Dark matter comes out of the cold

What part of the 'sine wave' nature of the Radius of Curvature of All Natural Law, specified by the energy differential of the constant 'C', in E=MC2 is still not understood????? Missing Energy Link

Dark matter comes out of the cold
2/6/06 By Jonathan Amos BBC News science reporter
Astronomers have for the first time put some real numbers on the physical characteristics of dark matter.
This strange material that dominates the Universe but which is invisible to current telescope technology is one of the great enigmas of modern science.
That it exists is one of the few things on which researchers have been certain.
But now an Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, team has at last been able to place limits on how it is packed in space and measure its "temperature".
"It's the first clue of what this stuff might be," said Professor Gerry Gilmore. "For the first time ever, we're actually dealing with its physics," he told the BBC News website.
Science understands a great deal about what it terms baryonic matter - the "normal" matter which makes up the stars, planets and people - but it has struggled to comprehend the main material from which the cosmos is constructed.
'Magic volume'
Astronomers cannot detect dark matter directly because it emits no light or radiation.
Its presence, though, can be inferred from the way galaxies rotate: their stars move so fast they would fly apart if they were not being held together by the gravitational attraction of some unseen material.
Such observations have established that dark matter makes up more than 95% of all the mass in the Universe.

These are the first properties other than existence that we've been able determine Prof Gerry Gilmore Institue of Astronomy, Cambridge
Now, the Cambridge team has provided new information with its detailed study of 12 dwarf galaxies that skirt the edge of our own Milky Way.
Using the biggest telescopes in the world, including the Very Large Telescope facility in Chile, the group has made detailed 3D maps of the galaxies, using the movement of their stars to "trace" the impression of the dark matter among them and weigh it very precisely.
With the aid of 7,000 separate measurements, the researchers have been able to establish that the galaxies contain about 400 times the amount of dark matter as they do normal matter.
"The distribution of dark matter bears no relationship to anything you will have read in the literature up to now," explained Professor Gilmore.

If this 'temperature' for the dark matter is correct, then it has huge implications for direct searches for these mysterious particles Prof Bob Nichol Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, Portsmouth
"It comes in a 'magic volume' which happens to correspond to an amount which is 30 million times the mass of the Sun.
"It looks like you cannot ever pack it smaller than about 300 parsecs - 1,000 light-years; this stuff will not let you. That tells you a speed actually - about 9km/s - at which the dark matter particles are moving because they are moving too fast to be compressed into a smaller scale.
"These are the first properties other than existence that we've been able determine."
Knowledge advance
The speed is a big surprise. Current theory had predicted dark matter particles would be extremely cold, moving at a few millimetres per second; but these observations prove the particles must actually be quite warm (in cosmic terms) at 10,000 degrees.
The most likely candidate for dark matter material is the so-called weakly interacting massive particle, or Wimp.
Scientists believe these are relic particles produced in the Big Bang.
They are predicted by certain theoretical extensions to the accepted description of matter and forces, the Standard Model of Fundamental Particles and Interactions. But also their presence would go a long way to explaining the structure and geometry of the Universe we observe.
Professor Bob Nichol, from the Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation at the University of Portsmouth, described the Cambridge work as "awesome".
"If this temperature for the dark matter is correct, then it has huge implications for direct searches for these mysterious particles (it seems [science] may be looking in the wrong place for them) and for how we thought the galaxies and clusters of galaxies evolve in the Universe.
"Having 'hotter' dark matter makes it harder to form the smallest galaxies, but does help to make the largest structures. This result will generate a lot of new research."
Big neighbours
Experimental crystal detectors placed down the bottom of deep mines are hoping to record the passage through normal matter of these hard to grasp dark matter particles.
Researchers would hope also that future experiments in particle accelerators will give them greater insight into the physics of dark matter.
The Cambridge efforts have produced an additional, independent result: the detailed study of the dwarf galaxies has allowed the scientists to weigh our own galaxy more precisely than ever before.
"It turns out the Milky Way is more massive than we thought," said Professor Gilmore.
"It now looks as though the Milky Way is the biggest galaxy in the local Universe, bigger even than Andromeda. It was thought until just a few months ago that it was the other way around."
The Cambridge University team expects to submit the first of its results to a leading astrophysics journal in the next few weeks.

Evolution and the New Energy Revolution

The radius of curvature of all natural law within the expanded definition of E=MC2




Evolution and the New Energy Revolution

Awakening to New Energy Alternatives
As America and the Northern Hemisphere nations vigorously compete for remaining oil reserves, there is a quiet revolution in progress that heralds a new geo-political landscape. Human civilization is dependent upon petroleum only because no concerted effort has been applied to the alternatives. The vested interests are, of course, reluctant to change a proven system (the fossil fuel economy) for fear of destabilizing their profitable business infrastructure. However, abundant evidence now shows that such a course will not only imperil the global ecology, but oil production will dramatically decline over the next century, negatively impacting our economic futures.
In laboratories around the planet, in scientific circles as diverse as the many cultures that populate our globe, an emerging class of unconventional energy technologies is being birthed. Some of these are the logical 'next step' innovations building upon the state-of-the-art. Others are truly quantum advances in the understanding of how energy is generated. The aggregate body of knowledge represented by these developments clearly holds the key to moving beyond our destructive addiction to oil.
What generally characterizes the new energy principles and systems is that they fall outside the realm of conventional theory. For this reason, the orthodox science establishment has specifically ignored the effects seen in these technologies. It is herein proposed that a private University be established to focus exclusively on the 'anomalies' that underpin new energy systems. The promise of such research is that a vast range of phenomena will be opened to exploitation.
Is it not preferable to envision a world that has dispensed with the fear of limited resources? It follows that should a sustainable energy economy be put in place, a more equitable future will be possible for all. The question of energy is viewed as central to resolving global conflict, including 'the war on terrorism'. Were the future to be instead dominated by the prevailing tension, we would see a steady decline in overall quality of life. Whereas, abundant energy would lower the cost of living, enhance the economy, and expand the potential of human endeavor.
While at this stage there is but a minority of players in the alternative energy sphere, relative to the oil-based business sector, nothing is more pressing than the support of these rising entrepreneurs. It has been projected that wind-energy alone could reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by one-half within the span of two-decades. The political consequences of this shift would be immense. Not only would the present thrust to militarize the Middle Eastern theater be unnecessary, we would gradually prove the viability of new energy systems over and above that of conventional sources (oil, coal, nuclear).
What makes this argument so compelling is the existence of truly advanced energy generation techniques that give us a renewed glimpse into the nature of the Cosmos. Since the industrial revolution, the scientific worldview has been fundamentally biased towards an 'entropic' model, i.e. the idea that all energy in the Universe will one day 'run out'. There is not only no conclusive proof to support this assertion, there are numerous examples that contradict it. Unfortunately, a dogmatic conviction has been enshrined in the minds of most scientists that any cosmology other than this is false. In the case where an effect is shown to violate this 'law of physics' (the conservation of energy within a 'limited system'), it is classified as 'anomalous', awaiting the day it can be explained in consonance with the theory. In other words, science is now more interested to uphold its theoretical constructs than to admit new knowledge and embrace its benefits.
The bulk of humanity suffers while the elite academicsand industrialists prop up their ivory towers.
Just as in the time of Jesus, when the 'law' was considered to have greater significance than the Spirit, our age is one in which the doctrine of limitation has proven more enduring than a policy of liberation.
In order for this benign revolution to progress, the research and development of new energy technology must be pursued in parallel with socio-political reforms. Time is short, for we are approaching the point at which the insatiable appetite for oil will exceed our capacity to fulfill the demand. This juncture is known as "Peak Oil" and is said to be looming on the immediate horizon. Once a consensus is reached that no greater reserves of oil can be secured, the global economy will begin to contract. As the value of currency itself is firmly pegged to economic growth, this portends ominous changes in the ability of peoples and nations to achieve prosperity.
It is no surprise that a rise of militarism should precede the demise of the fossil fuel empire. It is the vain attempt of the 'old guard' to extend the life of a dying ideology. Rather than take proactive steps to reconstitute the existing business model, brute force is the preferred, more expedient choice. This approach will bring with it an uncertain future. For often, in the chaos that accompanies an era of conflict, many basic human values are compromised.
Both the best and the worst in our nature are available at this point in history. The idealistic vision of sustainable energy is matched against greed and recalcitrance. In truth, the two attitudes may need to be melded if the world is to survive as we know it.
At this moment, the path is undeniable for those progressively-oriented souls who understand our dilemma. The democratic society needs to become decidedly unanimous where energy is concerned. The balance of power must be shifted such that our untenable use of oil is kept in check with the introduction of new energy breakthroughs. Even in the case these technologies are in an embryonic state that wouldn't, under normal economic conditions, qualify them as viable investments, these extraordinary times demand we broaden our perspective. The damage being wrought in the absence of robust alternatives to oil more than warrants even the speculative support of new energy. Once we have corrected our course, an unparalleled renaissance is assured.
Andrew Mount June 2004

