4am Musings on Consciousness & Trying to Lose It

The Strange Link Between the Human Mind and Quantum Physics
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170215-the-strange-link-between-the-human-mind-and-quantum-physics

I logged onto Facebook to say happy birthday to a friend and instead got sidetracked by the article above, which a different friend and fellow super-nerd posted on his page. The article talks about the link between consciousness and quantum mechanics (if you have a basic understanding of physics and quantum mechanics, no need to read the first part - scroll/skip down to where they start talking about Roger Penrose - he's on the Fibonacci spiral staircase). Just some light reading before bed to try to fall asleep - HAHA. This kind of thing has the opposite effect of shutting off my brain, but I knew if I didn't read it right now, chances are I would forget to read it tomorrow, and since I've spent the day thinking about energy and consciousness and such, off I went down the rabbit hole for some more. I mean really, what's a couple more hours when I already know I will have to sleep away half the day to catch up with myself? Stupid clocks.

I am proud (and a little surprised) to say that as soon as they started talking about the quantum superpositions of molecules involved in neural signaling, I was *instantly* at entanglement as a solution - which they outlined further down the article. :) (All Tom Swifties/puns intended.) In fact, I was just talking about entanglement and resistance today to a different friend, and even used plants as an analogy, so it's a bit quantumly freaky that this article pops up and mentions the same things tonight, although why am I surprised given the subject?

The problem I see with the direction Matthew Fisher is going with measuring phosphorus spin in Posner molecules is that he will loop back around on himself and find out that you can't determine a measurement on anything that we are creating ourselves - as described in the double-slit experiment, we (our consciousness) change the outcome based on our observation no matter how you try to measure it.

(And I seriously don't know why they think the idea or study of quantum consciousness is anything new... people have been discussing magick for eons. They've just slapped a different label on it lately.)

There is no perspective available from outside our own brains, which are making this up as we go along (and they already said in the article that they're considering solipsism, so duh). In order to create a definition, you have to have something to oppose what you are defining. In other words, you cannot say what is without saying what isn't (at least not in this realm). Consciousness and quantum mechanics both seem to deal with the space between - they are neither what is or what isn't, it always comes down to the cloud of possibilities, which is infinite and always affected by our choices.

One thing I disagree with in the article is:

"With the exception of people with visual impairments, we all know what red is like, but we have no way to communicate the sensation"

Wrong. In the movie Mask back in 1985 starring Cher (the one about Rocky Dennis, who had craniodiaphyseal dysplasia), there was a brilliant scene where Rocky helps his blind girlfriend understand visual concepts such as "red" and "billowy clouds" by using a warm rock and cotton balls (respectively) to stimulate the senses she has access to in order to create a definition of qualia previously unavailable to her brain. (In fact, it's the only thing I took away from that movie.)

However, I will give them this: proving that the mind affects the outcome of measurements (which we've already done) does not mean we can prove what's "real" (which is subjective anyway), but could give credence to the theory that we create our own realities. But again, that will loop back around on us because if we are creating everything as it happens, and it's only a product of our own minds (individual or collective), then consciousness and quantum mechanics is the same because there is no way for our brains to form an opposing definition of either one. It is, and we are, all one.

And now I really must sleep for pete's sake. The sun will come around the corner any minute. You know what would be really useful? Sleep mode in our quantum brains that you can select from a menu and click...

Oh shit. And I have to go back and say happy birthday to my friend!

Time to Speculate

What would happen if everyone could choose, individually, how much time their day consisted of? For instance: you choose 30 hours for today and your friend chooses only 10, but both of you have the perception that your days are the same length.

At some point in our lives, we've all said (or at least thought): "there's not enough time in a day..." or "I wish I had more time..." or "what I would give for just another hour to get this done..."

Well what if you really could have all the time you wanted before bedtime? What if you could stretch or shorten your day as much as you wish? Would you ever sleep again? Would you ever wake up? Would it be like the Twin Paradox where you've only aged a day but everyone else aged years or decades?

Just a fun thing to think about. I'm sure there's an episode of Twilight Zone or something out there with this idea. Or perhaps this is already how it is and that's why some people are more productive in their days than others!

Is Seeing Still Believing?

Check out this video and listen to what he's saying about aliasing (fast forward thru his demo of the tuning fork on the piano to :30):

Aliasing is the reason the tines of the tuning fork appear to be moving back and forth (fluctuating) when filmed at high speed. They're not really - he explains that the reason they LOOK like they are is because the video is filming at almost twice the speed of the vibration of the tines, therefore the Nysquist Frequency is in effect.

So what you're seeing is not really happening. (Well, the fork is vibrating, but the tines are not moving back and forth altho they certainly appear to be.) It is a false frequency. Your brain is being fooled into believing there is additional movement that is not actually taking place. Interesting that we are so easily misled by our eyes, yes? Also compelling that they use the term "aliasing" to describe this phenomenon. Google defines alias as: "as known or named at another time or place."

What other false frequencies are we subject to? What other time or place might we be living in?

If our brain is so gullible, why do we trust our eyes (or other senses) to define our world? I read an interesting tidbit the other day about how our brains have more activity when seeing something new than when receiving expected visual input.

"Predictable sights trigger less brain activity than unfamiliar stimuli, bolstering the view that the brain is not merely reactive, but generates predictions based on the recent past. 'The brain expects to see things and really just wants to confirm it now and again,' says Lars Muckli..." (NewScientist.com)

A thought to add to that is it is generally accepted by the scientific community that our body regenerates itself every seven years (some cells are closer to 15, but still not nearly the same as your chronological age). If that's true, why do we retain long-term illnesses for decades? For that matter, why do we HEAL? What makes things change or stay the same?

If our brains are unconsciously predicting the future for us, and therefore we are always re-creating our present situation without thought, it's no wonder the more things change, the more they stay the same. Perhaps we are the alias - the false frequency that isn't really happening. Who's to say the rate at which our eyes perceive is the same frequency at which our brain processes the information?

"Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein

How Would You Know?

I'm looking over some PDFs for a chemistry solutions book, and one of the solutions says:
When a particle is absolutely small it means that you cannot observe it without disturbing it.
When you observe the particle, it behaves differently than when you do not observe it.
How can they possibly know how it behaves when it's NOT observed, since knowing the answer to that would require that you observed something in the first place?! I know there is some scientific rationalization for things that are "not observed" but my Left Brain is going, "Wait... WHAT?!" and threatening to go all Blue Screen of Death* on me.
(Yes, you're right, my brain actually runs on Apple, but if it crashes I blame Microsloth like any other Mac Fanatic. :)
*Credit for BSOD graphic goes to Tully.

I Broke Facebook With Thoughts

The other day my friend Ray posted a video on his Facebook page of Carl Sagan explaining the fourth dimension. You should watch it before reading the rest of this post (only 7 minutes):

I LOVE Sagan's analogy because it makes it so easy to understand the idea of why we have trouble seeing/experiencing other dimensions. (And listening to him talk just cracks me up.) The video started all kinds of quantum wanderings in my head. I intended to blog about my mental musings, but Mark gave me the perfect opportunity to post them first on Facebook by making his status read: [Insert Profound Thought Here]. I obliged with what was forming in my head, and accordingly he replied with his own thoughts and questions.

