Interviews with Arkadiusz Jadczyk

Persephone

Jedi Master
Thank you for these two exciting videos! I have not finished to watch the second one (only actually started), but I'm really happy that I was able to understand the basics despite the fact that physics is not my cup of tea, and also realised I had some wrongs concepts about quantum theory coming from some popularisation books. And I find Ark's English more understandable than that spoken by the natives. In addition he uses a lot of gestures and that helped me (maybe because I'm of Italian origin ;-)

I'm still not able to put down some thoughts about all this, but in the meantime I can recommend the very short book "Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction" by John Polkinghorne for those interested in the topic with no prior knowledge or mathematical skills. For a philosophical discussion about free will and quantum theory, there are three great essays about it in The Oxford Handbook of Free Will (which is a great resource for free will discussions in general). Another good one is Henry P. Stapp's "Quantum Theory and Free Will", although unlike Ark, he thinks that our individual consciousness plays a decisive role in "collapsing the wave function", following von Neumann's interpretation. But he also posits something of a Cosmic Mind to solve the problem of "the moon is still there even when we are not looking".

Finally, there is a guy on YouTube explaining and visualizing quantum physics concepts, which I find very helpful.

Here are 3 videos I liked, one about the wave function, one about the different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and one longer video explaining some core concepts like the double slit experiment and spin/entanglement (some super hilarious comments under that last one btw!):
Thank you luc for the books and videos suggestions since, as I said above, I had not read the right ones.
 

Gaby

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The 2nd video was excellent! I particularly enjoyed the second half where Ark talks about "whatever I do, I should do in such a way as if the fate of the Universe depends on it" in terms of physics and the Work. Most excellent! :thup: :flowers:
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
And now what is going to pass through this sinusoid is our consciousness. Such an observation of a falling pen, the moment of releasing the pen, on the sine wave it will be the moment when the sine wave goes up, at this time our consciousness is "snatched", then the pen flies (at this point the consciousness passes through the top of the sinusoid), then the pen drops down and stops (at this point our consciousness goes down from this sinusoid) and is "let go" freely.

Observation from the non-material perspective (the philosophical one where time does not exist), if we were to apply this to a sinusoid, it would involve quantizing the sinusoid. And consciousness would not be "hijacked", but it could freely wander between certain "samples" left and right. [If the concept of sine or quantization says nothing, let's look at the wiki: Quantization (signal processing) - Wikipedia .]

Interesting thoughts. Notice also that "quantization" is kind of inbuilt into calculus itself, i.e. integral calculus, which could be thought of as quantization with an infinitely high resolution.

But fascinatingly, some sort of quantization seems to be going on in real physical terms: the amount of energy that, say, an oscillator (think of a pendulum) can have is discrete, i.e. only multiples of Planck's constant. Amazingly, this means that if you push a child on a swing, you cannot arbitrarily choose the amount of energy, but there is a discrete "energy grid", or finite "resolution" of energy statuses! Of course, since Planck's constant is so small, we cannot really experience this except in dedicated quantum experiments. What does this mean though? I don't know.

Maybe there is something to the idea that true "analog" systems don't exist really? The Cs said something about an "energy grid" of consciousness:

Q: (L) Indeed. It terrifies people "religiously" to even think about it. (A) We know what it means that I am distant from you by 20 inches in space. I know what it means to be distant from the future by 20 minutes in time. What does it mean to be distant from something in the 5th dimension? I can't think of it...
A: Distance is a 3rd density constraint of consciousness energy grid structure.
Q: (L) Are you saying that consciousness energy is extruded into a grid structure? I don't even know how to ask. (A) Einstein, Bergman and Bargmann, were using distance to measure distance in the 5th dimension. They were not using consciousness, they were not using a grid, but they were using distance. And it was supposedly a good theory because they had to abandon it. So, none of them said anything about consciousness, yet they were using distance. So, my question is, is distance an expression of consciousness? Is there a distance from one point to another point expressed as, say, 2 million atoms? Is that a distance? What does consciousness have to do with this? How to model atoms in this 5th dimensional world?
A: As Grid.
Q: (A) Grid of what?
A: Energy.

As for time, as Ark alluded to, without time in our "clock" sense there could be no oscillations/frequencies/vibrations. Depending on wavelength, you need a certain amount of time to even speak of a vibrational cycle or frequency. And then there is information that is supposed to be a "mover and shaker". Maybe the concept of modulation has something to do with it? I.e. as in how we modulate a carrier wave in radio communication (such as FM or AM)? Are "unstable gravity waves" modulated waves and as such carry information? What does all that have to do with time?