Lethal Mix: Corporate Rule, Science, Education, Evolution

Corporate Rule: Dumbing us down is not a healthy road to Evolution. The need for improved education is perhaps best described by: "John Gatto, 1991’s Teacher of the Year for the State of New York. Mr. Gatto believes that the present school system (which included himself) teaches confusion, indifference, class position/hierarchy, emotional dependency, intellectual dependency, and provisional self-esteem. It is an educational curriculum seemingly “designed to quash innovation, instill subservience, and undermine all coherence through a numbing series of arbitrary rules, disjointed facts, and days fractured by shrill bells.” The results, according to Mr. Gatto, are that children are indifferent to the adult world, have almost no curiosity, have a poor sense of the future, are ahistorical, cruel to each other, uneasy with intimacy or candor, materialistic, dependent, passive, and timid. [3] The University of Halexandria will strive to be an essential element in correcting these deficiencies and incorporating the changing paradigms of our modern world." (note current events Freedom Times)

Corporate Rule

http://www.halexandria.org/dward317.htm

Daniel Sewell Ph.D. Nuclear Physics - Library of Alexandria -- 21 September 2003
Corporations tend to get a bad rap. The good news is that they don’t necessarily receive a lot of bad press. This is because they tend to control the media, and in some cases, are the Media. Clearly the Media companies are corporations, and/or are owned by corporations. Duh. Meanwhile, those individuals who work for corporations, even the Transnational Corporations, may think that it’s not as bad as it appears from the outside. But this may only be a case of a gross inability to see the forest for the trees. (Or simply the wholesale, wanton and irresponsible destruction of the same trees, which when piled up alongside the river bank, inhibit any alternative viewpoint.)
But even those who see corporations as potentially the good guys, sometimes see the dark side, and suspect that there may be some need for reform. One case in point is Robert Monks, a graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School, who operates an investment fund with more than $250 million under management, and who has written books about wealth and power, including, The Emperor's Nightingale: Restoring the Integrity of the Corporation in the Age of Shareholder Activism (Addison Wesley, 1998).
Monks has been concerned about the adverse effects of corporate power on society. But by and large, he is still a corporate reformer, i.e. not a corporate abolitionist. He does believe that it is the owners of the corporation who should determine its destiny. In that mode, he -- as the controller of a lot of stock ownership -- is not above flexing his investment group’s stock muscles from time to time.
Monks did join forces with George Soros, in a campaign against Waste Management Inc., a company with a long history of corporate wrongdoing. Monks identified Waste Management as a company with low stock value, sloppy management and misleading accounting. He then organized shareholders on the Inter Net, and forced the resignation of two CEOs. Eventually, the Monks group convinced the third CEO that the level of rot within the company was so great that the only way out was a merger with a cleaner, smaller company. Eventually, Waste Management merged with the smaller USA Waste.
In his book, Monks describes what he calls the four corporate dangers: unlimited life, unlimited size, unlimited power and unlimited license. (Which, of course, is coincident with limited liability. And therein lies the problem!) Only shareholder activism, Monk argues, can bring about the four “solutions”, i.e.: long-term life, appropriate size, balanced power, and accountability to long-term owners. He believes other efforts at controlling corporate power -- such as corporate chartering, investigative reporting, regulation, independent boards -- are bound to fail. From his viewpoint, only an activated shareholder movement can bring corporations into line. And as a major stockholder, this provides him with a considerable base of power, i.e. there might be a slight conflict of interest there.
Even if Monks is right, even if well intentioned, the odds are that his efforts will be in vain.
When the U. S. Supreme Court in 1886 (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) held that a private corporation was a natural person under the U. S. Constitution [the 14th Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America], the way was opened for corporations to dominate the public and private life of society, define the economic, cultural and political agenda for humans and all other living things, and perhaps most importantly, allow corporations to assume The First Amendment rights, wherein they can say anything, and yet... still have limited liability.
An absolutely fundamental difference between living, sentient beings and corporations is that human beings have unlimited liability, and corporations have limited liability. Human beings can forfeit their freedom, their property, even their lives for everything from libel and slander to mistaken judgment to accidents to intentional acts. Corporations can not even be driven out of business for the most questionable acts -- except perhaps in rare cases of public outrage. The latter, however, is wholly unacceptable in that an uninformed or misinformed public opinion could have been molded by -- you guessed it -- another corporation or group of corporations, also known as the media.
For those who’ve seen the movie, Erin Brockervich, the question to ask is: “Did anyone at the corporate utility (employees, directors, consultants), once it had agreed to pay thru the nose for destroying the health and lives of hundreds of people, ever do a single day of jail time? Did the corporation then recoop its liability losses by simply raising the rates for its services? Now, THAT’s limited liability, the “corporate veil” at work!
Enter the United States Government, with the where-with-all to curb corporate tyrannies. Unfortunately, this hasn’t worked out too well for anyone but the corporations and their highly paid (bribed?) political operatives. Current campaign financing laws, combined with the “revolving door” between corporations and government, are the means by which corporations control absolutely the politics of nations. The degree to which corporations are out of control is best illustrated by the recent massive theft at the upper levels by CEOs -- aided and abetted by Independent Accounting Firms. As the CEO of the New York Stock Exchange departs after eight years, he takes a mere $168 million home with him! Gee, I hope he can find another job.
Corporate Politics is in all respects the prime mover in the destruction of Constitutional principles and the idealized American way of life. Whether it is Oprah providing aid and soft money (i.e. free, extensive publicity) to the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates -- while ignoring completely the qualified and legitimate third party candidates -- or the international banksters being responsible for the US Bankruptcy, and its after-math, corporations rule the world from the unethical base of the “bottom line”.
About the only saving grace in Corporate Rule is that different corporations have different agendas in many situations, and thus the competition of the greedy keeps some aspects at bay. At the same time, however, organizations which support non-profitable institutions, such as public schools and environmental causes, have a very reduced ability to compete with the 900 pound gorillas.
[Suggestions whereby the non-profit organizations should have access to the same power that Corporations possess, show a lack of foresight. Making still more 900 pound gorillas is not the way to solve the problem of 900 pound gorillas.]
Prisons, for example, once the purview of government (and non-profit), are increasingly being taken over by (for profit) corporations. The corporations are, in most cases, paid on the basis of the number of convicts or prisoners in their “care”. The result is that these prison corporations, in order to bolster the bottom line, i.e. have more prisoners, begin to bribe judges and courts so they will levy heavier sentences, and even send individuals to prison who don’t deserve it, or who are simply not even guilty -- all in the name of profit for the shareholders. [But of course, the stockholders see precious little, as the CEOs and top ranking executives skim off the top most of the ill-gotten gains in the form of compensation, Golden Parachutes, fringe benefits, stock options, etceteras.]
Corporations not only strongly influence domestic policies within the United States, but also affect American foreign policy, by the simple expedient of an unbridled support of Capitalism by the American Government (or governments, when State governments are included). This in turn leads to tremendous inequities in the way the Military Industrial Complex (which President Eisenhower warned us about so many years ago) treats the people of the world. What we have is a Corporate Pac Man Conglomerate gobbling up resources from countries all over the world, and in the end so infuriating (often rightly so) the people of those foreign lands, that terrorist organizations the world over have easy access to disgruntled and disillusioned individuals. And not just from third world countries, as the presence of American and European proxy-terrorists have made clear.
The American Government’s wholehearted support of Corporate Capitalism, combined with what amounts to general greed, stupidity, and power-at-any-cost, has led to a Crisis of American Government, where The Art of Cover Ups has risen to new heights of sophistication, and Americans and non-Americans alike no longer trust anything the US government says, does, or in which it becomes involved.
The final horror is a situation where the awesome power of the United States, its military and industrial base, and its collective citizenry, is not used to curb Corporate abuse, but instead to aid it in its nefarious agenda to accumulate ever greater power in the hands an elite. Instead, all indication are that governments throughout the world are slowly handing over the reins of power to what can only be called a Corporate State.
So... What are the victims of Corporate tyrannies to do?
As Carolyn Chute, author of the 1985 classic, The Beans of Egypt, Maine, and a staunch corporate abolitionist phrased it: “...if faceless financiers and their tool, the corporation, aren't completely out of our lobbies, out of all our campaigns, and out of our constitution soon, looks like We, the People are going to come in the middle of the night with a can of gasoline in every hand and one fat match."
This is not necessarily a recipe for a Revolution, or even Anarchy on a massive scale. But inasmuch as it might have a deleterious effect on the bottom line of the Corporations, they might consider taking Ms. Chute’s sentiments with a certain amount of concern. Just as labor unions forced their way into the mainstream, despite the government’s assistance to the corporations in attempting to destroy them during the first half of the Twentieth Century, there is a point where it’s no longer profitable to forge the Corporate State.
A curious, highly ironic article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on 9-11-2001 (i.e. the morning edition written and published before the more notorious events of that date). The article was about the many protests against the World Trade Organization, and had a quote from a person of considerable authority who stated confidently that, “DC will not burn!” Admittedly, the Pentagon is across the river from “DC”, but I think the point is made that protests cannot be automatically dismissed out of hand.