The odd part is that after I submitted my second long post in response to his counterpoints, Facebook lost the entire thread. It wouldn't let me post any more comments and even the ones that appeared previously are not viewable. I had no trouble viewing or posting on anyone else's page, but this particular conversation was OVER. I dunno if I blew Facebook's brain or the aliens were like, "Oh no you didn't!" but the entire discussion is gone.

However... smart pirates have backups. :) Yarrrr. Internet gremlins be damned! Since I was going to blog about it anyway, I was saving the convo elsewhere, so the following is the discussion we were having...

Him: Status: [INSERT PROFOUND THOUGHT]

Me: Ok... if Carl Sagan can hold up a clear plastic cube and create a shadow of it on paper thus illustrating how 3D becomes 2D; then he shows us a clear plastic 3D representation of a tesseract and says that's like a shadow of 4D becoming 3D; and if the 3rd dimension is defined as the directions of back/forth, up/down, side/side, and the fourth dimension is measured as adding the element of time to the 3D directions, then considering all that should the element added to 3D to create 4D actually NOT be time, but "within/without" instead (I mean look at how the "shadow" of a tesseract looks - one cube within another), and if so, how do we measure "within/without?" By an emotional scale? Is that profound enough for you?

Him: I don't believe time was considered one of the dimensions in a tesseract, however. It's four spatial dimensions that it represents. The questions is, if there are more than three spatial dimensions, how many objects that are four dimensional (+) intersect our three dimensions and defy explanation by their behavior because we are unaware of the activities taking place in the other spatial dimension for them?

Me: That's what I'm saying - time SHOULDNT be considered in measuring or describing a tesseract (because what is describing something in our world besides measuring it?). Time is always considered in measuring distance (distance = the time it takes to get from A to B, yes?) and MATHEMATIC tesseracts involve measurements of distance through the spatial relationships of one cube to another. If the distances of the vertices are not all equal then it's not a tesseract but some other poly-shape, right? So time is involved in some way through the measurement of distance when describing that particular form mathematically. But since (as Ray said) time is only a human thing then it only exists in the dimension WE live in - the 3rd dimension, yes? Generally, we cannot extract ourselves from the use of time/distance as a measurement of our world. Just like a 2D creature could not imagine up/down as a direction in their world. So in order to properly describe a form that lives in a dimension outside of our own, should we not remove time as a means of measurement? (Oh yes, I want to delete math from the equation - what a surprise. haha) Perhaps things in the fourth dimension are measured on some kind of emotional relation scale and what WE see as a tesseract here in this dimension is only a 3D representation of it just like a drawing of a cube is a 2D representation of the real cube in 3D. The trouble for us is comprehending how to measure or describe a form without a scale we're familiar with. Even when we say "on an emotional scale, how do you feel?" we tend towards numbers (like 1 being I feel icky and 10 being I feel great) because distance and numbers and time is what we use to measure and describe the 3rd dimension. I think this is why yogis can do what we would consider "magic" - their relational thinking involves different kinds of spacial relationships - they do not bind themselves to the means of measurement of the 3rd dimension like most of the rest of us do. It's all in how you THINK about it. Your perspective. Hence, my idea of measuring with emotions, not math. Geez, I'm not even sure I understand all that now. haha

You know what's really sad is that spell check on FB can't recognize the words "mathematics" or "tesseract." (Or "vertices" for that matter.) You'd think this site was built by 20-somethings... oh wait...

Him: I forgot how integrally time figures into distance equations... yeah. Without the time it takes to get "there," "here" and "there" have no meaning since you are everywhere all at once.

Me: And to answer your second question about how many objects intersect our three dimensions and defy explanation by their behavior... I'd guess somewhere just under 7 billion and counting. :)

Matching the Vibe

For the past month and some I’ve been VERY lazy and only doing what I feel like doing at any given moment. Yo ho, yo ho, a pirate’s life for me! Yes, yes, eat your heart out because right now I am enjoying a lifestyle most people only dream of. (And this ain’t the first time.) I’d like to say I have no idea how I get so lucky every now and then, but that’s not entirely true. I know the laws of the Universe and how they work, and I know I’ve unconsciously created my current situation, which is great (whether it’s the “right” thing to do or not). The trouble is, as usual, I have difficulty feeling worthy of a break.

I realize how incredibly fortunate I am, and I do humbly offer my extreme gratitude to the Universe many times a day for this opportunity to continue my Blissful Insanity. I try not to worry, or wonder how long I can keep it up. I try to relax in the moment and just enjoy it. But reality is a nag and deep down I know I still believe that somewhere in the not-too-distant future the money is going to dry up. And I know because I believe that, it will happen if I don’t do something like stop being a bum and look for a steady source of income. I am the cause and the effect. And I don’t want to be caught unprepared. And in worrying about being unprepared, I will create exactly what I fear. I get it. I’ve seen enough rabbits in my path lately to wonder if the Easter Bunny was doing a bit more than hiding eggs a couple months back.

I’ve also had the thought that if I decided to just be a pirate until I’m homeless, perhaps I can find joy in being homeless too? What a lesson that would be. You’re closer to nature for sure, but I dunno if I’m ready for that kind of prolonged intimacy with the planet. I DO keep saying I want to reduce the number of material possessions I have, and I know how the Universe likes to twist my words, then point and laugh. However, I’m also pretty darn sure I don’t want to find out if I can take my positive attitude that far. Hence, the vicious thought spiral. Joy.

(This makes me think of Billy joking about being a superhero the other night when he did a show at Sky High Comics. He says his Superhero name is “The Visi-Tor.” He can clean out your frig in a single visit, sleep on your couch multiple nights…” I forget the rest but everyone laughed well and long because Funny is based in Truth, and Billy is nothing if not True and Funny. If you live in San Diego, check out his show schedule on his MySpace page. You won’t be disappointed.)

I’ve been laid off since April 22 and it’s now June. I’ve done the bare minimum to satisfy unemployment in “looking” for a job so they keep sending me money. I’ve been privileged to be offered side work that will pay well enough to make up the difference, and it’s actually enjoyable because it’s something I’m familiar with so it’s easy work, and I get to do it on my own time for the most part. (That money was supposed to be going toward paying off debts tho, and since no taxes are being withheld, it could come back to bite me next year. We’ll see.) The logical side of my head berates me with “WTF do you think you’re doing screwing around for so long?” while the connected side of my head says, “You asked to be paid to do nothing [I really did], and that’s exactly what you got, so what is your problem?”

(Side note: right palm is very itchy right now. Must remember to check mailbox tomorrow as so far this has meant a check shows up in there. Yay! I’m still amazed and grateful every time that happens.)

I’ve been thinking a lot about what I really want to do next, but the answers are troubling. The last time this question came up (when I was laid off by the same company in 2005), I decided I really wanted to do graphic design. I’d wanted to do that for 20 years. Getting paid to use Photoshop and learn Illustrator every day sounded like getting paid to play all day.

