commonly refered to as "The Matrix Mechanics View" of
the the quantum world.
2. The quantum is the only layer and the best we can do is
to get "odds" on what is happening. This model is refered
to as "The Probability Mechanics View" of the quantum world.
Actually the matrix/probability mechanics terms have become so
overlapped (we'll a bit of why in a moment). That most of the
time we refer to them as the "Einstein" and "Borh" views,
respecively", mainly because...
Einstein maintained that there were "hidden variables"
connecting the two layers in Model #1. Bohr rejected
this idea, prefering to accept the totally random
Model #2.
As it turns out there are certain things that neither model
explains even though it *mainly* looks like Model #2 is the
correct one describing our universe.
In certain expeiments (for example in radioactive decay which
scientists can observe and even simulate using "Atom Smashers";
more properly "particle accelerators". Google: "CERN".
Sometimes two electrons are created and spin off in opposite
directions. As it turns out an electron has a "spin". As, the
sf author/futurist Frederic Pohl points out in his story
"Star Burst", even the idea that electrons have "spin" (like
some micro-scopic top) borders on the absurd. Regardless,
when the electrons fly off, we can "test one of them" as
it goes by to see if it has a "+" or a "-" spin.
One of the ideas of "balance" in the universe (commonly
refered to as the CPT theorem states that at all times,
charge (C), Parity (P), and Time (T) are preserved. This
is an extended idea of the dictim that "Matter can neither
be created or destroyed; it can be converted to energy --
but nothing can be lost."
This prdicts that one electron has a "+" spin, it's
mate (created at the same moment and thus "ooupled")
MUST have "-" spin. We can represent these (badly)
by saying that we have
e1 (electron 1) having a spin wave function psi+
and e2 psi-
(a wave function also slightly the same as a "probability
function; see ????)
Now,as it turns out there's no problem (so far). The two
electrons are created and ZING off in opposite directions.
At some point, we "test" one of them and find it has either
a + or - spin. And then we can either check the other one
to see that it has the opposite spin -- which accoring to
the CPT theorem is "should".
The problem arises that we can "force" the issue. We can
do experiments that only a psi+ electron can pass. As an
electron approaches, we set the experiment to either pass
a psi+ electron (and thus reject a psi) or we set it the
other way so that this time a psi+ electron is rejected
instead passing.
The problem is this: Until we ACTUALLY measure (test, pass, etc)
an electron it can have EITHER a + or a - wave function. But,
the moment that we DETERMINE which it is, the other electron
correspondingly (an important word in QM: correspond) has the
"right" value as well.
Enter the speed of light: Since nothing can travel faster than
the speed of light, if we perform the "test" on one electron
at a distance such that there isn't time to send any signal
to the other electron saying, "Hey, I'm about to take on
(or expose to the outside world) a + value". Then "how" does
the other electron "know" to take on a - value?
Modesl #1 as well as "hidden variables" explains this. It
supports that there is a deterministic set of variables that we
can't see (yet?) but the electrons "know about" and use to
"communicate" with each other.
But, this violates the idea of the speed of light being the
ultimate velocity. Things, get more complicated than this,
but you get the idea.
This problem has never been completely explained. And it's
one of the simpler ones.
As it turns out the way that QM fields (eg, probability functions)
interact comes in over and over. One of the most important ones
is the so-called "Pauli Exclusion Principle" which came up early
in the 1900c before they had particle colliders. The same idea
applies: Two particles "bound" in the same atom can NOT have the
same "quantum states" (including spins and other properties).
Enter Heisenberg
Finally, we just note a few imoportant points of Hiesenber's
contribution to the whole mess. Werner Hiesenberg (not a
Jew) stayed behind in Nazi Germany and almost certainly due
to his diliberate misguiding of their nuclear weapons development
program they didn't develop a bomb. Part of this was due to
Hitler not understanding what it was they might be able to
due, he was more fascinated with rockets -- a much simpler
concept.
delta-x times delta-p >= h / 2 pi
delta-E times delta-t >= h / 2 pi
x is the position of a quantum particle (like an electron or a photon, etc)
p is its momentum (speed times mass); ie, how much "punch it has" moving.
E is its energy content (same old "E" as in Einstein's and Plank's equations)
t is time
The fall out is this:
1. We can not SIMULTANEOUSLY know the exact position or
the exact momentum of a particle. If we try to measure
one, the other value becomes "uncertain".
2. Similarly, we can not SIMULTANEOUSLY know its exact
energy content and the time within which that content
was at that value.
Thus, in the world of the quantum, while things might (or might very
well not) be chaning: We can never know what's going on entirely.
Also, a very subtle result is that the energy of a
system can never actually be zero - if it was, then
it would be a known state (there is only ONE zero).
But, even this is a flawed view. See:
{"zero point energy"}, below.
Finally it turns out that psi (the mathematical wave function
which is a pure "naked" entity) has as it's SQUARE (psi times psi)
the PROBAILITY of what ever psi is a funcion of.
Thus, we might have psi (position) and psi (momentum) and
we might hope to fiddle with these. but, once we compute
psi (position) squared we get a probability, and then automatically
psi (momentum) "spreads out" -- becomes MORE uncertain.
Again, Bohr ane Einstein argued about what this meant.
Einstein maintining that "somehow" inside of
psi itself (un-squared) were the hidden variables, and
some way to "take things down". No really good experiment
or theory has ever confirmed Einstein's view.
Redux of The Quantum
Quantum mechanics says that ONLY the
square of the wave function(a "pure" mathematical
number) has any meaning. That is, the square of psi gives
us an "idea" of where the electron is. But, in theory it
is the psi functions (naked probability/wave clouds) that are
inter-acting. The electrons don't carry around calculators.
Or do they? (this is the iconosphere after all).