Check Mate Sovereignty Justice, Order, and Law
Forward to:
Transnational Corporations Corporate Politics
CEOs The Rule of 20-50 Independent Accounting Firms
Corporate State Capitalism American Foreign Policy

The Library of ialexandriah

Quantum Trickery: Testing Einstein's Strangest Theory

What part of the 'sine wave' nature of the Radius of Curvature of All Natural Law, specified by the energy differential of the constant 'C', in E=MC2 is still not understood????? Missing Energy Link

December 27, 2005
Quantum Trickery: Testing Einstein's Strangest Theory
By DENNIS OVERBYE
Einstein said there would be days like this.
This fall scientists announced that they had put a half dozen beryllium atoms into a "cat state."
No, they were not sprawled along a sunny windowsill. To a physicist, a "cat state" is the condition of being two diametrically opposed conditions at once, like black and white, up and down, or dead and alive.
These atoms were each spinning clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time. Moreover, like miniature Rockettes they were all doing whatever it was they were doing together, in perfect synchrony. Should one of them realize, like the cartoon character who runs off a cliff and doesn't fall until he looks down, that it is in a metaphysically untenable situation and decide to spin only one way, the rest would instantly fall in line, whether they were across a test tube or across the galaxy.
The idea that measuring the properties of one particle could instantaneously change the properties of another one (or a whole bunch) far away is strange to say the least - almost as strange as the notion of particles spinning in two directions at once. The team that pulled off the beryllium feat, led by Dietrich Leibfried at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in Boulder, Colo., hailed it as another step toward computers that would use quantum magic to perform calculations.
But it also served as another demonstration of how weird the world really is according to the rules, known as quantum mechanics.
The joke is on Albert Einstein, who, back in 1935, dreamed up this trick of synchronized atoms - "spooky action at a distance," as he called it - as an example of the absurdity of quantum mechanics.
"No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this," he, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen wrote in a paper in 1935.
Today that paper, written when Einstein was a relatively ancient 56 years old, is the most cited of Einstein's papers. But far from demolishing quantum theory, that paper wound up as the cornerstone for the new field of quantum information.
Nary a week goes by that does not bring news of another feat of quantum trickery once only dreamed of in thought experiments: particles (or at least all their properties) being teleported across the room in a microscopic version of Star Trek beaming; electrical "cat" currents that circle a loop in opposite directions at the same time; more and more particles farther and farther apart bound together in Einstein's spooky embrace now known as "entanglement." At the University of California, Santa Barbara, researchers are planning an experiment in which a small mirror will be in two places at once.
Niels Bohr, the Danish philosopher king of quantum theory, dismissed any attempts to lift the quantum veil as meaningless, saying that science was about the results of experiments, not ultimate reality. But now that quantum weirdness is not confined to thought experiments, physicists have begun arguing again about what this weirdness means, whether the theory needs changing, and whether in fact there is any problem.
This fall two Nobel laureates, Anthony Leggett of the University of Illinois and Norman Ramsay of Harvard argued in front of several hundred scientists at a conference in Berkeley about whether, in effect, physicists were justified in trying to change quantum theory, the most successful theory in the history of science. Dr. Leggett said yes; Dr. Ramsay said no.
It has been, as Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, noted, "a 75-year war." It is typical in reporting on this subject to bounce from one expert to another, each one shaking his or her head about how the other one just doesn't get it. "It's a kind of funny situation," N. David Mermin of Cornell, who has called Einstein's spooky action "the closest thing we have to magic," said, referring to the recent results. "These are extremely difficult experiments that confirm elementary features of quantum mechanics." It would be more spectacular news, he said, if they had come out wrong.
Anton Zeilinger of the University of Vienna said that he thought, "The world is not as real as we think.
"My personal opinion is that the world is even weirder than what quantum physics tells us," he added.
The discussion is bringing renewed attention to Einstein's role as a founder and critic of quantum theory, an "underground history," that has largely been overlooked amid the celebrations of relativity in the past Einstein year, according to David Z. Albert, a professor of philosophy and physics at Columbia. Regarding the 1935 paper, Dr. Albert said, "We know something about Einstein's genius we didn't know before."
The Silly Theory
From the day 100 years ago that he breathed life into quantum theory by deducing that light behaved like a particle as well as like a wave, Einstein never stopped warning that it was dangerous to the age-old dream of an orderly universe.
If light was a particle, how did it know which way to go when it was issued from an atom?
"The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it seems," Einstein once wrote to friend.
The full extent of its silliness came in the 1920's when quantum theory became quantum mechanics.
In this new view of the world, as encapsulated in a famous equation by the Austrian Erwin Schrödinger, objects are represented by waves that extend throughout space, containing all the possible outcomes of an observation - here, there, up or down, dead or alive. The amplitude of this wave is a measure of the probability that the object will actually be found to be in one state or another, a suggestion that led Einstein to grumble famously that God doesn't throw dice.
Worst of all from Einstein's point of view was the uncertainty principle, enunciated by Werner Heisenberg in 1927.
Certain types of knowledge, of a particle's position and velocity, for example, are incompatible: the more precisely you measure one property, the blurrier and more uncertain the other becomes.
In the 1935 paper, Einstein and his colleagues, usually referred to as E.P.R., argued that the uncertainty principle could not be the final word about nature. There must be a deeper theory that looked behind the quantum veil.
Imagine that a pair of electrons are shot out from the disintegration of some other particle, like fragments from an explosion. By law certain properties of these two fragments should be correlated. If one goes left, the other goes right; if one spins clockwise, the other spins counterclockwise.
That means, Einstein said, that by measuring the velocity of, say, the left hand electron, we would know the velocity of the right hand electron without ever touching it.
Conversely, by measuring the position of the left electron, we would know the position of the right hand one.
Since neither of these operations would have involved touching or disturbing the right hand electron in any way, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen argued that the right hand electron must have had those properties of both velocity and position all along. That left only two possibilities, they concluded. Either quantum mechanics was "incomplete," or measuring the left hand particle somehow disturbed the right hand one.
But the latter alternative violated common sense. Such an influence, or disturbance, would have to travel faster than the speed of light. "My physical instincts bristle at that suggestion," Einstein later wrote.
Bohr responded with a six-page essay in Physical Review that contained but one simple equation, Heisenberg's uncertainty relation. In essence, he said, it all depends on what you mean by "reality."
Enjoy the Magic
Most physicists agreed with Bohr, and they went off to use quantum mechanics to build atomic bombs and reinvent the world.
The consensus was that Einstein was a stubborn old man who "didn't get" quantum physics. All this began to change in 1964 when John S. Bell, a particle physicist at the European Center for Nuclear Research near Geneva, who had his own doubts about quantum theory, took up the 1935 E.P.R. argument. Somewhat to his dismay, Bell, who died in 1990, wound up proving that no deeper theory could reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. Bell went on to outline a simple set of experiments that could settle the argument and decide who was right, Einstein or Bohr.