After deciding that’s what I wanted, I landed a project management job with Pearson Education, which led to a graphic design position. And it did, in fact, feel like getting paid to play sometimes, which was very cool. But once I was “forced” to do it for 40 hours a week, it slowly deteriorated from joy to chore. The untimely demise of that position (at only 6 months) came when I had to choose between keeping the work that I’d wanted for 20 years or moving to an area of the country that made me happier. I figured there is always another graphics job and took the leap. I’m sure I made the right choice because I am definitely happier in San Diego.

The job I was recently laid off from was a transition position—since I could do it from anywhere it guaranteed instant employment in California and steady income right away. Who would turn that down even if it wasn’t my next dream job?

Of course the Universe made SURE that street was as short as I originally intended it to be. Oh well. But now that I’m at another crossroads, I’m not sure continuing in the graphic design direction is something I desire anymore. When I think about it, it’s a “been there, done that” feeling, even if it was only for 6 months. My soul feels like “c’mon – what’s next? Do something new!” The trouble has been that I have no clue what I would enjoy (other than the complete freedom I've been swimming in the last couple months - but that's more like being a leech if you do it endlessly and contribute nothing to society). Certainly I don’t feel that I’ve “done it all” but what do I want to do? Sometimes too many choices are just as confining as too few.

Occasionally I feel my interests have shifted to the spiritual nature residing within, and when I ask my Self “What now?” I hear “Teach people how to find themselves, the same way you found your Self. And while you’re at it, do this new form of Lite Touch Reiki you’ve been thinking about.” But geezus, how does anyone earn a living at that (at the beginner’s level) without being all foofy-mystical about it? I can’t do foofy. Foofy is SOOO not in my nature.

It’s not that I don’t believe the concepts of—I hesitate to use this horribly abused term, but there is no label to describe my particular brand of weirdness—New Age beliefs (I can hear the running and screaming already), I just don’t believe you need all the foofy shit to learn how to find your Self. And those that know this don’t need help finding their way on the path so why would they pay me to tell them what they already know? Oh wait, isn’t that the definition of Consultant? Haha (Sorry Mom!)

For instance, rocks/crystals and Runes and Tarot and Medicine Cards are all magical, but not the “Oooo smoke and mystery and ghosts” (and mayonnaise! ...don't ask) magical way others present them. That’s the dog and pony show I won’t participate in. Mystical paraphernalia to ME is magical in a “Oh, how cool to be able to see that more clearly” way. They’re just tools to hear your Inner Self, like you would use hearing aids if you were mostly deaf (hmm, I like that analogy – consider it trademark pending :).

Robes and beads and gypsy-like dress are all fine and good if that’s truly what you feel beautiful in or if you steal naughty children, but personally I prefer my tees and jeans. In fact (this is such a no no!) when I see people wearing the “mystical” garb, my first thought is to wonder why they need a full-body mask instead of just a bit of something to shield their most private selves not meant for the public. They just look fake to me. So sue me for being human.

Hmmm… now that I think about it, I can’t picture one person at the top of this field that wears stuff like that. Does Deepak wear a gypsy suit? Does Louise Hay have cheap tye dye dresses made of rayon? (Which, hello, has a totally unnatural vibe because it’s man-made material… duh. Damn, there goes that judgment again.) Neale Donald Walsh looks like a total tshirt and jeans kinda guy. But how did these people get so popular without looking “that part?” That’s where I start stumbling around and The Light goes out. ::sigh:: (Except I know they're popular because it's just Truth and Truth does not need the flash and bling... I'm just running myself in circles here.)

I look around at the spiritual community that's making a living selling it, and I see people that dress, speak, act, and make every effort to look like a character to convince the general populace they have special powers or something. These are good people but there are no special powers in spirituality. Everyone has the same power and it’s all just YOU. (But perhaps I only see them most because they are designed to be seen.) I’ve never been one to put on a show so others will see what I see or believe what I believe. Believe whatever you want – I can only tell you my experiences on the path to improve my Self. However, it would seem in most cases that those who would offer money for the help need the show to grab their attention. I asked "Why IS that?" but in re-reading this I answered my own question. There is just so much sensory overload in our world right now, how can you possibly pick out what to listen to next? Am I not having this very problem myself over a different subject?

Or maybe that’s just ME thinking that. Well, of course it’s just ME, but as long as it’s ME believing it, it’s also all I will find in my reality. Bah. Sometimes this being aware business is a pain in the… nevermind. I don’t need any pains anywhere so I’m not going to program that.

Even so, I am unable to resolve in my head a justification to charge people to learn how to find out who they are and to help them move forward on their own path. And that’s really the crux of it too – just the nature of the word “help” does not imply a monetary exchange, or it is not truly helping, is it? I didn’t pay anyone to learn what I know, yet I definitely had help along the way. So how does one “help” people and still pay the bills? Too bad the power company doesn’t understand REAL power exchange.

Of course my intellectual side is like DUH. You already said it. Just think of it like consulting. Why do companies ask a consultant to help them figure out what time it is, pay them to borrow the company’s watch, then listen intently while the consultant says, “The time is…”?

Truly, somewhere inside I am terrified of success or else I’d already be there. So how does one get over oneself and believe “I am worthy”? I’ve had tons of friends tell me how awesome I am, how I should share this stuff, always they are supportive of me. I get it in my head, but it hasn’t made it to the heart yet. I have not yet mastered myself. And isn’t that a bit of a catch 22? Part of being a master is feeling worthy of everything in your reality, yet you must first feel worthy to become a master.

So what started this whole discourse was reading the phrase “Match the Vibration.” I knew what that meant innately. I’ve heard it said in plenty of other ways, but sometimes it just takes a certain combination of words to click I guess.

The Law of Attraction. Give away what you want most. Be the change you want to see. Get there by believing you already ARE there. Match the vibration. Same thing, all of it.

I’m sure most people would agree that when you are “successful” your being vibrates at a higher rate. Are successful people a different kind of human? They can certainly seem so when you’re standing in their presence; in MY experience the energy can be tangible.

If our physical realities are all about the relationship between particles of matter and the energy vibrations that cause the particles, then it makes sense to think of matter as just a certain level of vibrational energy. Denser objects have lower vibrations. (Think plutonium, or Sarah Palin.) The less “dense” you are, the higher your vibratory rate, and the more “enlightened” you feel. Yes?

If I understand correctly, this is what they’re looking for in the Higgs Mechanism theory. Scientists want to know “where is the point when energy becomes matter and vice versa?” I think of it as: where is the tipping point when small becomes so small we can't distinguish one thing from the next, therefore small rounds the circle to being large (or, dare I say, ‘massive’)?

In turn, where is the tipping point when your fears become so small or insignificant that you expand into that massive “successful” vibration? Is that even how it works? Just keep chipping away at vibrating faster and higher until you reach the level you're seeking? What causes a vibration to accelerate? More applied energy?

As usual, the more I think the more questions there are.

I recognize that there are so many ways I am already successful, but most things I'm successful at do not provide the modern form of currency. Some people may stumble across the doorstep to that higher vibe in the dark, but most of us need to turn on a Light. It would be nice to help people find the switch, and feel worthy of being paid for that. Surely I must be within five feet of the answer, but to match the vibration when you’re still feeling around for the lever yourself is a tough trick.

~*~

Ralph Marston's site really freaks me out. Here is today's inspiration, once again as if it was written for moi:

Let life come, without striving to force it. Let life come, and it will unfold with great abundance.