Use our "atom smasher" to create two separate electon pairs
(e1,e2) and (e3,e4).
e1/e2 e3/e4
ee ee
e e e e begin separating them
e e e e
e e e (not bound) e
we then bind the two "neighbor" electrons. The Pauli
principle tells us that one will be come psi+ and the
other must become psi- right? But, again the distant
electrons MUST (EPT theorem; btw, the celebrated experimental
physicst Madam Wu showed that in "certain cases", CPT fails!
But, that's a whole 'nother story; google: "Richard Feynman")
the electrons MUST flip to the right state. As it turns out
this coupling can cause "problems" if one of the electrons
goes into a black hole (Hawking's ideas of relativity
again) -- how do the "hidden variables" communicate then?
Finally, the delta E, delta t form of Heisenberg's equation
leas us to the fact that a vacuum isn't empty. For a small
enough time, a large amount of energy can be created out
of NOTHING. But, with the CPT theorem, that can't occur.
Unless: we cerate an electron and an anti-electron: The
much touted "anti-matter" of Star Trek fame.
In most cases (in a vacuum) the elctron/positron (when
anti-electrons were first observed in nuclear decay scientists
just thought they were some NEW kind of particle instead of
the electron's "anti" particle) -- in most cases the two
particles will almost instantaneously recombine into: Nothing.
Since one is a particle and and one is its exact anti particle
the CPT theorem is not violated.
In *theory* a mass the size of the Earth (and an equal anti-earth)
could be created for a VERY shrot time. Chance are (unless they
are quickly separated, they would re-combine: Again, into nothing.
The probability of that is MUCH smaller than for an electron.
electron mass: .000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_931 kgm
earth's mass: 6_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000.
The "delta time" is something like:
.000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_1 fractions a second
Computers typcially access data in about this fractions of a second:
.000_000_1 seconds
An eye blink: .1 seconds
So, there "could" be earth/anti-earths being created and then destroyed
all around us (not that they'd even necessarily look like a planet),
but of course it's so short of a time, that "if you blink; you'd miss it".
Fianlly, i hinted (with the mention of Madam Wu and Richard Feynman)
that there was more to all of this than that.
Feynham (and others) used the information that Madam Wu (and others)
gave them and found out:
The "fundamental paricles" like electrons, protons, and neutrons
(at one time there were over 120 of them) were actaully made up
of (big drum roll) QUARKS. And that there are only a small,
handfull of those.
As if this wasn't enough, at the "other end of the universe", there
are things not just like matter and anti-matter, but dark matter
(which we can't see; eg, black wholes) and "dark energy" (even
harder to see). That stuff comes under the study (in Physics) of
{cosmogony} (above). Or you can look at: ...
We will look at more "philsophical" aspects of QM in the spirituality
section with the discussions of Quantum Reality. -[jump there now]-
QM -- results
So much for theory, let's talk about results and begin (icosopherically
speaking) quantum leaping.
Lasers
LASER -- Light Amplication by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.
The MASER (microwave radiation...) was invented Charles Townes
(and others; bit a controversy there) in 1953).
As it turns out the Pauli Exclusion principle has a big impact on
atoms that are trapped together. Another of Einstein's ideas was
the so-called "Einstein Radiation Co-efficients" (they were named
in his honor). If we have a tube of gas (the little red pointer
pens use a mixture of the two inert gases Helium and Neon) and
we start "pumping" in energy.
What will happen (if the laser is designed correctly), is that
some of the electrons will go from their normally low energy
state (call it psi0) to an excited state (call it psi*).
psi0 + photon ---> psi* (photon: light "particle" of just
the right frequency, v)
No problem, after a small amount of time, the the electron will
decay back to it's old state:
psi* -----> psi0 + photon (emits a photon of the SAME
frequency as the one that
excited it in the first
place.
Richard Feynman's father asked him if it was the SAME photon.
To which Feynman had to say, "We don't know".
With the mixture of gases (or any sufficiently complex system of
atoms or molecules) we can "trap" electrons with the "Pauli
Exclusion Principle"
psi0 + phonon (freq 1) ---> psi*
psi* + photon (freq 2) --->2; psi** (a new excited state)
Now, the poor electron "wants" to get back to its ground state
(psi0), but it turns out that such a "transition" (jump/fall/decay)
is forbidden (in a manner similar to the Pauli Exclusion Principle).
So, it must wait there forever.
Not quite. After a while there are MORE electrons in this excited
state than there are in the "normal" (ground) state -- this
"weird" state of affairs is what the "Einstein Radiation Co-efficients"
are all about. Finally *something* happens and one of the electrons
manages to "decay"
psi** ---> psi0 + photon (freq 3) !!!!
And then ALL Hell breaks loose (Hell is located just South of
Trongheim, Norway; the Hell in Texas is ????). All of sudden
more and more atoms (and there litterally "billions and billions"
of them (even in that tiny little laser pointer pen) are decaying.
It's an "avalanche" -- technically it's classified as "a
cascade effect". And out shines the light.
Not just any light. The light from light bulb is a mixture of
a lot of different frequencies, and the photons (light particles)
come out at random. With a laser, all of the photon come in bursts
that are going almost exactly in the same (parallel) direction
and they are all almost entirely of the EXACT same frequency.
This gives laser light two important features:
1. Momonchromatic. (Greek: One colour). Ordinary lightbulbs
are polychomatic (many) .
2. Choherence. The fact that the light waves are "lockstep"
in phase.
Oddly enough the theory of "coherent light" had been advanced
using pre-quantum optics in the early 1900's long before the
idea of HOW to accompolish had come even as a possibility.
These properties of laser light allow us to have things like
"holograms" -- since the PHASES of all the lightwaves are in
sync they "carry with them" not just intensity information
(like ordinary light reflected from an object), but PHASE
information about the object they are reflected off of.