When the experiments were finally performed in 1982, by Alain Aspect and his colleagues at the University of Orsay in France, they agreed with quantum mechanics and not reality as Einstein had always presumed it should be. Apparently a particle in one place could be affected by what you do somewhere else.
"That's really weird," Dr. Albert said, calling it "a profoundly deep violation of an intuition that we've been walking with since caveman days."
Physicists and philosophers are still fighting about what this means. Many of those who care to think about these issues (and many prefer not to), concluded that Einstein's presumption of locality - the idea that physically separated objects are really separate - is wrong.
Dr. Albert said, "The experiments show locality is false, end of story." But for others, it is the notion of realism, that things exist independent of being perceived, that must be scuttled. In fact, physicists don't even seem to agree on the definitions of things like "locality" and "realism."
"I would say we have to be careful saying what's real," Dr. Mermin said. "Properties cannot be said to be there until they are revealed by an actual experiment."
What everybody does seem to agree on is that the use of this effect is limited. You can't use it to send a message, for example.
Leonard Susskind, a Stanford theoretical physicist, who called these entanglement experiments "beautiful and surprising," said the term "spooky action at a distance," was misleading because it implied the instantaneous sending of signals. "No competent physicist thinks that entanglement allows this kind of nonlocality."
Indeed the effects of spooky action, or "entanglement," as Schrödinger called it, only show up in retrospect when the two participants in a Bell-type experiment compare notes. Beforehand, neither has seen any violation of business as usual; each sees the results of his measurements of, say, whether a spinning particle is pointing up or down, as random.
In short, as Brian Greene, the Columbia theorist wrote in "The Fabric of the Cosmos," Einstein's special relativity, which sets the speed of light as the cosmic speed limit, "survives by the skin of its teeth."
In an essay in 1985, Dr. Mermin said that "if there is spooky action at a distance, then, like other spooks, it is absolutely useless except for its effect, benign or otherwise, on our state of mind."
He added, "The E.P.R. experiment is as close to magic as any physical phenomenon I know of, and magic should be enjoyed." In a recent interview, he said he still stood by the latter part of that statement. But while spooky action remained useless for sending a direct message, it had turned out to have potential uses, he admitted, in cryptography and quantum computing.
Nine Ways of Killing a Cat
Another debate, closely related to the issues of entanglement and reality, concerns what happens at the magic moment when a particle is measured or observed.
Before a measurement is made, so the traditional story goes, the electron exists in a superposition of all possible answers, which can combine, adding and interfering with one another.
Then, upon measurement, the wave function "collapses" to one particular value. Schrödinger himself thought this was so absurd that he dreamed up a counterexample. What is true for electrons, he said, should be true as well for cats.
In his famous thought experiment, a cat is locked in a box where the decay of a radioactive particle will cause the release of poison that will kill it. If the particle has a 50-50 chance of decaying, then according to quantum mechanics the cat is both alive and dead before we look in the box, something the cat itself, not to mention cat lovers, might take issue with.
But cats are always dead or alive, as Dr. Leggett of Illinois said in his Berkeley talk. "The problem with quantum mechanics," he said in an interview, "is how it explains definite outcomes to experiments."
If quantum mechanics is only about information and a way of predicting the results of measurements, these questions don't matter, most quantum physicists say.
"But," Dr. Leggett said, "if you take the view that the formalism is reflecting something out there in real world, it matters immensely." As a result, theorists have come up with a menu of alternative interpretations and explanations. According to one popular notion, known as decoherence, quantum waves are very fragile and collapse from bumping into the environment. Another theory, by the late David Bohm, restores determinism by postulating a "pilot wave" that acts behind the scenes to guide particles.
In yet another theory, called "many worlds," the universe continually branches so that every possibility is realized: the Red Sox win and lose and it rains; Schrödinger's cat lives, dies, has kittens and scratches her master when he tries to put her into the box.
Recently, as Dr. Leggett pointed out, some physicists have tinkered with Schrödinger's equation, the source of much of the misery, itself.
A modification proposed by the Italian physicists Giancarlo Ghirardi and Tullio Weber, both of the University of Trieste, and Alberto Rimini of the University of Pavia, makes the wave function unstable so that it will collapse in a time depending on how big a system it represents.
In his standoff with Dr. Ramsay of Harvard last fall, Dr. Leggett suggested that his colleagues should consider the merits of the latter theory. "Why should we think of an electron as being in two states at once but not a cat, when the theory is ostensibly the same in both cases?" Dr. Leggett asked.
Dr. Ramsay said that Dr. Leggett had missed the point. How the wave function mutates is not what you calculate. "What you calculate is the prediction of a measurement," he said.
"If it's a cat, I can guarantee you will get that it's alive or dead," Dr. Ramsay said.
David Gross, a recent Nobel winner and director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, leapt into the free-for-all, saying that 80 years had not been enough time for the new concepts to sink in. "We're just too young. We should wait until 2200 when quantum mechanics is taught in kindergarten."
The Joy of Randomness
One of the most extreme points of view belongs to Dr. Zeilinger of Vienna, a bearded, avuncular physicist whose laboratory regularly hosts every sort of quantum weirdness.
In an essay recently in Nature, Dr. Zeilinger sought to find meaning in the very randomness that plagued Einstein.
"The discovery that individual events are irreducibly random is probably one of the most significant findings of the 20th century," Dr. Zeilinger wrote.
Dr. Zeilinger suggested that reality and information are, in a deep sense, indistinguishable, a concept that Dr. Wheeler, the Princeton physicist, called "it from bit."
In information, the basic unit is the bit, but one bit, he says, is not enough to specify both the spin and the trajectory of a particle. So one quality remains unknown, irreducibly random.
As a result of the finiteness of information, he explained, the universe is fundamentally unpredictable.
"I suggest that this randomness of the individual event is the strongest indication we have of a reality 'out there' existing independently of us," Dr. Zeilinger wrote in Nature.
He added, "Maybe Einstein would have liked this idea after all."

Universe 'too queer' to grasp

What part of the 'sine wave' nature of the Radius of Curvature of All Natural Law, specified by the energy differential of the constant 'C', in E=MC2 is still not understood????? Missing Energy Link

Universe 'too queer' to grasp
7/12/05 By Jo Twist BBC News science and technology reporter
Scientist Professor Richard Dawkins has opened a global conference of big thinkers warning that our Universe may be just "too queer" to understand.
Professor Dawkins, the renowned Selfish Gene author from Oxford University, said we were living in a "middle world" reality that we have created.
Experts in design, technology, and entertainment have gathered in Oxford to share their ideas about our futures.
TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design) is already a top US event.
It is the first time the event, TED Global, has been held in Europe.
Species software
Professor Dawkins' opening talk, in a session called Meme Power, explored the ways in which humans invent their own realities to make sense of the infinitely complex worlds they are in; worlds made more complex by ideas such as quantum physics which is beyond most human understanding.
"Are there things about the Universe that will be forever beyond our grasp, in principle, ungraspable in any mind, however superior?" he asked.