The feeling you seek is already yours. If it was not, then how could you even know about it?

Allow that feeling to live and breathe and grow and flow throughout your life. The life you wish to experience is yours when you let go and let it be.

Listen to those little inspirations that quietly whisper. There is a reason why you hear them and feel their truth. Act in harmony with what you know is right and what you know is best. Instead of struggling against what is, ride joyously and successfully along with life's continuously unfolding possibilities.

Let life come. And live the beauty as each new moment is born.

Finding the Right Kind of Phrase

I admit I was stalking you, People Who Read Here, on the software that tracks where my blog hits come from. I saw that someone clicked my “physics” link to pull up all the things I’d written on physics. (Thank you, whoever that was. ☺) When I followed suit just cuz I was curious, I was confused to see that I only had three entries under “physics,” and they weren’t even the good ones. I was like WTF? I KNOW I have more than that about physics around here! Where did all my stuff go?

Turns out most of it got filed under “Food 4 Thought.” I guess I didn’t add the physics tag until recently. Silly me. I corrected some of the entries I found and added the proper tagging, so whoever that was please check again and satisfy my Ego. Many thanks.

In reading through those entries tho, I found that on 1/1/08 I wrote this at the bottom of my review of 2007:

My new mantra for 2008: More travel, less stuff.

I believe it was shortly after that when Mark asked me to move out and I began the process of moving to California, and hence, selling tons of my stuff. The moral of this story is:

Be careful what you wish for!

It is also a reminder to myself of how well I manifest things. One awesome new job coming up! Now I just have to define what that is... Oh. Crap.

~*~

Here’s another thing I found buried in one of my posts. I don’t even remember thinking it the first time around, but wow. Sometimes I impress myself. (Ego eats that up.) Instead of putting the physics tag on the original post, I’m copying what I said here to separate it out, also because now I have continued thoughts on it.

One more train of thought I must get down on virtual paper, though it will probably only make sense to me. When I was in the shower the other day my thoughts went from the stars in general to the middle star on Orion's belt, to the fact that a friend once told me that star is a gateway to other dimensions; then I thought about imagination, and how our brains could be a conductor between dimensions like copper wire is a conductor of electricity and how imagination would be the electricity, and perhaps it fuels our awareness like electricity fuels a lightbulb. I moved on to water and its conductive properties, to wondering if in the future we will discover that water is really a conductor of psi energy/chi (which would explain why my most profound thoughts always happen in the bathroom) and perhaps it is the key to why Earth exists as it does (Earth being held in our thoughts and made real to us) and why we seem so alone out here in the cosmos. We all know the water supply on Earth is dwindling, even if we don't want to admit it. Imagination seems to be suffering the same fate at the hands of TV and video. Barely anything is left to the imagination these days because kids are too lazy to think (or read), and parents are too lazy or self-absorbed to encourage them to do so.

What if, in the future, as the water supply dries up and humans stop developing their imaginations because we are told what to believe about everything and so many are lazy with their thinking, we discover water and imagination are the filters through which we're able to bring our thoughts to a tangible reality. (Remember our human bodies are made mostly of water!) Think how precious both water and a creative mind would be. Without them, our doorway (perhaps the star in Orion's belt) would close and our existence could melt back into the dimensions surrounding us; unable to be sustained separately as we see and experience it now. Perhaps this is what happened to Mars. Maybe it's not that life doesn't exist on Mars (or didn't an eon ago), it's just that their water supply dried up and their imaginations were suppressed to the point they were no longer able to hold the door open to separate their perspective from the Whole.

Hmmm.

My continued thought springs from a conversation I had with John recently about physics. I can’t remember exactly the words he said, but the way he put things about dimensions and the relationship of elementary particles to each other gave me new pictures in my head that caused me to understand things better, even without the math. (Thank God!)

These new pictures and ideas in my head say different dimensions are not a matter of travel through either inner or outer space. (I doubt the space-time continuum exists anywhere else anyway.) Dimensions are more a matter of perspective because dimensions are caused by how the particles relate to each other.

As an analogy, think of who you are. Would everyone in your family label you the same way? No. You may be a daughter (or son) in relationship to your mother or father, but you may also be an aunt (uncle), and a sister (brother), and a granddaughter (grandson). You’re still you, and each relationship is still within the family, but you’re defined differently in each case.

You can extend that outside the family too – you are still you when you go to work, but now you are a co-worker or a friend or a boss. Of course that doesn’t mean you stop being a sister (brother) and an aunt (uncle) and a daughter (son). You’re still all those things too. Just because your relationship is defined differently doesn’t mean YOU are not you anymore. Right?

And you can expand your definitions too. I doubt you were a parent when you were a kid (even people from Alabama had a few years in the beginning when they weren't parents!), but now perhaps you are. So you've added a new relationship to your existence. (Or dare I say, you've added another dimension to your existence.)

Ok, so apply that idea to elementary particles. Picture all elementary particles as being the same in every dimension. They have certain relationships here in our third dimensional world to each other. In this dimension they create nature, and objects, and people, and planets. And when you add time to the equation, you’re adding a fourth dimension and then you get into quantum physics, but those laws also apply to nature, objects, people, and planets.

Now imagine those same particles exist in several other dimensions as well but their relationships are defined differently, thereby creating aliens and other worlds and alternate realities and maybe even other versions of you. Same particles – different relationships. That was the idea John got across to me (although he did not use that analogy).

So, in order to experience other dimensions, is it possible that all we have to do is change how we see the relationships between particles? Rings true to me. Trouble is, we don’t know in what WAY to change our perspective.

I contest that emotions are a key. I think the change we are grasping for is more of an experience change – what we are feeling - not seeing or looking at physical things. Even so, here is a physical “seeing” example of changing perspective (in case the family analogy didn’t compute in your head). Check out this picture:

This is a classic example of perspective. Do you see a vase/candlestick or two faces looking at each other? What you see depends on your perspective. It’s a matter of how your mind interprets the relationship between the two colors.

Now if your brain can determine multiple relationships between colors from a picture that hasn’t changed, why can’t it sort out multiple relationships between elementary particles that haven’t changed, thereby allowing you to experience other dimensions?

Well perhaps it already does and you just don’t know it. Is it as easy as seeing two pictures in one, based on different colors? Maybe so. Think about all the media surrounding books like The Secret, which describe The Law of Attraction. Whether you believe in that or not, it’s the same principle.

Quantum physics has proven scientifically that reality is a field of probabilities. All things are possible all the time. (Omnipossibility – I love that word!) It is what you focus on that brings things into your reality. You are creating your reality by changing your perspective (focus) – the outcome of the experiment (your life) is directly affected by the observer (you) just like Schroedinger’s Cat and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. As soon as you measure the results, the probability wave collapses into your reality.

SO… the brain as a conductor between dimensions? I think so. In a sense. (Haha - all puns intended.) And water is the conductor that allows imagination (or chi, our "electricity") to power our awareness? Seems even more logical than the first time I thought it. Final thoughts... Choose your waves carefully and be kind to yourself when you measure the results so as not to collapse too hard into reality.