Since it takes shorter or longer to reflect off a three
dimensional object and these changes the phase (marching bands
know this -- they have to march faster if they have to go
around an object to stay in step (phase) with the other
marchers) can be reproduced: Hence re-creating not just a
flat image, but a three dimensional image.
QM: CAT, PET, MRI Scans, The "TEM", and Infinity
Once the way that atoms respond to different frequencies of light
and to magnetic fields, we can build "Dr. McCoy's MedBed" from
Star Trek. Having computers helps; lots of mathematical calculations
to "render" the reflected data into a usable image.
The farthest we can go is to see pictures of individual atoms.
This is done by taking things to the "next" level: that is
smaller: Closer to the "Quantum Limit" imposed by the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, etc. That device is called
the "Tunnerling Electron Microscope"; the "tunneling" is a
form of applied propability mechanics called "tunneling" where
the electron can pass through a barrier that it shouldn't be
able to penetrate. So it can't so, instead: One moment its
on one side, and the next its on the other side of the barrier.
We squeeze one part of the corrct form of the Heisenberg
Principle and: Well, imagine what Houdini could have done
with such ideas?
Other experiments (often using lasers as well) allow computers
to be made smaller and smaller. Eventually instead of pumping
electrons through a computer circuit, we will probably be able
to pump photons. So, what would you do with a computer that's
a billion times faster and more powerful than the ones we have
today?
zero point energy
Well, despite what the super hero "Syndrome"
used with his "zero point energy" cuffs - if
you COULD harness that then it might be a source
of unbelievable power. But,....
As we said earlier the fact that we can never
simultaneously determine position and momentum
(or alternatively, time and energy) means that
the energy of the system can NEVER be zero.
After all, if it's zero and we have it nicely
isolated, then it would be a knowable state.
Well, rather than counting quantum states
dansing on a pin head (as many as may want to),
it boils down to this:
For a physical system (eg, a nice Helium atom)
we can never freeze it to actual, absolute
zero. It will always have that underterminable
inner energy. But, it *might* be zero - we just
have no way of knowing. Of course, we can come
unbelievably close by using lasers and such
to "cool" the system to something like a
millionth of a degree above zero (absolute zero
of course).
And important result of this (when we convert from
"normal" thermodynamics (eg, of physical but
real systems) to "statistical" and possibly
"ideal" systems) is that the INFORMATION content
can't be fixed either - well without disturbing
it, and in by measuring, setting the internal
state to an unknown value. You know - you just
can't win!
Now, "in theory" - we could have two systems
and then send in a pulse that "might" set one
of them to actually zero energy - but we can
never measure it - because, if we do, then we'd
be disturbing it while it's PREVIOUS value might
have been measured as zero it's new state is???
Sound like something we know?
Yep: That's the great break through of Stephan Hawking:
That near a black hole, we have
(potentially) a zero-point system!
Now, it's not enough that his beautiful equation
relates entropy (and therefore information as
such) to GRAVITY -- i mean, no wonder Einstein
couldn't find his "unified field theory" - the
missing element wasn't a field at all - it was
information itself!! - well, at least the measure
of information content.
So, where are we?
Current thinking (well as i understand it) is
that in the first few fraction's of a second
after the big bang, the fields that we "see"
as gravity, electrical, and the strong and weak
nuclear forces separated - and thus, they appear
to us as separate things. But, this leads to
two views:
1) At something like "Asimov's temperature"
(take every bit of energy in the universe
and put it into a single atom) then all
of the FORCES in nature actually one force.
2) That the forces are ONLY the same, if we
view that our universe has more than 3
(or arguably 4 - time) dimensions. And
since ALL things in our space are really
vectors in (eg) a 26-dimensional space,
that's why gravity seems to be different
from electrical, and in turn, weak and strong
forces.
Now this make me think (steps shakily out on a
very thin limb) of this:
1. If temperature has nothing to due with the
"unification" of forces. This would mean that
the quantum singularity (that gave rise to
the big bang and thence our universe; see map),
has a NON-trivial value - that value is of
course the universe itself; i don't mean
"meaning" in a philosophical sense, but it's
worth considering; ??philo-link??
Thus if we sum the value of the unvierse, we
get the universe - but in some sort of QS form
like a seed. Naturally, this pleases our need
for beginnings coming from something. Yes, but
then where did the quantum-sub-space come from...
2. That the whole problem higher dimensions begs
the question: Maybe there isn't a unified field
theory. That our universe if composed out of a
set of incommensurable (can't be inter-converted
no matter what) properties/fields.
A brief note on the 4th dimension being time.
{Goedel's non-time Theory}
All i know, is this one bit of a conversation that i
love to quote:
me: so, when the universe was formed
mathematics was formed first.
rindler: Yes! Exactly.
However, we were interrupted by some one who wanted Rindler's
autograph; c'est la vie.
But, it does make you think: What if the irremovable
singularity that gave rise to our universe IS maths?
Then the maths of our universe form part of its
physical structure. But, alas, this leads us into
meta (or at least quasi-pata) physics. ??link??
{
Goedel's non-time Theory
A brief note on the 4th dimension being time.
(a brief nod to film: "IQ" - you just can't
go wrong when you have Walter Matthau as
Einstein and Lou Jacobi as Goedel ;)
As it turns out, Goedel (whom we must remember to
be a PURE mathematician) took to analyse Einstein's
theory. And came up with the curious idea that in
"a universe where Einstein's
theories of relativity were
true",
time as we know it might not exist.
This has intrtued me in my own ways of thinking
(being the time travelor that i am) that maybe
time itself doesn't exist.
So, that every time we "see" something that looks
time-like, we should be taking derivatives with
respect to energy content or with respect to
entropy.