Events of 7/7 and 9/11 remind us that we do not live in three different worlds. We live in one world Ashraf Ghani, former Afghan finance minister
"Successive generations have come to terms with the increasing queerness of the Universe."
Each species, in fact, has a different "reality". They work with different "software" to make them feel comfortable, he suggested.
Because different species live in different models of the world, there was a discomforting variety of real worlds, he suggested.
"Middle world is like the narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum that we see," he said.
"Middle world is the narrow range of reality that we judge to be normal as opposed to the queerness that we judge to be very small or very large."
He mused that perhaps children should be given computer games to play with that familiarise them with quantum physics concepts.
"It would make an interesting experiment," he told the BBC News website.
ET worlds
Our brains had evolved to help us survive within the scale and orders of magnitude within which we exist, said Professor Dawkins.
We think that rocks and crystals are solid when in fact they were made up mostly of spaces in between atoms, he argued.
This, he said, was just the way our brains thought about things in order to help us navigate our "middle sized" world - the medium scale environment - a world in which we cannot see individual atoms.
This idea meant that life was probably "quite common" in the Universe, Professor Dawkins said.
He concluded with the thought that if he could re-engineer his brain in any way he would make himself a genius mathematician.
He would also want to time travel to when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.
More serious focus
Developing world economist and businesswoman Jacqueline Novogratz brought Professor Dawkins' thinking into focus, arguing that we need to fully engage with "developing worlds" to move away from "them and us" thinking.
"The world is talking about global poverty and Africa in ways I have never seen in my life," she said.
"At the same time I have a fear that the victories of G8 will see that as our moral absolution. But that is chapter one; celebrate it, close it and recognise we need a chapter two - a 'how to'.
"The only way to end poverty is to build viable systems on the ground that can deliver services to the poor in ways that are sustainable," she said.
Former Afghan finance minister Ashraf Ghani added that globalisation was "on speed" and needed real private investment and opportunities to flourish.
"Events of 7/7 and 9/11 remind us that we do not live in three different worlds; we live in one world."
He criticised the West for being only concerned with design issues that affect them, and solving environmental problems for themselves.
"You are problem solvers but are not engaging in problems of corruption," he told TED Global delegates.
"You stay away from design for developments. Your designs are selfish; it is for your own immediate use.
"We need your imagination to be brought to bear on problems the way meme is supposed to. It is at the intersection of ideas that new ideas and breakthroughs occur."
More than 300 leading scientists, musicians, playwrights, as well as technology pioneers and future thinkers have gathered for the conference which runs from 12 to 15 July.
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4676751.stmPublished: 2005/07/12 16:44:51 GMT© BBC MMV

Man Made Obstruction to Evolution & Survival

Caveman behavioral characteristics and Nuclear Tools do not mix, be it between individuals or nations. What possibly could be missing in the "Five Great Foundational Problems in Physics" that create an empty vacuum in the Wisdom, Understanding and Survival Sciences? The same missing elements that transfer over to the physical realm of Reality in the form of - global warming, resource wars, looming food and water shortage, worldwide poverty, and superhighway parking lots that lost their transportation definition (see Freedom Times). The faint evolutionary threads of 'peak performance' and 'self actualization' tendencies are not prone to rise spontaneously when the majority of people spend the majority of their time meeting 'survival needs'.

Nothing short of evolutionary new energy systems have the power to surmount the lethal issues mentioned beforehand and open the door to new and expanding horizons of prosperity, health, growth, and sustainability.

Another look at the "old west holdup"without guns syndrome in Science - specifically energy and the stale, petrified, unexpanded E=MC2 equation:

Open Letter from Brian O'Leary to Al Gore
December 2006 http://www.newenergymovement.org/olearygore.aspx

Dear Mr. Gore,

I am a former astronaut, Cornell professor, physics faculty member at Princeton University and visiting faculty member in technology assessment at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, Mo Udall's energy advisor and speechwriter during his 1975 Presidential campaign, author, AAAS Fellow, World Innovation Foundation Fellow, NASA group achievement award recipient, and founder of the New Energy Movement.

You have asked the public to address the important question: "How can we reverse global climate change?" I agree that taking on that task is critical for our collective survival. You have also stated that we must freeze and drastically reduce our carbon emissions. I totally agree.

The most promising answer to your question is surprisingly simple and can be summed up in two words: new energy. My experience finds that serious discussion of new energy is still politically incorrect in mainstream circles, which is appalling. Delays in implementing life-saving innovation will be at our collective risk and peril. The urgency for action in these times is unprecedented in human history. Quantum leaps in energy innovation, which some of us in the scientific community are aware of, can provide the needed solution, hopefully in time to avert global disaster.

Having held professorships in the physical sciences and energy policy at many universities with an impeccable publication record for 45 years, I join you in not taking these matters lightly. I make no claims that cannot be rigorously backed up and I have no vested interest in which specific energy options should be implemented. I receive no money for the grassroots work I am doing in assessing these technologies. I can assure you that with proper public support, we will soon have robust solutions without needing many building blocks or wedges. Incremental approaches, as you correctly point out, will not be adequate to solve the problem. But you may not be fully aware of what's on the horizon, since we have been so blinded by our collective shortsightedness.

By "new energy" I mean innovative technologies with the potential of providing a quantum leap in our ability to tap cheap, clean and decentralized energy for producing fuels and electricity. These may or may not be recognized by mainstream science. The technologies include:

ADVANCED HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGIES (1) catalytic water molecule manipulation and dissociation through cheap electrolysis, and (2) manipulation of hydrogen plasmas with catalysts to induce fractional quantum electronic states that yield large energy outputs;

COLD FUSION or low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) by electrochemical means, induced in water and heavy water solutions catalyzed by (1) palladium cathodes, (2) sonocavitation and (3) other processes that can produce large amounts of thermal, radiation-free nuclear energy;

VACUUM ENERGY or zero-point energy, tapping the enormous quantum potential of every point in space-time, through the use of (1) super-motors with super-magnets (cf. Faraday), (2) solid state devices, (3) Tesla coils, and (4) charge clusters; and

THERMAL ENERGY from the environment.
Any one of the above approaches to new energy promises a quantum leap, i.e., orders of magnitude increase, in our ability to tap and have abundant clean, cheap, decentralized energy for all of humanity. In addition, there are many important transitional technologies which can mitigate emissions in the very near future, as follows:

RECYLING AND SEQUESTRATION OF CO2 AND OTHER POLLUTANTS AT THE SOURCE through innovative chemistry; and

REMEDIATION OF RADIOACTIVE NUCLEAR WASTE with innovative technologies.
All of the above concepts have already been demonstrated in laboratories throughout the world (I have seen many such demonstrations) and have been published in the peer-reviewed literature, but implementing them has proven difficult because there is no significant support.

As you undoubtedly already know, the environmental literature nowadays well expresses the energy problem and other aspects of our national crisis, but has so far fallen short on solutions. Some of the best scientists in the world (John Holdren, Nathan Lewis, Richard Heinberg, James Lovelock and Ruggero Santilli, for example) have concluded that conventional renewables such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, tides, biofuels and hydrogen fuel cells are not nearly adequate to meet current, much less projected, energy demands. Each of these "building block" options runs into serious pitfalls environmentally and economically when we talk about supplanting our multi-trillion dollar hydrocarbon energy economy. Nuclear options also have their serious problems, as you undoubtedly know.

You hit on the situation in your recent NYU speech when you said, "I am certain that some of the most powerful solutions will lie beyond our current categories of building blocks or wedges". You said that America, and only America, has the "capacity for vision" but that "we have to urgently expand the limits of what is politically possible". Very well said, and part of any program to implement new energy will involve a very rapid but necessary political education and risk-taking that even the liberal and progressive community has ignored. I acknowledge, and I am sure you would agree, that the limits of what is politically possible need to stretch very far to accommodate the reality of new energy. But what is physically and economically possible is surprisingly close at hand.

You also said in your speech that our children "deserve better than the spectacle of censorship of the best scientific evidence about the truth of our situation and harassment of honest scientists who are trying to warn us about the looming catastrophe." There's also a second group of scientists involved in new energy research that has been suppressed even more and need to take their place in our quest for solutions.