And I guess that’s where I’m going to end this because I’ve caught up to the edge of my thinking and I have to be somewhere shortly, so I’d better get my particles in gear.

~*~

Side note: If you haven't seen that movie K-PAX with Kevin Spacey (ever or in awhile), I highly recommend it. I watched it again last night and it was just as good this time as all the times previous. Really makes you think. :)

~*~

And yes, Mraz fans, of course I’m aware of how the title of this post corresponds with the date. I believe in higher energies and better things for all the people. I just hope MY luck doesn't run out today!

Come Up to a Higher Vibration

Speaking of snakes and apples of knowledge... you should watch this video, even if you're pretty well-versed in the ideas it goes over in the first few minutes. It's about 20 minutes for both videos posted below (same video, two parts), but it's great information. And even if you've heard it all before, it never hurts to bring it back up to the front. :)

Don't worry, the subtitles are in Spanish, but the audio is English.

Also, one thing I picked up that I think is a mistake is that as he lists the chakras of Earth (around 5:48 in video 1), he mentions the heart chakra twice, skipping the third eye chakra by mistake. Oops. Saw a couple typos as well. But who's counting. :)

If you choose not to take the 20 minutes now to watch this, then you move on with your day and eventually forget to watch altogether as people often do, there is one thing I thought was truly powerful that everyone should take away. It comes up just around 6:45 in the second video. The speaker talks of a metaphor that goes like this:

This is the difference between the power of our Creator and anything else. Particularly evil. That you can go into a pitch black room full of evil, full of darkness, and light a little candle, and instantly that darkness flees. But you can't do the opposite. You can't go into a well-lit room full of truth and wisdom, and righteousness and joy, and health and harmony with the Universal power... you can't take any amount of darkness and go into that well-lit room and have any effect whatsoever. That is the metaphor which I frequently think of when I think that I'm not empowered. It is the greatest lesson for me, and I think for everybody else to know, that we are on the winning side.

As I listened to the speaker talk about this metaphor it brought to mind the bookmark I use to keep my place in the book in which I write the five things I'm thankful for each day (ok, most days). My bookmark says:

"All the darkness in the world cannot extinguish the light of a single candle."

The word "Faith" is stamped into the top (bookmark is metal). The words are attributed to Francis of Assisi.

Something to think about anyway.

Mindless Drivel

"Don't let your mind stop you from having a good time. Cuz if there's anything that slows us down, it's all that under the hat." ~Jason Mraz

Mraz relayed this bit of wisdom to the audience the other night when he played at Morongo Casino in Cabazon, CA. It stuck with me because it's one of those tests I'm still failing every time it comes up in my life. Witness a few nights ago: I was out with a new friend and we were trying to get down to the beach but the roads we kept picking didn't have public entrances. He was more than willing to trot across someone's lawn and go down private stairs to get there quicker, but I wanted to go around by a road I knew had a public staircase. He asked me, “What are you afraid of?”

I dunno... cops? Angry property owners? Spilling my latte?

I thought about this a lot on my way home. Is it a good or a bad thing that I don’t like risking getting into trouble (in some situations)? Am I missing out on a lot of experience, or am I being a good citizen? I feel like I’ve had more exceptional life adventures than the average bear, but then I hear of others’ worldliness with realms unfamiliar to me because I was too afraid to go there and I think, “yeah, I am lame and where did this pole come from?”

As with all things I'm sure the answer lies in the balance, but the line is fuzzy and vague and sometimes you only know you’ve crossed it when it’s too late.

~*~

So did you see they kick-started the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? We’re one step closer to getting sucked into a black hole of our own making. That would solve all our environmental problems, wouldn’t it? We just wouldn’t have an environment.

Trouble is they broke it already. A 30-ton transformer failed in its duty to power cooling stations that keep the liquid helium at a frosty -459.67 degrees (much like New Jersey in January). Not to worry though, CERN called Hasbro and Hasbro contacted Cybertron. Optimus Prime was sent to deal with it. The magnets were back on the subzero frig by last Friday, but now electricity bills and maintenance schedules seem to be keeping it from actually firing up again until next Spring. Go figure.

Science moves forward like a chameleon.

I think the research they’re doing is both exciting and dangerous at the same time. It’s like aliens gave us a book of matches and told us to go play in traffic.

If we actually observe the Higgs boson, and can therefore make some solid claims on how massless particles become mass, that would be huge. We haven’t had a major advancement in science of that magnitude since Einstein.

On the other hand, scientists swear they have calculated the math nine ways to Sunday to make sure we’re not going to cause a major catastrophe, but hello… they’re called probabilities for a reason. Probabilities usually encompass a few remote occurrences where side effects may include getting run over by our own sun as our universe is inhaled by God’s bright yellow Dyson. And we all know the Cosmos enjoys a good jokes on the humans.

But hey, don’t let your mind stop you from having a good time. :D

Thermodynamics Is So Hot

Did you know that turning on your ceiling fan actually makes a room WARMER instead of cooler? Oh yes it does. Many people have argued with me about that, but I could never explain why it was true; I just knew I was hotter with the fan on than off (mostly because I don't like to sit directly under it). But I found the answer tonight on the Net, confirming that I've been right all along. (Because, you know, if it's written on the Net, it MUST be true, but in this case it really is. :D) I know it says it doesn't heat the room up by much, but if you think about it, one degree is the difference between boiling and not boiling too. I feel much the same way with the fan on.

God help me, but I love being right. Must be the combination of Irish and Scottish genes.

The physics of it goes: the electricity required to run the ceiling fan is converted directly to heat which is released into the room and will, therefore, raise the temp since simply moving the air around does not technically "chill" it.

The reason you feel cooler with the fan on is due to the wind chill effect increasing convective heat loss on your body; i.e., the breeze created by the moving air evaporates the sweat from your skin faster. Faster evaporation = cooler human.

Since moving to San Diego and acquiring two of these portable air conditioning things that look a whole lot like the girl robot in Wall-E, I've noticed that they don't do near as good of a job at cooling the place as my old window A/C units used to. I couldn't figure out why, until I applied the fan information to the air conditioning problem.

Both machines contain a compressor which is part of the cooling system. The compressor uses a lot of electricity (trust me - I about fainted right there at the mailbox when I opened my first power bill!) and all that electric is converted to heat the same as what a ceiling fan does.

In a window A/C, the compressor is hanging outside the window, thus the only thing INSIDE the room is the cool air streaming through the vent (or at least any heat coming from the unit is minimal).

With a portable A/C, the whole thing is inside the room - cool air flow AND compressor creating heat. So the way I see it, the machine is fighting itself and slurps up power faster than a Republican can abuse the environment. ACK.

Oh sure... most of these portable jobs have an exhaust pipe you have to put up to a window, which I suppose was some engineer's idea of solving the problem of expelling the heat from the compressor. Pfsssshh. They must've forgot to request that the tube itself be insulated against releasing heat back into the room, or more likely, it just wasn't in the budget.

So that, kids, is why I don't use my ceiling fans even tho I like having them because they look pretty (they actually come in handy in the winter if you're not sitting under one), and why my portable A/C units that cost twice as much as the window ones suck swamp water in comparison. At least now I know. It is also why I will make damn sure the next place I live has central heat and air. Shame, that. It's really the only flaw this condo has.