Anyway, i'll read some more and see what it might
suggest (well, at least iconospherically speaking, natch ;)
Robotics
See also "Action" (see -["map-entry"]-)
"Dolphins" -(see map)-
"Humanist" -[Robots entry]-
One of the earlist attempts to put robotics into some sort
of scientific/engineering contexts was put forth by the
futurist/writer/ominiologist Isaac Asimov in his so-called
"Three Laws of Robotics" (he always gave co-authorship to
felllow futurist/writer John Campbell). This are:
1. A robot may not harm a human or thruough in-action allow
a human to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey all orders given to it by a human unless
this would conflict with the first law.
3. A robot must protect itself unless this would conflict with
wither the first or second law.
(not an exact quote; probably)
As pointed out, this way of regulating the "actions" (see map) of
the robot was hoped to take robots out of the "moster" classification
of then existent science fiction and place them into the category
of "charfully engineered things".
For example, we (as good scientists/engineers/technologists/etc) test
a new invention (esample, the parachutte) before we would just
let any one just use it. The early days of aviation led to the idea of
a parachute (possibly inspired by birds as well as the writings of
Leonardo da Vinci). There are early "test flight films" of the inventors
falling off the sides of cliffs and into water when the parachutes didn't
work propely. So, successful was the EVOLUTION fo the parachute that it
has even given rise to its RECREATIONAL use, as well as safe-landing
of payloads on Mars, etc.
In the same way, the safe engineering of robots should be approached.
And, even a casual bit of experimentation with the iconosphere would
show that in the same way we should approach cautiously the idea of
createing "thinking" computers and robots. -[Thinking]- (see map)
The ramifciations of the morality of creating a new slave race
stagters the imagination (as well it should). From a purely
technologist point of view, if i "mis-treat" a toaster by tossing
it across the room to "punish it" for burning my finger -- that is
different than if i perform equally callous actions to a person
or an animal (what about a plant?). What about a robot? This has
been explored by every resaonsing writer of science fiction including
a landmark episode of "Star Trek The Next Generation" ??title??
when an officer orders Commander Data (technically a robot, but
on the series they insist that he is an android; i defer to their wisdom)
to submit to "examination" -- presumably to see what makes him
tick. Commander Data resigns (is this free will, or simply some
built-in self-preservation form of Asimov's 3rd law?). A court
hearing ensues and guided by the wisdom of the mysterious alien
"Guinan" ??sp? (portrayed by Whoopi Goldberg), the Captain
(porgrayed by Patrick Stewart) begins a very emotional investigation
into the "morality" of "owning" Commander Data. The question is
raised: Is Data a man or a toaster?
Using the iconosophere we quickly see, that in the same way that we
are admonished to use "non-violence" in approaching the world via
many areas of spiritualism and philosophy, we should approach the
problmes of robotics with even more caution than we would exercise
towards a toaster.
INSERT CARTOON HERE
Meepo: This is all non-sense. I created my robot, I can
treat it anyway I want. Besides, just because its
avoiding me, doesn't mean its "cringing in terror".
Really, you're assigning my robot emotions and
capabilities that it simply doesn't have!
Gleeba: Then why are you shouting?
Meepo: And what's all this mush about "using the iconosophere?".
(scrolls up and down) All I see is a bunch of new-age
text about the morality invovled in throwing the toaster
across the room. Now, i can see that you shouldn't hurt
an animal, but...
Gleeba: You're using the iconosphere right now. In exactly the
way it was intended to be used.
END CARTOON
-^_6
Sci: Systems Theories
In this section: {Intro}
{Hidden Variables}
Hidden Variables - First Thoughts of the Aesthetic of the Quantum
Prelude: What are the aesthetic "atoms" of a painting?
the canvas, wood, staples, gesso, ...
the paint, scrape-ed paint, lines, cuts into the canvas, ...
paint strokes, etc......
... ..... .../...
..........
what we end up with is (as Marcel reminds us) is
"just an assemblage" - which "happens" to be a painting.
In the discussion of time travel - try some Grieg: Holberg Suite?
futurism x absurdism (time) ---> time travel
(which is of course absurd - but, i take on "faith" many of the
physicists who regard it as not)
At any rate (now about $0.1575 per KWH !), i discussed the common idea
of a "cusp" in time travel -[LINK THERE]-
This is i would say *of course* this is a conceptually linked idea
to the cusps that occur in catastrophe theory LINK HERE -[]-
Regardless, i want to concentrate on a process of reasonsing which
we notice when we study how we do derivations (particularly in
the sciences as opposed to in maths). A phrase which occurs is
soemthing like this:
We have equation 107 (a random number if you
please; it's a SCRIPT)
Now, we notice that blah, blah,
and blah are something blah.
and, so WITHOUT LOSS OF GENERALITY we may
write blah, blah, and blah
this now allows us to solve the equation
using a simple Bessel Function
(or if you prefer, gentle reader"
a blahdy blahdy, blahhhh), and
thus, it is easily shown that...
The idea is that in order to solve a particular problem, we make
simplifications, substitutions, translations (usually from one
co-ordinate system or system of things to another), and as such
the result that we get has certain DETAILS that automatically
are dropped from the solution.
Take the following as read:
If we want to describe the motion of waves
(eg, water waves), we can write a so-called
"wave equation". And it turns out that in
general these are not too difficult to
solve. And it turns out to be a fairly
simple LINEAR EQUATION (a 2nd order partial
differential equation as i recall; very
elegagnt) ** PUT GIF HERE **
For argument's sake (ah more SIMPLIFICATIONS !!!)
let's say the equation looks
like this:
y" - y = 0 (which it "sort of does")
(here "y" is the wave height or wave motion,
and "x" (displacement along the direction of
wave travel; eg, towards the shore)
and "t" (time variance of the wave; eg, as
it might disipate/grow in time, etc)
AND specificically any "odd" things about "x" and "t"
are made to "disappear".
This would give us the description of an IDEAL
wave - the water has no viscosity, it has some
sort of "ideal" specific gravity (density), etc.