New energy would shift the paradigm overnight. We will need public policies in place to:

Do the necessary R&D Apollo-style in secured laboratories, gathering teams of the best and brightest scientists and engineers in the field. Surprisingly, the cost of such an effort would only be on the order of $2 billion/year for 5-10 years, the annualized equivalent of one week of fighting in Iraq and three weeks of profits for ExxonMobil. We must leave no stone unturned in this quest because the range of technologies is already broad and far-reaching.

Provide public forums to debate and discuss how to implement the most viable new energy options to mitigate climate change and pollution; and provide education and demonstrations for the public. We need to plan conversion scenarios that can help industry and government make the necessary transition to a new energy economy. The defense and aerospace conversion policies I helped George McGovern, Fritz Mondale and Jesse Jackson draft during their campaigns were minor compared to what we must do here.

While being politically incorrect at the moment, the consideration of new energy needs to be at the forefront of future energy policy discussions. It is too late to deny this, and we certainly don't want the control of these technologies be in the wrong hands by default. In President Eisenhower's words, "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together." New energy needs to be controlled by We the

People and so a strong grassroots movement will be necessary.

I cannot stress too strongly that an aggressive program to develop new energy is what humanity will need to survive our perilous situation. It may be painful for us to address these issues and may seem a bit far-fetched at first, but I can assure you these technologies are very real and can be developed as public policy.

One final word: don't rely exclusively on those mainstream scientists, journalists and pundits who deny the reality of new energy. They are just as ignorant as those scientists who denied the practicality of aviation even after the Wright brothers were flying. But to expect the Wrights to immediately deliver a 737 would have been unrealistic.

In the conclusion of your speech, you said, "This is an opportunity for bipartisanship and transcendence, an opportunity to find our better selves and in rising to meet this challenge, create a better brighter future - a future worthy of the generations who come after us and who have a right to be able to depend on us." I couldn't agree more and we're on the same team.
The leadership of The New Energy Movement will be introducing draft legislation for an historic new energy bill to members of Congress in January 2007, titled "Energy Innovation Act of 2007". I and my colleagues look forward to providing you a personal briefing on the background and provisions of this key legislation in the very near future, and trust that you will embrace and support it.

Sincerely,Brian O'Leary,

Ph.D.http://www.brianoleary.com/http://www.newenergymovement.org/Author of Re-Inheriting the Earth

Five Great Foundational Problems of Theoretical Physics

http://www.fuel2000.net/starsteps.htm
An extended view and definition of E=MC2 can address each of these issues. This extended view has been around since the early 1960's.

A Unified Theory must have a common denominator across the INTERDEPENDENT measurements of Space, Time, Mass, Matter, Energy, Gravity/Fields, each defined as an energy differential. As the variance in measurement between reference points approach and surpass the constant "C", the sine wave curvature of natural law becomes apparent. For example: The law of gravity is not a linear law but follows a curve common to all factors of nature. The gravitational field does not diminish precisely as the square of the distance as Newton believed, but because of the curvature of natural law, it diminishes normally at a slightly greater rate so that it reaches zero value, not at infinity as is usually supposed, but at a finite distance or degree of separation. Beyond this distance or degree of separation the force becomes negative. When we state that the quantity C is the radius of the curvature of natural law, we mean simply that if a differential of energy equal to this quantity exists between the observer and the point which he is observing, the natural laws will be suspended. If the energy differential is in excess of the quantity C, the laws will appear to operate in reverse at that point. A detailed review of this radius will resolve the issues of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.


Five Great Foundational Problems of Theoretical Physics

The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next
by:
Lee Smolin

Problem 1: Combine general relativity and quantum theory into a single theory that can claim to be the complete theory of nature. This is called the problem of quantum gravity.

Problem 2: Resolve the problems in the foundations of quantum mechanics, either by making sense of the theory as it stands or by inventing a new theory that does make sense. There are several different ways one might do this.
1. Provide a sensible language for the theory, one that resolves all puzzles like the ones just mentioned and incorporates the division of the world into system and observer as an essential feature of the theory.
2. Find a new interpretation of the theory — a new way of reading the equations — that is realist, so that measurement and observation play no role in the description of fundamental reality.
3. Invent a new theory, one that gives a deeper understanding of nature than quantum mechanics does.

Problem 3: Determine whether or not the various particles and forces can be unified in a theory that explains them all as manifestations of a single, fundamental entity. Let us call this problem the unification of the particles and forces, to distinguish it from the unification of laws, the unification we discussed earlier.

Problem 4: Explain how the values of the free constants in the standard model of particle physics are chosen in nature. It is devoutly hoped that a true unified theory of the particles and forces will give a unique answer to this question.

Problem 5: Explain dark matter and dark energy. Or, if they don’t exist, determine how and why gravity is modified on large scales. More generally, explain why the constants of the standard model of cosmology, including the dark energy, have the values they do. These five problems represent the boundaries to present knowledge.

The truth is, humans can change, and change fast

The title and following quote expresses concisely, through human experience, that this period of evolution is now almost entirely under the control of conscious human intent and will, and far less influenced by unconscious instinct, genetic mutation and natural selection as the evolutionary driver.

Mother Jones:
Quote: Many secretly perceive global warming to be an insoluble problem and respond by circling the family wagons and turning inward.

Yet science shows that human beings are born with powerful tools for solving this quandary.So what will it take to trigger what we might call the 13th tipping point, the shift from personal denial to personal responsibility? What will tip us toward addressing global warming with the urgency it deserves, as the mother of all threats to homeland security?

The truth is, humans can change, and change fast. Our hallmark is adaptability. Long ago, we looked out from the trees and saw the savannas. Beyond the savannas we glimpsed further frontiers. History proves that when we behold a better world, we move toward it — one person at a time — leaving behind what no longer works. We know what to do. We know how to do it. We know the timeline. We are our own tipping point. This piece is adapted from a longer article in the current issue of Mother Jones, where Julia Whitty is a contributing writer. She is also author of the forthcoming book "The Fragile Edge: Diving and Other Adventures in the South Pacific."

As current events continually remind us (see Freedom Times) with global warming trends, resource wars topped with nuclear dessert potential, transportation speeds competing with snails/belly crawling, and "extreme workers" at both ends of the Great Divide, the question of evolutionary criteria would seem to have profound implications to our survival.

If evolution, indeed, is in in our hands, from whence will we get the answers? The government? The news media shows "daddy" AKA Corporate Masters, control the government and decide our whole lifestyle, scientific direction and future. Thier only motive, corporate mandate, is profit, and they have all our money.

This bears repeating: Science and Technology, Humanity's extended senses, are at the Steering Wheel today. Blind Science and Technology with Corporate secrecy, power, greed and lies, and Humanity can kiss it's x#s goodbye.

The Trouble with Physics cannot be allowed to continue

Science has to be free

review the LINKS sidebar

Energy Transformation & E=MC2 (Why Physics Model Idles)

Fundamental Evolutionary Principle (T. Troward): "So careful of the type it seems, So careless of the single life", a maxim rises from esoteric realms. Intelligence works by the law of averages which provide a wide margin of accident and failure to the individual. The progress toward higher intelligence is always in the direction of narrowing down this margin of accident and taking the individual more and more out of the law of averages, and substituting the law of individual selection, survival of the fittest. It may, therefore be taken as an established fact that in proportion as intelligence advances the individual ceases to be subject to a mere law of averages and has a continually increasing power of controlling the conditions of his own survival."

Energy Transformation and E=MC2

Conscious intelligence through human intent usurped unconscious instinct, genetic mutation and natural selection as the evolutionary driver somewhere back in caveman days. Science and Technology, Humanity's extended senses, are at the Steering Wheel today. Blind Science and Technology with Corporate secrecy, power, greed and lies, and Humanity can kiss it's x#s goodbye.

Why the Standard Model idles as Physics awaits new options

How so simple a concept as energy transformation, from one form to another, has eluded comprehension through application of E=MC2, defies common sense and boggles the mind.