More iROny

Isn't it funny that we need something this big:

Large Hadron Collider at CERN

to find subatomic particles so small that we haven't been able to prove they exist yet? (Did you see the GUY standing in the middle of that thing? Look toward the middle bottom.)

Another question came to me last night when I couldn't stop my Monkey Mind from flinging poo long enough to get any sleep: If there are such strict rules about the disposal of bio-medical waste (picture those little red containers with the hazard symbol on them), why is it okay to give cremated human remains back to the family in an unsealed urn?

And how gross is it when people spread those ashes over some outside place and the wind catches them? The next time you leave your house, you could literally be breathing someone in, and not in a romantic, hot-breath-on-the-nape-of-your-neck kind of way. Ech.

~*~

Speaking of the smog of humanity, I finally updated my blog about our recent trip to LA/Hollywood to include pictures. Yay!

~*~

Oh yes, I promised a recounting of my weird dream.

In my dream I was in Tempe, Arizona driving along the Salt River (it was to my right). I was in a black sports car and I was going kind of fast because sports cars do that to me. (I totally blame Speed Racer, my favorite cartoon as a kid. I'm sure my name is Trixie in another lifetime.)

I took a sharp right turn onto what I thought was a bridge because it arched over the river, however, once I was speeding up the "bridge" I saw that it was actually a piece of art. It was a sandstone-colored, tube-like arch, and I was traveling along the outside of the tube. The car was kind of wobbling because the tube was not as wide as the car, but the tire edges were catching just enough traction to keep me careening along the edge. I knew I couldn't hit the brakes or I'd fall into the river.

As I crested the arch I saw in the middle there was a big black sphere connecting the two sides. I knew the tires would lose grip as I passed over the sphere so I gunned it and took off through the air, like any good Mach 5 would've done (because Newtonian physics don't apply in the Dreamtime; pity it didn't make the cool noise).

I had that feeling in my stomach you get on roller coasters as you head down the big hill and I couldn't tell if I would make it across the river or not, but I knew if I hit the water instead of the land on the other side, I would die so I was trying to concentrate really hard on making the car go far enough to hit land.

And then I woke up.

TWICE.

It's like I tried to finish the dream the second time and the Universe said, "Oh no you don't - no peeking! Wake up!"

The symbology is pretty obvious with my recent stress, and I've had dreams before where it felt so much like I was there I woke up in a panic, but this one really freaked me out because both times I felt like waking up was causing me to die in the dream. Like if I had only stayed asleep another few seconds I would've been able to will the car across far enough to hit land and survive, but because I woke up, I lost concentration and I knew I would die in the dream even though I didn't see it happen.

It makes me wonder if the reason I'm worried about the coastal decision is because this is one of those major etheric crossroads where realities branch out in different directions, never to meet on this conscious plane again. I know that even if I chose to stay on the East coast for another year, it's not like I couldn't go to California later, but I think if I wait I'll be following an entirely different path, if that makes any sense.

I absolutely believe we create our own realities, but I also believe there are certain inevitable, unavoidable milestones our higher selves set up for us along the way. These are things that are unaffected by our decisions - we may choose how we reach them, but reach them we will. Then we can choose again how to move on from there. Trouble is, I feel nothing less than Happiness itself is hanging in the balance.

What? Too dramatic? At least I'm learning to listen to my intuition instead of blowing it off.

Expanding My Brane Again

I'm proofing a chapter on particle physics in a new textbook. The author is talking about the Large Hadron Collider at CERN and as usual, I look up one fact on the net to verify it and several clicks later I'm reading about supersymmetrical particles and the hierarchy problem of the Higgs boson mass. (Not to mention it's suddenly hours later and I still only have four pages proofed where I should have twenty. The Trayce Theory states that reading about physics bends time, if not space, and not in a good way.)

So the way I understand the whole supersymmetry (abbreviated SUSY) thing is that there are two states for particles: spin up and spin down. If they can prove SUSY, they will be proving particles actually have four states: spin up, spin down, and 1/2 of each, or 1/2 spin up and 1/2 spin down.

The hierarchy problem of the Higgs boson mass is a question of why the weak force is 10^32 times stronger than gravity. In other words, we think of gravity as a very strong force since it keeps us humans (among other things) from flying off our big blue marble as we whirl around the Sun at about 1000 MPH, and indeed it keeps our whole planet from being ejected out of our galaxy as we do our celestial do-se-do here in the Milky Way. You'd think a force like gravity must be really strong, right?

Then consider a regular paperclip and a refrigerator magnet. If you put the paperclip on the table (or the floor, or outside on the ground directly) and hold the magnet above it, what happens? The paperclip defies gravity and shoots up to cling to the magnet. So how does a simple frig magnet (the weak force) overcome a force like gravity, so "strong" it keeps us all grounded and maintains the orbit of our planet?

I can't do the math, but I get why this is a helluva question.

As a very stripped down (and perhaps completely wrong) explanation: According to modern physics, the interaction of all matter in our universe can be explained by the math that describes four forces: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force (Electroweak theory), and the strong force (Quantum chromodynamics). It seems that when you apply the math to everything except gravity, it works out okay and they reach conclusions that match up in any of those forces. However, when you apply the same math to gravity, things get screwed up.

An equation called Fermi's constant explains the weak force (that which causes the magnet to attract the paperclip). An equation called Newton's constant explains gravity, as we've been taught since grade school. Theoretically, you should be able to plug in appropriate numbers (measurements) for your paperclip experiment to each of these equations and come up with a logical conclusion of why a magnet can defy gravity, but the numbers don't work the way we expect, hence our problem.

The Standard Model is a quantum field theory where all the numbers balance out for quantum mechanics (electromagnetism) and special relativity (the strong and the weak forces). However, plug those same numbers into the Newtonian equations for gravity (general relativity), and the answers are all messed up. So instead of saying our Standard Model must be wrong, they've kept looking for "the missing link" that unifies all four forces.

Enter the Higgs boson. If we prove this little baby exists, it would also prove that particles have four states and not just two (as I understand it), which would balance the math properly in the Standard Model for all four known fundamental interactions of particles. Mmmm. Can you smell the Nobel Prize?

I've read that some say it's pointless to try to unify the four forces because three of the forces work on the charge that passes between particles (or massless particles like photons), and gravity works on particles with physical mass, so it's like comparing apples to oranges (unless you can prove the Higgs boson exists, which would allow the math to assign mass to currently massless particles).

Personally, it reminded me of comparing what affects your soul (something non-physical or massless) to what affects your body (which has physical mass).

The theory of supersymmetry lays out the math necessary to make everything work out right, but so far we've been unable to prove supersymmetry in real life experiments because we do not have an instrument capable of creating the level of energy required to detect an actual Higgs boson. That is what they're hoping the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is going to do (bringing me back to what I was originally looking up on the net). According to the CERN web site, they fire that beast up in a few months. Should be interesting if they don't create a black hole that sucks in our galaxy. I hope Stephen Hawking checked that math three times. I'm just sayin...

We're planning to make something appear out of (seemingly) nothing, but really it was there all along (or so we hope). Is this not like MAGIC?