The model does very well for many cases; eg, we
can describe the movement of sound waves in air,
the movement of tides (over a very short distance
at sea), etc.
But, then we want to deviate from the IDEAL
of waves and introduce things like turbulence,
the crash of waves, tsunamii's etc. We take
it as read that these are NON-LINEAR phenomena.
Now, one way to solve this is by "tacking on" a
coupld of non-linear terms, so we might write
y" - y = g(x) + h(t)
Where in we take the g() and h() functions as something
that we can figure out from experiment, observation,
simulation, or other maths operations.
But.
By doing this, we are thowing away the original problem
we just don't tell ourselves that we are doing this.
What we *really* need to do, is to go back to the original
problem and NOT making simplifying assumptions to begin
with. As it turns out, if we do this, it turns out that
"simple" or "ordinary" maths in most cases CAN NOT solve
the problem. That is, we can't get a nice little equation
like the y" - y one that we had above.
Our only solution is to use computer simulations, numercial
approximations, etc.
But.
This violates the idea that the underlaying simplicity of
nature should manifest itself in simple terms that we
can understand. That's what Einstein's E=mc^2 equation is
all about.
Einstein often would say that he liked what a fellow physicist
(or even himself) was saying, but that the maths (equations)
were simply to ugly to be true.
The odd thing here is (sed, i, stepping out on a limb) is...
1) That so many powerful systems CAN be described by some
very amazing equations that are simple.
2) That so many things can be understood by such a simple
set of "laws" means that there *should* be a underlaying
simplifying system of "things" governing the apparently
complex behaviours of the world around us.
But.
It would behoove us to question the universe as being simple.
I *feel* that it is inherently un-understandable and that what
we see IS just the patterns in the chaos -- and that we're
missing the chaos itself and what it has to say.
Well, Dave chalenged me to come up with an aesthetic of the
quantum; i'd say it's at least a "start" ??
-^_6 frank 6_^-
-^_6
ThermoDynamics
The basic laws of thermo dynamics can easily be given as
follows (in a cute and yet some-what accurate manner:)
1) You can't win, you can only break even.
2) You can only break even at absoute zero.
3) You can never reach absolute zero.
And the zeroth law is: There is this thing called temperature
and you can measure it.
That work produces heat had been observed in the
machine age for the first time as a correlative
property of matter. So, naturally the idea of
"heat content" came up - "caloric content" and
that "stuff" was the caloric that flowed around
like a liquid. There were two ideas of course
that (like electrical charges) there was a
HOT and a COLD caloric substance.
Carnot simplified the idea by having a pool
of "heat" and "cold" and a conduit between
them - "the working substance". His theory
was fine EXCEPT that there is NO cold caloric.
Joule who was the first to show that energy
could change forms and in an exact way, also
showed that Carnot's "cold caloric" was wrong.
As such Carnot's theory lay on the shelf from
1824 (when it was published) and 1844 ??date??
when Lord Kelvin realised the flaw in the
theory might be explained and began working
towards a resolutio
n. It turned out that
Clausius set things straight by (in 1850)
separating Carnot's "law of heat" (and its
supposed cold and hot calorics) into TWO
laws of thermo:
1. Heat is a form of energy and can be
inter-converted as such - in keeping
with Joule's demonstration that
gravitational energy could be used
turn a paddle wheel in water and
thus heat it up.
2. Conservation of energy. This implied
(using Carnot's ideas) that the flow
of energy is always "down hill". That
is from HOT TO COLD - always.
The only way that there could be a "cold
caloric" is that if you used MORE energy
than you moved, then you could cool one
thing down. But the other thing would
end up warmer - energy was "lost" to useless
heat.
Of course, this "useless" heat is what starts
a from from kindling when a dowel is rotated
against it. Thus, releasing the energey stored
in the chemical bonds of the wood.
By 1865, he (and Clapeyron) had put all of
the equations in proper order and necessarily
"discovered" (defined) - ENTROPY.
Ultimately, entropy (the measure of how much
useless energy is generated in a process) -
and how efficient the conversion of energy
and work performed is - turned out to be
related to the RANDOM-NESS of the system.
This was added by Boltzman.
It's important to note two ways of thinking
about thermo:
1. As a property of the universe (see map)
and as such things like the conversion
of energy, entropy, and "organsiation"
(order vs chaos) are PROPERTIES of the
universe.
2. That systems of pure information can
be described by the same ideas - having
little or no actual connnection with
our universe (or so i would say). This
sort of idea is developed in the book
on thermo by Charles Kittel (best known
for his work in Solid State physics).
Finally, in theory as ANY sort of thing
happens in the universe, the process is
always less than 100% efficient (it would
only be 100% efficient at absolute zero,
but this would mean that even the smallest
energy would not be lost to the so-called
"zero point energy" of the atoms; and hence
since it "can't be known to be zero" (and
thus violate the uncertainty principle),
you can't REACH absolute zero.
Therefore, the entropy of the over-all
universe is increasing no matter what.
One day it will all "run down" into what
is called "the heat death" of the universe.
(About 3 degress above absolute zero).
Interestingly enough, Hawking has found
a relation between gravity and entropy!!
(Something along the lines of Einstein's
search for the "unified field theory"
-- but not as "universal" as what Einstein
searched for in vain.
But, it is (apparently) a limiting equation
that strictly speaking only applies to
regions of space next to a black hole.
Curious stuff, huh?
A Bit more Formally
This all has to do with how work gets done in the universe. In
order to change the state of a system you need to expend energy.
Thus, take a building crane and the motor is pulling on the cable
and that cable is hauling up a load. In "theory" the system should
be close to ideal, that is there is no friction on the pulley at the
top of the crane. But in reality, the old equations from Newton don't
quite balance out: There is always some energy lost.