Integrating the missing and illusive Radius of Curvature described in StarSteps ( http://www.fuel2000.net/starsteps.htm ), completes the expanded view of E=MC2, combining the two seemingly opposed pillars of modern science, general relativity and quantum theory, surpassing the emerging scientific

contradictions and permitting advances toward

FTL (faster than light), field dependent propulsion, polarization of gravity, action at a distance, as well as "movement", the appearance of motion, from one point to another without going through all points in between.

Can noses be pressed and glued so hard to a flat ground/terrain so that as the horizon is viewed in that limited two plane dimensional reference, the ego masters of specialization in their narrow, tiny, segmented, isolated and disconnected belief of Reality, scream with astounding certitude "THE WORLD IS FLAT" (in this case referring to the 'flat', narrow, limited definition of E=MC2 .........and Refuse to even look at alternative and missing data)?

Science is not the privilege and purview of the few. Science is an extension of our senses in exploring, comprehending and expanding the realty in which we live. Science is a survival necessity for all, and therefore demands simplification and comprehension by all.

Specialization is a necessary but insufficient Scientific & Technological criterion for comprehending reality, or even surviving the accelerating Nature of Change. The isolated, light years apart segments of scientific specialization must be integrated into Macro Simplified Concepts that all can Understand and use. See Article 11 in Lifestyles Unlimited for an example of Macro integration and Simplification of Science/Reality http://www.relaxspa.net/Sustainable/lifestylesunlimited2_fp.htm

Fuel2000 ( http://www.fuel2000.net/index.html ) is not playing social trivia. We, as a human family, will deal with reality, or Reality/Nature will deal with us by responding to our influence of ignorance.

================================
"Nature did not err. E=MC2 application does not cease at the nuclear 'bang' or deadly radiation level. Evolving Energy Concepts provide automatic sustainability to evolving Life, Growth & Progress. The alternative, Stagnation is a lethal peril, a clear and present danger to civilization's survival, and brings about Human Extinction by Self destruction"

In support of the original Inconvenient Truth (Al Gore) Climate Crisis and Global Warming, which is a direct byproduct resulting from the stagnation of the science of energy (The Primary Inconvenient Truth), presented below is a consideration of the extreme Danger/Consequences behaviors derived from skewed, misled, shallow beliefs and perceptions of reality can pose to a Nation or World:

• Every qualified, scientific article published in a peer reviewed, scientific journal (over 700 articles), all evidence the threat of global warming
• September 21, 2006 NYT. British Science Group Says Exxon Misrepresents Climate Issues By HEATHER TIMMONS LONDON, Sept. 20 — A British scientific group, the Royal Society, contends that Exxon Mobil is spreading "inaccurate and misleading" information about climate change and is financing groups that misinform the public on the issue. The Royal Society, a 1,400-member organization that dates back to the 1600’s and has counted Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein as members, asked Exxon Mobil in a letter this month to stop financing these groups and to change its public reports to reflect more accurately the opinions of scientists on the issue. There is a "false sense somehow that there is a two-sided debate going on in the scientific community" about the origins of climate change, said Bob Ward, the senior manager for policy communication at the Royal Society. The reality is that "thousands and thousands" of scientists around the world agree that climate change is linked to greenhouse gases, he said, with "one or two professional contrarians" who disagree.
• BBC News 9-1-06 One of America's top scientists has said that the world has already entered a state of dangerous climate change. In his first broadcast interview as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, John Holdren told the BBC that the climate was changing much faster than predicted. "We are not talking anymore about what climate models say might happen in the future." "We are experiencing dangerous human disruption of the global climate and we're going to experience more," Professor Holdren said
• NYT 9-1-06 California Plan to Cut Gases Splits Industry “The evidence in the scientific community is lopsided — it’s not even close,” Mr. Darbee said. “Climate change is a problem.” After becoming chief executive of PG&E last year, Peter Darbee met with a large number of leading climate scientists, he said, to make up his own mind about global warming. As a result of his wide inquiries, PG&E, the parent of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which serves Northern California and is one of the nation’s largest energy utilities, broke away from the industry pack to support sweeping efforts to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions that are widely blamed for global warming
• The Nature of Power Revisiting the Nature of Power , and a differentiation of Freedom vs FreeDumb http://enewsblog.com/Equalizer/ may assist in tempering the pending consequences resulting from "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
• According to Stephen Hawking, one of the world's leading theoretical physicists, the possibility of our extinction should be a wake-up call to us all. "We face a number of threats to our survival, from nuclear war, catastrophic global warming, genetically engineered viruses - Nuclear war is still probably the greatest threat to humanity, at the present time."

Evolution and Sustainability are NOT: Overworked, underpaid, underinsured, vacation deprived, out of work, stuck like a pig in traffic nightmares, choking with pollution, gas prices soaring off the charts, and in dumbed down bliss, totally unaware of the coming Resource Wars - Nuke assisted, and Gaia responding to the ecological imbalance with Her own Power and Might, believing in....

• there is not enough to go around' - in an infinite universe consisting of nothing but energy?
• conserve energy' - in an infinite recyclable universe consisting of nothing but energy?
• denial of the existence of clean cheap unlimited decentralized energy systems' - suppressed since Tesla
• working more for less' - the marvels of scientific progress
• economic downturn' in an exploding world population - the marvels of scientific progress
• polluted air, water, cities; traffic jams; lethal ecological imbalance' - the marvels of scientific progress
• conflict resolution now equals kill - the marvels of new scientific progress, understanding and enlightenment
• humans with "evil genes" hating freedom, wanting to be slaves' - more science marvels of enlightenment
• privatization and control of all natural resources required for life - in the hands of a few', equals FREEDOM
• remaining braindead to a nuclear holocaust future, supporting the causal behavioral modes that will create it

.....this list marches on

Evolution and Scientific Progress: For those playing on the surface trivia of the extremely skewed Evolution vs Creation/Intelligent design argument, review the extended depth of this argument in kindergarten basics in the February 25th post here: A single science of Evolution, Intelligent Design, Creationism and Survival defined by E=MC2 "And yet, by SECRECY AND SILENCE - THE DEATH SENTENCE WAS ALSO SEALED, as the advanced energy requirements for survival were denied"

Physics Awaits New Options as Standard Model Idles

Forwarded: A message to the Energy Center (Yahoo Groups) by Inquisitive Mind - The relevance of a stagnant science in the role of evolution to be revealed in next post

In light of the current 'inconvenient truth" on global warming, resource wars, and energy stagnation, I pose a question to those outside of this group reading these messages to contemplate:

What part did the Standard Model (and the new options) NOT UNDERSTAND?

Regards the total interdependent relationship of space time mass matter energy gravity….... Regards the petrified stale initial elementary and UNEXPANDED definition of .......

What part of the Radius of Curvature in StarSteps does the (Standard Model and the new options) not understand?

inquisitive mind

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 4, 2006 Essay

Physics Awaits New Options as Standard Model Idles
By DENNIS OVERBYE

For most of us, any physics is new physics.

Having stopped paying attention somewhere back around "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" or the discovery that you can make sparks by shuffling your feet on the carpet and then touching a doorknob (or another person), we amateurs respond with the
same glazed mixture of wonder and incredulity to the latest abilities of computer chips or the expansion of the universe.

For us, the world is constant naïve novelty. The same cannot be said for professional physicists, the ultimate insiders.

Forget the lifetime tenure, the travel, the six-figure book contracts — what professional physicists live for is the tsunami moment when they know something that nobody else has ever known, the revelatory flash of a new glimpse into the workings of what Stephen Hawking, the Cambridge University cosmologist, called "the Mind of God."

Alas, God, as reflected in the known laws of physics, hasn't gotten any smarter since the 1970's. It was then that particle physicists put the finishing touches on the Standard Model, a collection of theories describing all the physical forces except gravity.

They have been stuck in that model, like birds in a gilded cage, ever since. The Standard Model agrees with every experiment that has been performed since. But it doesn't say anything about the most familiar force of all, gravity. Nor does it explain why the universe is matter instead
of antimatter, or why we believe there are such things as space and time.