And just to jump down a totally bizarre sci-fi rabbit hole, suppose they define what gives massless light particles mass (however small) - what if that definition also describes how humans come into physical form here on Earth from souls (or alien beings) floating around in some other dimension? Remember that movie K-Pax where Kevin Spacey is a mental patient who claims he traveled in on a beam of light? What if that really happens? What if God turns out to be gravity that pulls light particles into a concentrated physical mass through interference patterns created by genes expressing chromosomes? (I mean why are they fucking around with genetic engineering anyway? Just be who you are for pete's sake.)

Even worse - what if our government already knows this is how humans happen and is looking for that boson so they can figure out how to build a machine that pulls souls into cloned bodies to make them functional (like putting an engine in a car)? Would that be bad or good? Just like bad teleporting turned that dude into the Fly, what if erroneous soul-porting made evil people?

Don't laugh. How many people thought Newton's ideas were nuts (not apples, haha), or that Galileo was off his rocker, or even that Einstein was a bit whacked? Many string theory physicists thought Dr. Michael Duff from Michigan was nuts talking about 11 dimensions instead of 10, then guess what? Hey! They found out 11 dimensions advanced string theory into M theory (aka brane theory)! "Oh, gee, sorry we thought you were talking out your ass Prof. Duff, you were right all along."

It's never the well-behaved people (or particles) that make the history books, trust me.

I had another weird idea while reading all this stuff too. You know how you can draw a line on a piece of paper with a point at either end, and it's just a line, but if you add two more points to the right and above the first two, then connect all the dots, you may just see a flat diamond, but if you shift your perception, you see the illusion of a square that is 3-D. Okay, now think about the fact that you have two eyes, but you only see one image at any given time. If you cover one eye or the other, the image moves in the same way those dots move from 2-D to 3-D - separate them and they are individual images (or lines), but connect the dots and they move into another dimension.

Now consider if they unify the three electromagnetic forces with gravity, would it be like connecting the dots so we end up seeing another dimension? Or perhaps the reason we can't see what we're looking for is because we have one eye covered (perhaps our third eye? Haha).

Science. ::snort:: It's like that damn TV show, Lost. The more answers you find, the more questions you create.

My Brain is Bubbling Over

Does anyone else find it odd how often apples pop up in the arts and sciences? I mean, why not oranges or kiwis or bananas? Why are we not "as American as cherry pie" since the story of George Washington's cherry tree would be a more logical association in our country?

The question came to mind because I'm watching a show from the Science channel talking about wormholes, and the guy says the term came from using the analogy of a worm burrowing through an apple to reach the other side.

Other famous apple shenanigans:

1. Newton's experience with Earth-bound fruit, contributing to his theories of gravity and motion (and he was NOT hit on the head - he only observed the apple falling and wondered why it always went straight down instead of any other direction).
2. "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." This idea probably goes back all the way to Hippocrates and other Greek physicians living in Rome that declared the fruit good for digestion and constitution, but the actual phrase was more recently made famous in 1904 by J.T. Stinson in an address to the St. Louis Exposition.
3. Adam and Eve's downfall after eating an apple in the Garden of Eden. (Which is also not true - there is no mention on an apple in the book of Genesis, only "the fruit of the tree." I'm thinking the assumption it was an apple probably came from the painting The Fall of Man in 1470 by Hugo Van Der Goes, in which the Tree of Knowledge is depicted as an apple tree, but Cecil Adams from The Straight Dope has some interesting ideas about it too in his article here.)
4. In Greek mythology we have Eris and the Apple of Discord, the golden apple tree that was Zeus & Hera's wedding gift from Gaia (Mother Earth), and the golden apples that Venus gave to Milanion to drop in Atlanta's path so she would lose the race and he would win her hand in marriage.
5. I'd suggest that the tradition of "an apple for teacher" may have come from the incorrect Biblical association of apples with knowledge, but since that story includes negative connotations as well, and I can't find anything else on the net, I'll go with the other theory that fruit was not always easy to get "back in the day" so a poorly-paid teacher may not have been able to afford such luxuries, causing an apple to be a greater gift than we would consider it in modern times.
5. Legendary apple fables and stories: William Tell, Johnny Appleseed, and Snow White.
6. And seriously, how much of a coincidence is it really that the most rad computer company ever is named Apple? I'm just sayin.

What makes apples such Fruity Royalty? And why does everyone assume the apples in all those examples above (save the last one) were red? Well, I guess cuz red ones are sweet and green ones are tart, but y'know, being a little tart once in awhile gives you a better chance at being in the history books. :D

~*~

I was looking through the Astronomy Pictures of the Day for pics to add to my Cosmos screen saver, and I found this:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071216.html

At first glance it only looks like a mangle of colors, but if you unfocus your eyes you'll see a 3D image of a teapot. Too fuckin cool. If you can't see it, pick one of the darker turquoise blotches to the right or left of center, about midway down the picture, and just stare at that one spot without blinking; eventually you should start to see the teapot take shape out of the corner of your eye. It will look like it's floating in the foreground. It's a matter of perception, like seeing a 3D cube drawn on a 2D piece of paper. Of course, thinking about perception sent me off on all kinds of physics tangents.

When I was a kid, I used to color in these geometric books called Altair Designs. I think I've mentioned them in a previous blog but I'm too lazy to go find where. My friend Christina and I would color in all the shapes (with artist's markers - the precise lines don't work well with crayons), then look at it out of focus (as described above) and see different patterns in the geometry (not something as tangible as the teapot of course). It was like we'd done two pictures instead of one at the same time. We called it "blurring our eyes." (Gimme a break, I was like, 8.)

It freaks me out thinking this is related to holographic principles, because who the fuck finds this kind of information on their own at that age (and remembers it clearly in their adult years)? Then again, what kid chooses geometric coloring books and fancy pens over the standard cartoon character/Crayola scenario? (I always found regular coloring books infinitely boring as a kid.) Not that I realized looking at a picture with blurry focus had anything to do with theoretical physics until now.

But still.

Weirdness.

I've spent most of my adult years trying to feel "normal" because kids always thought I was weird and they couldn't relate to the things I wanted to play. Maybe they were right. I'm just strange.

Thinking about perception and the holographic principle represented by that picture reminded me of my previous theory (described in the last couple paragraphs of this entry) about how maybe we create the Universe with our thoughts, holding it separate from the Whole by using imagination and water. If you can see either a flat bunch of colorful shapes, or a 3D floating teapot in the same picture, depending on your perception, why couldn't our entire existence be the same way? (No, I have not read The Holographic Universe yet, but it's on my list. I'm sure it has similar ideas.)

In my speculation of our reality being created through a star, I was picturing something like a soap bubble on a stick (cuz everything's better on a stick! sorry - ren faire joke), where our experiences all take place inside the bubble, the star is the circle part of the wand, and creation comes from imagination, or original intent/thought, represented by breath on the other side of the circle (i.e., air being blown through the circle to create the bubble).

Credit: istockphoto.com

I was reading the Wikipedia definition of "holographic principles" and it says:

"...a speculative conjecture about quantum gravity theories... claiming that all of the information contained in a volume of space can be represented by a theory which lives in the boundary of that region. In other words, if you have a room, you can model all of the events within that room by creating a theory which only takes into account what happens in the walls of the room."