Anyway, so many questions, so little answers and understanding, at least for me. But learning is fun!
 

gnosisxsophia

Jedi Council Member
Thank you for sharing Chu,

...apologies for the poor image and sound quality.

Personally didn't find it a problem other than after having turned the volume up to maximum, as Ark was fading in and out, your first question (in part 1) nearly blew me off my chair and had me thinking I was at a Cher concert!

Such a personable character, can certainly see why Ark was such a popular Professor though ,unfortunately, can also relate to his comments on the University experience as soul sapping to a questioning mind - particularly, in my case, having always thought that was point of going... :-(

Relatable on the dream front also, the capability for 'Time travelling' such an intrinsic expectation to most young minds I would suspect?

He also won me over with the throw away comment of, perhaps, requiring the grace of 'a goddess' in his long running endeavor and I even caught my breath on the exclamation regarding his love of Algebra, before becoming thoughtful upon mentioning that the term had an Arabian root.

Wondered where 'that' was going to go for a moment!

Though must say the statement regarding the importance of 'co-linearity of truth' - in a non-material reality - has probably given me the most to ruminate upon. 'Truth' being one of those awesome terms such as 'quality' that one is sure they understand until asked to define...

Ark's experience with contrarian experimental outcomes reminiscent of something by William James;

...truth is only the expedient in the way of our thinking, just as the right is only the expedient in the way of our behaving.

Perhaps raising the question of right vs wrong vis-à-vis subjective 'truth'?

Which 'sort of' leads into something I resonate with said by Martin Heidegger;

'Truth' is not a feature of correct propositions which are asserted of an 'object' by a human 'subject' and then are 'valid' somewhere, in what sphere we know not. Rather, truth is disclosure of beings through which an openness essentially unfolds. All human comportment and bearing are exposed in its open region.

Thinking now I must check out his blog, would love to hear his opinion on the subject :hug2:
 

Bluegazer

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The Cs said something about an "energy grid" of consciousness:

I apologize in advance if I am too effusive on this subject but I repeat, it is still on my mind.

This grid/network thing again! Not only that, but the thread is dealing with waves and oscillations. I share it again because it's something that's in my head persistently. I think there's something here, observing nature.


(notes that a net forms a grid)

Now, a study of orb spiders (Trichonephila clavipes) in space has revealed that these smart arachnids can orientate themselves with light when there is no gravity to tell them which way is 'up'.

Scientists have conducted myriad spider gravity experiments over the decades. Spiders have had small weights attached to them, been put in a centrifuge, been made to build their webs horizontally (which the spiders were reportedly very unimpressed about), and continuously rotated as they tried to build a web.

"These observations and experiments strongly suggest that gravity is an important factor during web building, but they cannot answer the question, whether spiders can build webs in zero gravity and, if yes, how the zero-gravity environment will affect the completed web," a team of researchers from Switzerland and the United States writes in a new paper.

"These questions can only be answered by bringing spiders into a zero-gravity environment, i.e. by bringing spiders into space."[...]
But the researchers managed to get a second chance for their experiment in 2011, and took it. This time, there were no spider escapes, missing photographs, or fruit fly explosions.

Instead, a photograph of the golden orb-weavers' webs was taken every five minutes, while lights overhead switched on and off every twelve hours to simulate daylight.

Although there was one mishap (two of the four alleged females were found to be males), the results of the two-month experiment on the ISS were incredibly successful.

The two spiders which were sent to space were quite hardy in their new gravity-free homes: The male survived zero gravity for 65 days and was still alive after returning to Earth, while the female built 34 webs and moulted three times – both of which are space records.

But it was the use of the lights, which were all pointing 'down', that actually led to a surprising discovery.

"Since in normal gravity, and no matter whether the lights were on or not, spiders consistently built asymmetric webs and consistently faced downwards when sitting on the hub, we conclude that gravity is the most relevant orientation guide for spiders," the researchers write.

"We further conclude that the visual stimulus of the direction of light can serve as an orientation guide in the absence of gravity."

When gravity is involved, the golden orb spiders will happily build their asymmetrical webs, and sit facing downwards waiting for prey. In space, their webs were more symmetrical, however when there was light, the spiders used it as a reference point and built their webs as if the light was the opposite to 'downwards'.