"Is there physics beyond the Standard Model?" runs the refrain often repeated by David Gross, the director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics and a co-winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize for his part in constructing this mathematical edifice.

Physicists presume that the answer is yes, that some more overarching theory should explain these and other mysteries. But lacking any loose ends to grab hold of, no discrepancies from the predictions wrung from the Standard Model, they have no experimental clues as to what that theory might be.

Every once in a while there is a hint of progress and revolution in the air — new physics that would impress the professional as well as awe the layman — like a faint jingle of music drawing you down the street. You briefly feel young and limitless. You feel as if you might walk
past an open window and hear "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" playing again.

Then the feeling vanishes. It happened this spring when two teams of physicists at Fermilab succeeded in measuring a particularly odd schizophrenic particle, known as the strange neutral B meson, that flips back and forth between being itself and its own opposite antiparticle three
trillion times a second. Weird as that behavior is, it was right on the money as predicted by the Standard Model.

"Our real hope was for something bizarre," admitted Young-Kee Kim of the University of Chicago and a spokeswoman for one of the Fermilab teams.

In an e-mail message later, Dr. Kim said that she was undaunted. "We are explorers," she said, "and I cannot imagine how exciting it will be when we get even one step closer to true nature!!
This belief and this desire is so huge that we will never give up."

Physicists have high hopes that some new physics will begin to reveal itself when they fire up the world's largest particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN outside Geneva in November next year, although the laboratory just announced that the accelerator would not be running at full strength, colliding protons with seven trillion volts of energy, until 2008.

If the physicists are lucky, in addition to the last piece of the Standard Model, a character known as the Higgs boson, new particles not produced since the Big Bang could eventually come spitting out.

Now you may think that the last thing the world needs is a new elementary particle with another cute annoying name, and physicists agree. What's exciting about the particles, they say, are not the particles, but the new laws of nature they manifest. If you are of a certain rock 'n'
roll age, you might not think the universe needs any new laws either.

Unlike, say, in the tax code, however, in physics new laws are more elegant and economical than the ones they replace. For the last century they have usually involved new symmetries that nature seems sworn to uphold — things that don't change when we view the universe from different perspectives.

Physicists have one more symmetry card to play, a concept known as supersymmetry. If this notion is right, there is a whole new population of particles, so-called superpartners to the ones we already know and puzzle about waiting to be discovered.

The problem is that according to some versions of supersymmetry, the effects of these particles, if not the particles themselves, should already be showing up in delicate experiments like the flip-flopping meson. There are thousands of versions of supersymmetry, but the fact that nothing has shown up yet has caused "a growing tension in the field," said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a particle theorist at Harvard.

Dr. Arkani-Hamed admitted, "My nightmare is that we see nothing at all besides the Higgs," in the new collider.

Meanwhile, something bizarre really has shown up. It just hasn't been in a form that physicists can test and play with. Eight years ago two teams of astronomers discovered that the expansion of the universe was speeding up, in defiance of cosmic gravity and of what might be left of
common sense. The universe apparently is its own antigravity machine.

That might be weird enough, and deserving of tabloid headlines, except it apparently happened before. New studies reported last spring of relic radio waves left over from the waning days of the Big Bang have reinforced, but not yet conclusively proved, the idea that a violent antigravitational force known colloquially as inflation held sway in the first moments of time, stretching and bubbling the cosmos into roughly the shape we see today.

Whatever bubbled and stretched the cosmos is beyond the ken of the Standard Model. Inflation is new physics, Sean Carroll of the University of Chicago explained in a recent e-mail message, adding, "Anything other than inflation would be even newer physics!"

So, yes, there is new physics out there. The question is whether it will ever be put it together into the neat mathematical package that would have impressed Einstein.

It may be asking too much of a theory of physics to explain the world. I don't expect physicists to tell me the meaning of life, I just want something to tell my kid.

In words that still haunt me, Lee Smolin, a physicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario, once wrote, "When a child asks, What is the world, we literally have nothing to tell her."

Some theorists think they have an answer, namely that the world is made up of tiny vibrating strings. As of now, however, there is scant evidence other than the beauty of their equations that the string theorists are right.

My own daughter, Mira, just turned 4 and she is not asking me what the world is made of, quite yet. I've managed to keep ahead of her so far, if only by reading a page ahead in the dinosaur books that occupy bedtime, but the time is coming when she will be calling me and the world's physicists to account.

When she does, I would like to have something to tell her, and myself.

Extinction or Emergence of Something New

Extinction or Emergence of Something New

There is a line being drawn in the sand:

Life Evolution Freedom or FreeDumb Death Extinction

The death trap, the line of critical mass is the stagnant E=MC2 equation holding back required new energy systems whose expanded energy concepts tie-in directly to a comprehensive view of progressive evolutionary stages in living systems. The trivializing recent media interpretations of ongoing observed human evolution as "skin pigment color variations over a millennium" is blatantly insufficient to guide humanity through pending evolutionary survival hurdles.

Why Understanding is a critical component of survival - a down and dirty definition:

• Knowledge/Intelligence - a garage full of tools
• Wisdom - the ability to use the tools
• Understanding - knowing the "uses" to which our creations shall be put to insure long term survival and sustainability
• For disbelievers - the nightmare transportation clogs, price gouging, white collar slave sweatshops with the constant push to increasing worker productivity, employee reduction, downsizing and mergers IS NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT SCIENCE PROMISED - NOR COMPREHENDING FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY

Barbara Marx Hubbard writes "As systems breakdown and old thought forms reveal their inadequacy to heal or solve the massive and mounting problems we are facing, the evolutionary perspective, and most particularly "evolutionary spirituality," is breaking through. I believe that we are now collectively launching the Evolutionary Human Potential Movement. We are not aiming at fixing the old system or improving ourselves in the old model. We are literally being pressed from within by the impulse of evolution to give birth to a new, more universal human, and a culture that can sustain and draw forth the potential of humanity in alignment with nature and spirit".

While Barbara Marx Hubbard and others in the evolutionary sphere of influence are well meaning, failure to prioritize science freedom releasing the stranglehold on E=MC2 will doom civilization to extinction. The disconnect between relativity and quantum lie solely in the mathematical misinterpretations of E=MC2 leading to bizarre theories obstructing the extended qualities of the equation to come forward.

The touted "Macro Theories" have failed miserably to come up with common denominators connecting and integrating the dissected sectors of the sciences: Chemical, Electrical, Biological, Atomic, and Nuclear Energy relationships and interactions; the misguided definitions in components of reality - space, time, mass, matter, energy, gravity - with their TOTAL interdependence and visual illusions and variations created when viewed through the "Radius of Curvature" from the micro through to the macro have yet to be acknowledged.

And so continues the quagmire and quicksand grasping the Holy Grail of modern physics, in the theory of "quantum gravity" - a theory attempting to combine two seemingly opposed pillars of modern science, general relativity and quantum theory, towards a 'theory of everything", using bits and pieces of a three roads model derived from string theory, quantum loop theory and independent studies.

Leading to Sir Roger Penrose's "...there is at least one glaring omission in present physical theory. This is how small-scale quantum processes can add up, for large and complicated systems, to the almost classical behavior of macroscopic bodies. Indeed, it is not just an omission but an actual fundamental inconsistency, sometimes referred to as the measurement paradox (or Schrodinger's cat). In my view, until this paradox is resolved we must necessarily remain very far from a physical theory of everything - whether or not such a theory exists."

Suggested reading: The Future of the Body - Explorations Into the Further Evolution of Human Nature, by Michael Murphy, Co-founder of Esalen Institute

For those heavy into "repeat after me" non-thought-out 'ol time religion memorization verses of biblical Christianity, what would Moses do regarding contemporary glittering trinket and trivia idolatry? Christianity's Master Teacher, "I am the Way....." means what? Sinning on weekdays and being forgiven in one hour on Sundays? Or was His Life a demonstration of the evolutionary human path given by so-called miracles of increasingly energy intensive stages of comprehension and utilization? (review previous post link " The Possible Human")