That energy usually shows up as heat which is one of the least useful
forms of energy. To express this relationship, scientists write the
equation:
U = Q - W
U is the "systems total energy" - pretend we put a giant bubble around
the crane and everything.
Q = The heat (raw energy) that we are supplying to do the work.
W = The work that is done by the system (here our crane).
Note that "W" is preceded by a minus sign. The usage here is that
anything coming into the system (eg, heat, energy) is positive,
and anything going out is negative. Imagine as if you the system
is a planet and you are standing on its surface looking up out into
the universe. Work is being produced and operating on the universe,
as such it just goes out and up from the system. That "planet"
would be like Carnot's ideal "Carnot Engine"!
In reality, there is heat lost in almost all real systems. But in
thermo, there are "ideal cases".
One of my favs is the "adiabatic system" - in which case NO energy
is lot. In this case, we can write things like:
delta U = Q - W
Where delta (greek letter like a triangle) means "the change in"
But, in an ADIABATIC (idealised) system the change in system
energy is zero, so:
delta U = Q - W = 0 (ie, no net gain/loss)
Q = W That is whatever engergy/heat (Q) that comes in
shows up 100% as work performed.
And thus, we hae the long sought-after perpetual motion machine!
On of my fav books on this is by
Lord Ord-Hume and is called: "Perpetual Motion - The history of
an obsession".
Very readable.
Now, so far we haven't violated any laws of thermodynamics (were
just using the zeroth law (measure temperature by comparing one
thing (the system) to another (usually a thermometer) and the
first law - the definition of relation between heat and work.
Such a system can't really exchange even information with
the outside world (ie, the us out here in the universe). It
would be like (in SciFi) a "suspended animation field". Larry
Niven comes closest to it in his "Known Space" SciFi series,
by saying that the "thing" enclosed in the suspended animation
field (which he calls "stasis fields") would look perfectly
SILVER (as in a mirror), since we can't influence it in any
way. Inside it, time would completely stop - like inside a
black hole (in theory).
Ref: "World of P'tavs".
A brief stop: The Idea Gas Law
As it turns out, this is where things get messy - the 2nd law
of thermo. Before i get lot, let's look at one more thing.
The "ideal gas law".
This was the fall out of several early laws (Charles' Law, The
Guy-Lussac Law, Boyle's Law, etc) and was dealing with trying
to make a refriderator (sort of). Anyway, what came out was the
elegant little equation:
p V = n R T
In a system (again we can assume a closed system, imagine an
engine, with an attached piston - say to inflate a tyre)
p - pressure
V - volume
n = (ahem) number of moles (remember Avagadro's number?) of the gas
R = The Rhydberg constant
T = Temperature (but convert to "Kelvins" T = C - 273.15 if C is
Celcius degrees.
(anyway, this is all v. fab stuff, and i'll you google
it as you will), but litterally get the iconosphere
balloon off the ground:
Say we bring in one of the Mongolfier brothers (it doesn't matter
say Jacques-Étienne, meanwhile Joseph-Michel can continue running
the print shop - and, *yes* i had to google their first names, you
know how bad i am with names). -[chm.bris.ac.uk]-
So, their first balloons are (i would assume) made of
paper... Hmmmm ??EDIT??
Anyway, here's were the ideal gas law comes in:
Let's keep the volume of the balloon (made of a fine PrintMaker's paper!)
constant, and we seal it off so that "n" is constant, thus, with a bit'o
the old Algebra, we can write:
pV = nRT - but, n and V are constant (and Rydberg's constant is, well,
uhh, constant, natch!)
pV/T = nR or
p
--- = nR/V
T
Thus, as we heat the air up the nR/V is constant,
so p MUST increase.
ANd of course the balloon explodes!
Let the volume NOT be fixed (suddenly we take
a nice elastic/rubber balloon
of enormous size back in time to Jacques)
In this case the VOLUME increase directly in proportion to the Temperatute
and the pressure remains constant.
But Jacqques and Joseph's balloon is made of paper, so what they do
is:
Open the hole at the bottom, and allow excess air to escape as
the baloon's interior air heats up.
What? in this case the pressure inside remains constant, the temperature
increases and the volume remains constant. SO,.... (again with Illa's
magic algebra mix)
n
--- = R/pV
T
So, the number of moles is increasing but they are escaping! So, thus
our system is violated and no longer subject to the laws of thermodynamics!
Not really. What happens is that the molecules of air as they are heated
begin to move faster, and thus a smaller number of molecules (n) can take
up the same volume but at a higher temperature. But, then (from Bernoulli's
principle or at the very least Archimedes' principle), the balloon FLOATS!
It's really quite beyond me.
Floating: Because inside the balloon a smaller number of molecules
occupy a given space then outside the balloon. The inside
ones are "hotter" push otherones asside more often than
the colder ones in the "normal" atmosphere.
But this is the point: Even something as "simple" as a hot-air balloon
(there are not any moving parts - well other than invisible air molecules).
And the explanation via science is already pretty complex - so when you start
hearing about perpetual motion, don't believe it!
(But, if you have a spare million to invest in my
own almost perpetual machine, please email, soonest! ;)
To return to the pure, ideal world of thermo (away from molecules and any such
physical messiness)...
As it turns out the maximum work that you can get out of a system is
related to the DIFFERENCE between the starting and ending temperatures.
All measured in degrees Kelvin, and usually written
delta T = T2 - T1
Carnot's Engine
By the early 1800's everyone was trying to improve
on James Watt's steam engine to make them more
efficient, and of course having mixed success.
Anyway a French chap by the Nicolas Léonard Sadi
Carnot (prunskiated "car noh") came up with a sort
of "universal ideal engine" which got labeled the
"Carnot Cycle"
(aka "The Carnot Engine" - if one could be built
based on it.)