Gives the phrase "if walls could talk" a whole nother dimension. haha

So comparing that definition to my bubble picture, it seems to be saying much the same thing. In order to describe our entire universe, all we need is the information (intent/thought) that creates the film separating the air inside the bubble from the air outside the bubble, but what if the information only creates an illusion of separation? Yes, I know, been there, done that, what rock have I been living under? The illusion itself is not my point - I want to know how we find ourselves in the middle of this illusion and can we change our perception so we can see what we've created from outside the illusion. Is that what happens at death? We get to see the bubble from outside?

Credit: nanopedia.case.edu

Does the following picture represent what we're currently seeing from inside the bubble?

Credit: funsci.com

Perhaps multiple dimensions then look like this:

Credit: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Ironically, in looking for that picture I found a whole article on this very theory, using the same analogy, and one of the first scientists quoted was Michio Kaku at City College in New York, one of the very same scientists in the show I was watching earlier that started this whole train of thought.

Coincidence? Get real.

What Walks Down Stairs Alone or In Pairs?

I'm proofing a physics book and the current chapter is talking about quantum theory and in particular, Planck's quantum hypothesis. Please keep in mind that I failed algebra and I generally suck at any math beyond balancing my bank account. I don't often grasp more than the simplest of equations required in physics, but I get the logic of the theories, so I have these ideas and pictures in my head, but no clue how to illustrate them, or prove them mathematically, nor do I usually know if they've already been illustrated and proven. I'm really just babbling to myself. If an engineer or scientist read this, he'd probably be bored to tears. And I'm not saying any of it is true or false. I'm just thinking onto the screen.

First it talks about Planck's constant (h) and how Planck came up with his formula while trying to make the blackbody radiation curve work out in an experiment. Yay for him. Then it says (in short):

To provide a theoretical basis for his formula, Planck assumed that the energy of the oscillations of atoms within molecules cannot have just any value, instead the energy value is a multiple of a minimum value related to the frequency of oscillation by

E = hf

Sounds like greek until you read it really slow three times, but it put a picture in my head of an atom with its little electrons whipping around the nucleus. I got "oscillations" confused with vibrations and how you measure a wave from peak to peak - the wavelength - but that's a good thing because it made me relate a 2D vibration to a 3D oscillation. The atom in my head was 3D, and frequency of a wave is generally shown in 2D, so I was wondering how you would show a wave measurement in 3D and the idea of a stretched out Slinky came to mind. If you look at a Slinky from the side, it could appear flat like the frequency of a wave measurement. But if you then turned the Slinky toward you sideways (like you can in a CAD rendering or 3D animation), then you would see it's actually a big spiral and instead of there being peaks and troughs in a flat wave measurement, it would still have highs and lows but it's a continuous diameter - a spiral instead of a wavy line. Like seeing an added dimension of a 2D wave.

If you're measuring a wave peak to peak (wavelength), then there is always a trough in between indicating a fraction of the measurement, or 1/2. With a spiral, there are highs and lows, but no flat peaks or troughs to indicate a fraction of a measurement because no matter which way you rotate the spiral, there is no definitive top and bottom to each loop, therefore no way to say "this is the halfway point between this peak and the next" (unless you're measuring with an added dimension... keep your panties on, I'll get there).

Since there are no fractions, would that not indicate whole number multiples measuring oscillations? Looking at it that way though, it'd be just a flat circle (like if the Slinky were coiled up tight and you were viewing it from the end). But stretch it out and you're adding a depth dimension - like say, time? - and now you have a distance from peak to peak to measure one complete oscillation, which would still be a whole number since there is no way to define where a peak or a trough is on the spiral.

When I described this to Mark he said he thinks what I'm describing is a good way to illustrate the measurements of string theory. Unfortunately I can't agree or disagree since I have not yet really grasped string theory, but maybe someday I'll get there and go "oh yeah, that is exactly what I was picturing." :)

But back to the book.

The author says Planck's assumption suggests that the energy of any molecular vibration could be only some whole number multiple of the minimum energy hf:

E = nhf, (n=1, 2, 3...; h = Planck's constant; f = frequency)
(Looks like it says "enuhf" LOL)

where n is a quantum number - quantum meaning discreet instead of continuous; discreet meaning in increments. He uses the analogy of quantum being like a box sitting on stairs, as opposed to continuous being a box sitting on a ramp. The ramp is a continuous incline upwards and you could push the box up it smoothly. You could also push the box up the stairs, but only in measured whole steps (increments - not smooth). Just like jumping from the top of one oscillation of a spiral to the next. Except now I'm thinking the spiral is also continuous if you slide around the curve to get from one oscillation to the next instead of jumping from top to top, so does that mean it can be measured both ways? Maybe sliding from one oscillation around to the next is a better illustration of a stairstep. I dunno. Now I'm confusing myself.

Hmm... that definitely makes me think of time though... like we (as humans) live by sliding the long way around the spiral to go from one oscillation to the next, but if you were going to time travel, you would want to find a way to jump between the tops of the oscillations instead of going around the curve. And folding time might be something like compressing the Slinky until all the tops squish together creating a continuous new pathway (a fast track if you will) altogether - maybe a dimension where gravity is reversed because you're now standing on top of (or outside) the curve instead of lying inside the dip. Maybe standing on the top is like the consciousness of One. God is a compressed Slinky. Great. That must mean the Theory of Everything could be illustrated something like this:

Now imagine the stairs are in an M.C. Escher painting and you're really trippin.

I know, I know... this is why I never touched drugs. Who needs to with an imagination like that?

By the way, here's your daily dose of useless trivia: In 1943, Richard James was a naval engineer (figures - who else understands all this math?) trying to develop a meter designed to monitor horsepower on naval battleships. Richard was working with tension springs when one of the springs fell to the ground. He saw how the spring kept moving after it hit the ground and an idea for a toy was born.

"Slinky" is a Swedish word meaning traespiral - sleek or sinuous. (So if you're reading this Mraz, there's one more Swedish word you didn't know you already knew.)

Slinky debuted at Gimbel's Department Store in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (hey, I come from there!) during the 1945 Christmas season and then at the 1946 American Toy Fair. Richard, nervous at the first demonstration of his toy, convinced a friend to attend and buy the first Slinky. However, this turned out to be unnecessary as 400 were sold during the 90 minute Gimbel demonstration.

Richard James and Betty James founded James Spring & Wire Company (renamed James Industries) with $500 dollars and began production. Today, all Slinkys are made in Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania using the original equipment designed and engineered by Richard James. Each one is made from 80 feet of wire and over a quarter billion Slinkys have been sold worldwide.

Thank you to Mary Bellis' About.com page on Slinky for that info. :)

So I guess those last bits are a little out of order and jump around themselves, but what can I say. That's how my brain works. Now I have to go read the rest of the chapter and hope he discusses string theory somewhere so I can see if I was right. Next time I'm tackling particle spin. Come to class prepared.

PS: After reading about springs, which led to Hooke's Law, I've decided there was no "Big Bang" at the beginning of the universe. It was just someone setting a Slinky off down the stairs and we're still going. This is what happens when you've been awake for 48 hours and counting.