"We were very fortunate that the lamps were attached at the top of the chamber and not on various sides. Otherwise, we would not have been able to discover the effect of light on the symmetry of webs in zero gravity.

"That spiders have a back-up system for orientation like this seems surprising, since they have never been exposed to an environment without gravity in the course of their evolution."

I will be direct, I think we see something VERY important here. C's have said that everything is gravity. The electromagnetic/light wave is an unstable gravitational wave right? -correct me if I'm wrong- and that we also have the information as a field.

Isn't it that the light in this experiment contained the information that allowed the spider to create its web? That is, the light contained the information for the geometric pattern.

The article points out that the light served as an orientation guide. For something to orient and guide - like a map - you use coordinates and therefore that is information.

This fits in with geometric algebra and the Lie groups???
 

John G

The Living Force
I apologize in advance if I am too effusive on this subject but I repeat, it is still on my mind.

This grid/network thing again! Not only that, but the thread is dealing with waves and oscillations. I share it again because it's something that's in my head persistently. I think there's something here, observing nature.


(notes that a net forms a grid)



I will be direct, I think we see something VERY important here. C's have said that everything is gravity. The electromagnetic/light wave is an unstable gravitational wave right? -correct me if I'm wrong- and that we also have the information as a field.

Isn't it that the light in this experiment contained the information that allowed the spider to create its web? That is, the light contained the information for the geometric pattern.

The article points out that the light served as an orientation guide. For something to orient and guide - like a map - you use coordinates and therefore that is information.

This fits in with geometric algebra and the Lie groups???
The information of the light would be sunlight in general is overhead while earth and its gravity is under your feet. Particle physics-wise you certainly need fields as well as the particles in information form and geometric algebra aka Clifford algebra can do that and you can derive Lie groups from geometric algebra.

A simple geometric algebra would be Cl(2) with 2 "bits" representing 4 things in a 1 2 1 graded form (graded matches a row of the Pascal triangle). The one on the left would be a scalar and if this geometric algebra was bigger could relate to the Higgs scalar particle. The one on the right is a 2-vector aka bivector and is a U(1) Lie group. U(1) is the Lie group for a photon and the Lie group for a Feynman propagator phase; it's kind of both in this too small to be reality example. It's also kind of both the photon field and the photon particle since the field is only for a 2-dim spacetime. The two in the middle of the 1 2 1 would be for matter and antimatter and are kind of the electron and positron if the geometric algebra was bigger. In reality where there are more spacetime directions, more spin component directions would be needed to represent the electron and positron. Obviously lots more particle types are needed too and gravity plus photons and nuclear force particles are kind of a bigger spacetime version of the simple U(1) photons. The math for the field descriptions gets more complex too. This is kind of the simple version of the field math Ark has been talking about on his blog recently and it's still complicated (I really only have an intuitive appreciation for simple versions of the math structures Ark works with):

 

Bluegazer

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The information of the light would be sunlight in general is overhead while earth and its gravity is under your feet.

The question is: how does the incidence of light determine whether the web is symmetrical or asymmetrical? There is a change in the geometry, it changes the position of the nodes in the web/grid.

If you can or know how to modulate that light, you can change the geometry of something? a.k.a variable physicality.
 

Chris

Jedi
I'm reading this book called Fields of Color: The theory that escaped Einstein by Rodney Brooks about the Quantum Field Theory. The book is a dedication to the physicist Julian Schwinger who played a key role in formulating the QFT but whose work was overshadowed by Richard Feynman. Now, these two great physicists had a different approach to QFT and I guess Richard Feynman's approach became more popular eventually because it is less formal and more intuitive in the form of Feynman's diagrams. But the author argues that Schwinger's conception of quantum fields (instead of wave-particle duality of Feynman) resolves the discrepancies in quantum mechanics and Einstein's relativity.

I am really interested to know Ark's thoughts on QFT and Julian Schwinger's ideas and research and whether he sees any promise for uniting gravity and QM in these ideas. QFT has been widely tested and has produced very accurate results in experiments so it seems to be the best candidate for a Unified Field Theory.