We take a piston and put steam into it under pressure
and it drives the piston out - which we've hooked
up to a wheel or some machine that we want to
"do something" - a wheel: A steam engine locomotive.
Of course, then we have to "somehow" pull the
piston back to the starting postion, let in
some more steam. So, where does that energy
come from? As it turns out, no matter what
SOME energy is lost.
This is because it can go thru an entire cycle
(using an ideal gas)of having pressure put in
(say by a steam boiler) and then the piston
pushing out to do work, and then "somehow"
the energy is recovered and the engine starts
another cycyle - ad inifinitum!
So, the goal is to make the engine more efficient
-- better fittings, less friction, etc.
-[a href="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html" target="_blank">gsu.edu]- cute carnot calculator!
The point is, that it is the basis for almost
all physical (ie, real, engineered) systems
and of course we know that because of friction,
heat loss, inefficient couplings, etc - that
energy is lost. Of course in an ideal system,
the work done would exactly equal the energy
put in, and as such could run forever
- but never really accomplishing anything.
All real engines run at less than 100%
efficiency (cars are around 10 - 20% (max)
at present). Of course, reduce the friction,
loss, etc - higher efficiency.
Now enter the 2nd Law - which is a lot more
complicated, but essentially says that the
larger the heat difference between the SOURCE
energy and the WASTE (end) energy sources,
then the greater the efficiency CAN be.
As the late, great Issac Asimov once calculated:
If you took every bit of matter in the universe
and converted it into energy and then put it
into a single atom (as i recall) then that would
be the MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE possible. And then
borrowing Asimov's maximal particle to do some
thermodynamic work, and IF we ended up with ZERO
energy left, then THAT (physical) system would
be 100% efficient.
Note that technically even we can't be in the
universe to observe it (hyperspace?!!) and the
experiment can only be done once - and once it
is finished then the enitre universe is finished
as well -- there is NO energy left.
(Well not quite - there's always Quantum Mechanics
and the {"zero point energy"})
But, of course, we can't do that since there's always lots of molecules
bumping into things (and thus draining little bits of energy away) - which
is nice if you're trying to cool off your cabanna chair with some cooling
breeze.
And as it turns out, the only systems that even come close to being 100%
efficient are those that are plunged into liquid Helium a few FRACTONS
of a degree above absolute zero.
And it's at this point that things get weird. At such low temperatures
there is so LITTLE energy present that we run into the fact that our
little systems are NOT ideal thermodynanic systems (such as massless
particles, perfect energy exchanges, zero loss systems, etc) - but
real atoms, molecules. And of course, they're all part of the
QUANTUM MECHANICAL UNIVERSE !!!
(now showing on a big screen near you)
So, as such there's this thing called "the zero point energy" which is
contained in the atoms themselves (yes, even nice, nobel Helium - a
mono-atomic molecule (unlike, eg, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen).
Irreversability
See also: Cascade Phenomena -[here]- (cross products, theory section)
Since we can't ever reach absolute zero (due to a quantum restriction
at the "small" end of the universe, similar to the fact that we can't
go faster than the speed of light at the "large" end of the universe),
we must now deal with irreversability.
Carnot Engines at infinity, black hole super computers, and again QM
Basic equations of processes, entropy
information theory (thermo aspects of)
Maxwell's Demon
The idea of Maxwell's demon was introduced in
order to explore certain aspects of a perfect
machine. Consider a box dived into two sections.
The border between the two sections has a small
door in it. At the door is positioned a Maxwellian
Demon of the 1st kind. He (she? neh?) performs as
follows:
a) As a fast moving molecule approaches
from the left it is allowed to pass
through to the right chamber.
If it is a slow moving molecule
approaching from the left, then the
demon closes the door and the molecule
bounces off and goes back into the
left chamber.
b) For a slow moving molecle that approaches
from the right, it's allowed to pass, and
so forth.
Thus, after a while the left chamber will be
filled with the slower moving (cooler) molecules
and the right chamber will be filled with faster
moving (hotter) molecules.
The question is then: Since the entropy of the
system is REVERSED (violating the main three laws
of thermodynamics) - is this possible?? After all,
it can be argued that the demon's own entropy is
increased since he/she/neh must dart about quickly
to see how fast the molecule is moving, then either
slam the door closed or make sure it is open.
From elementary thermodynamics there is no problem:
We can in theory have (build? hire?) a maxwell's
demon and voila! all of our air conditioning
problems are solved.
Forgetting the state.
====================
There is an article in Scientific American ??year?? ??link??
where they were able to show that ONLY problem is
that the demon must forget it's previous actions.
The gist of the argument is that when we consider
INFORMATION as part of the thermodynamic state of
the system -- then the demon itself violates the
laws of thermodynamics (well, at least the main
three ones).
What it says is that since the door is either open
or closed and for the NEXT molecule it has to either
remain open or closed or CHANGE its state. That
single BIT (computer-wise: a single 0 or 1 !!) is
what causes the Maxwell's demon (or its action/existence)
to violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Odd, huh?
Of course, there isn't anything to prevent an actual
"demon" from performing the work - but then it means
that the OVERALL energy of the system and the demon
will be no more efficient than any other engine.
Which is of course by default one of the {"Carnot's Engines".}
physics and maths of the demon
Enter sisaphus - the daemon as etenal truth seeker...
and of course, there is nothing to prevent the demon from
evolving - ie, i would think that the demon would rather be
of Camus' Sysiphys or at the very least Stopard's Rosenkrantz
and Guildernstern, etc. Gogo? Didi?
ie, ultimately the demon (what ever its "original programming"
-- as per example the "Morarity" character on Star Trek - The Next Generation's
"Elementary My Dear Data" ??title?? and it's very important ending
-- also that can be tied back to the "The Measure of a Man" ep as
well as OuterLimits, I Robot, and of course Lester del Rey's idea
that once we know what an ego is (and as his scientist shows) and
once we can legitimise it, then we get Didi and Gogo, as well as
the two inventor robots in Stanislof Lem's "The Cyberiad" (Romans Robatika).
link to ma-humanst.html#hum-certainty-descartes-evil-demon
Science and its "opposites"
Agains, by examining what something is NOT, gives us insights into
what it is.
Is religion the opposite of science?
Is philosophy?
Is new-age spiritualism?
etc
One of the age old "conflicts" surrounds "science vs. religion". From
one point of view, there can be no conflict; from another POV, there's
bound to be conflict.
In the film "The dish" (which rather charmingly re-tells the story
of a radio telescope in Parkes, New South Wales, Australlia and how
it was involved in receiving the "moon walk" of Apollo 11), on a
Sunday a priest gives a sermon (excerpted from memory)
And we pray also, for those three brave astronauts
who even as we speak are exploring God's Great
Universe.
I've also encountered quite tradtional (what-ever that means)
Christian theologians who have no problem with evolution and
their religious beliefs.
On the other hand: If there's one thing to be sure; humans can
be the most annoyingly hard-headed of species.
I mean, we tried to tell God: Like i sed, you
you should have given the hands to the dolphins.
-- adopted from an old "Frank and Ernest" comic.
You were expecting a yes/no answer? Why waste my breath. It all goes
back to a bit from the late, great Douglas Noel Adams' trilolgy of
five novels, "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Two philosophers
want the computer Deep Thought shut down before it solves the great
question of "Life, the Universe, and Everything" saying that what's
the good of arguing if there is (or is not) a God, when the next day
this computer gives us his home telephone number?
How many angels can danse on the head of a pin?
The argumetns abound. My favourite arises from what is classically
known as part of the "Chance vs Necessity Argument". It invovles
something commonly refered to as "free will".
How many angels can danse on the head of a pin?
As many as want to.
See also: -[Free will]-] (in spiritualist)
So, then is science the opposite of "pseudo science"? This is sort
of philosophical falacy (begging the question, in-exact premises,
etc, etc).
If science gets to define what is NOT science and tags it "psuedo"
(meaning false, wrong, or "pretending to be"), then of course it
must be so. So? Yes, so. So? Yes. What? What? So, what? Yes, exactly.
Let's take an example: Acupuncture. It had been used in China (ah the
mysterious lure of "The inscrutable orient"!) for centuries. It finally
got demonstrated to scientists (primarily medical doctors -- not at all
the same as scientific researchers or what-ever IS a scientist; many
physicists would argue that the so-called "social sciences" are not
science at all, but a sort of statistical mish-mash of observational
athropology coupled with far too much ancedotal ramblings passing
itself off as "scientific data"!!).
Meanwhile: Accupuncture. As it turns out, there were these chemicals
called "endorphins" which act as the body's own painkillers. And
"somehow" the accupuncturist uses their needles to activate these
via the so-called "merridians of the body". Now that science (medial
science) has "blessed" accupuncture (the practice, not the theory)
with its discovery of a properly validated SCIENTIFIC principle --
it can accept the "illusion" of accupuncture.
Of course, the "court" is still out on the placebo effect, an exact
explanation of how hypnosis works, why some patients spontaneously
remit cancers while others die of seemingly innocuous things such as
SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome).
Note that science is in much the same position today as "The Church"
(read that as the Holy Romman Catholic Church) was in centuries past.
If science was able to wield THAT kind of power, then researchers in
new age, border science, speculative reasoning, and the so-called
pseudo sciences would be FORBIDDEN on pain of torture to explore
possible new pathways of understanding. Much, in the same way that
Galilelo was "show the instruments of torture" and consequently
recanted his beliefs, and of course much in the same way that the
churdh "did" allow Copernicus' theory to be published noting, that
if the astronomers were too stupid to understand God's great
earth-centered universe and had to rely on the crutch of Copernicus'
"great lie", then that was their own come-upance for not having
enough faith.
Anyone see any parallels here?
The argument about science vs religion, or one religion vs another
always reminds me of a couple of things. The old saw about the
blind men describing an elephant (religion) and each one insisting
that they alone knew what it was -- despite the fact that none of
them knew the entire "truth" about the elephant.
And the other thing is the joke about the chap who lost his car
keys and another person comes up to help them and asks, where
did you lose them. The chap sez: Over there. (blink, blink).
The second person asks, "Then why are you searching over here?"
The first chap replies: Because this is where the light is.
Or to put it another way: If the only tool that you have is
a hammer, then every problem looks
like a nail.
That is, science is pretty good at lot of things. And despite the
speculations of many writers and others its probably not going to
be possible to construct a machine that writes really good poetry,
paints really interesting paintings of an EMOTIONAL kind. (I'm
reminded here of the prediction just a few years back that computers
would never be able to play a good game of chess).
Regardless, the computer is a tool (at present, it's not a thinking
self-aware entity; see: [Thinking])
nothing more. It's also (with the help of the internet -- sometimes)
an "intellegence amplifier".
In the same way science is "just" a tool. It's just one way of
thinking about a problem or at least SOME problems. In the same
way, that i would hardly recommend using analytical cubism
to aid in the removal of an inflamed appendix, it would hardly
recommend using western reductionist physics to paint Guernica.
Neither works very well in a practical sense.
But.
This doesn't mean that we can't explore and think about such things
-- you never know what such illogical ideas might lead to. Remember
that the theoretical concept of a completely flooded planet and
the waves that might occur on it lead to some very interesting
results in quantum physics -- even though the two problems seem
totally un-connected. Ernst Mach's refutation of Einstein's
theory of relativity is totally flawed, but it turns out to
completely and accuraately describe trans-sonic flight about
10 years before ANYONE was flying anything other than hot
air baloons.
Serendipity requires you to be searching and to have open eyes.
And of course: An open mind.