(From Quora about the insane accuracy of QFT with experimental results - Yes, quantum field theory (QFT) has been proven many many times. It is the most accurate theory in all science. It began in 1948 as an attempt to explain the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron in a mathematically consistent way. It succeeded extremely well. Using QFT this physical quantity can now be calculated to 13 significant digits to 4 Feynman loops and this calculated value exactly matches the experimentally measured value. This QFT is known as quantum electrodynamics. )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Preface of the book:

Some time later, as a graduate student, I attended a three-year lecture series at Harvard University by Julian Schwinger. The timing was perfect. Schwinger’s development of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) had matured and he was about to publish a monumental work, “A theory of the fundamental interactions”. I sat mesmerized, as did others.

Attending one of [Schwinger’s] formal lectures was comparable to hearing a new major concert by a very great composer, flawlessly performed by the composer himself… The delivery was magisterial, even, carefully worded, irresistible like a mighty river… Crowds of students and more senior people from both Harvard and MIT attended… I felt privileged – and not a little daunted – to witness physics being made by one of its greatest masters.Walter Kohn, Nobel laureate (M2000, p. 593-4)

As Schwinger stood at the blackboard, writing ambidextrously and speaking mellifluously in well-formed sentences, it was as if God Himself was handing down the Ten Commandments. The equations were so elegant that it seemed the world couldn’t be built any other way. From the barest of principles, he derived the equations of QFT, even including the gravitational field. Not only was the mathematics elegant, but the philosophic concept of a world made of properties of space seemed to me much more satisfying than Eddington’s mysterious particles. I was amazed and delighted to see how the paradoxes of relativity theory and quantum mechanics that I had found so baffling disappeared or were resolved. Later on, I must admit, things got more complicated as the number and variety of fundamental fields grew, and quarks entered the scene. But to my knowledge, QFT remains as the true fabric of which the world is made. What’s more, I believe it is the only fabric of which the world could be made. Unfortunately, Schwinger, once called “the heir-apparent to Einstein’s mantle” by J. Robert Oppenheimer, never had the impact he should have had on the world of physics or on the public at large. Instead, the more colorful and outgoing Richard Feynman came to the fore. It is his image, not Schwinger’s, that is enshrined on a postage stamp. It is possible that Schwinger’s very elegance was his undoing.

Julian Schwinger was one of the most important and influential scientists of the twentieth century… Yet even among physicists, recognition of his fundamental contributions remains limited, in part because his dense formal style ultimately proved less accessible than Feynman’s more intuitive approach. However, the structure of modern theoretical physics would be inconceivable without Schwinger’s manifold insights. His work underlies much of modern physics, the source of which is often unknown even to the practitioners. His legacy lives on not only through his work, but also through his many students, who include leaders in physics and other fields.J. Mehra and K.A. Milton (M2000, p. v)

In the 50 years that passed since my student days, I have seen very little mention of QFT in its true fields-only sense. Instead I have seen a bombardment of books and articles that keep repeating the paradoxes that people are expected to accept. Physical intuition has disappeared or, worse yet, is sneered at. Far from bringing to the public an understanding of nature, these popular books and articles have brought confusion and chaos. This hit me hard one day as I was reading Joseph Heller’s memoir, Now and Then. Heller is the author of Catch 22, one of my all-time favorites, and when I read that he tried to understand quantum mechanics and had to give it up (see quote in Chapter 1), I knew that something was badly wrong. And so I decided to write a book.



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

Chapter 8
General Relativity

When a journalist asked the British astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington if it was true that he was one of only three people in the world who could understand Einstein’s relativity theories, Eddington considered deeply for a moment and replied: “I am trying to think who the third person is.” – B. Bryson (B2003, p. 124)

General Relativity is the name Einstein gave to his theory of gravity. As the theory is usually presented, gravity is said to be caused by curvature in four dimensional space-time. This is a concept beyond the reach of ordinary folks like you and me.

The non-mathematician is seized by a mysterious shuddering when he hears of ‘four-dimensional’ things, by a feeling not unlike that awakened by thoughts of the occult. — A. Einstein (E1961, p. 61)

In this chapter we will see that in QFT (and also in Einstein’s theory) there is no eerie fourth dimension: space is space and time is time. We will also see that gravity is caused by a force field — not curvature, and that, contrary to popular belief, QFT is compatible with general relativity.

SPACE-TIME ISN’T 4-DIMENSIONAL


The most challenging and non-intuitive of all the concepts in the general theory of relativity is the idea that time is part of space… Our brains can take us only so far because it is so nearly impossible to envision a dimension comprising three parts space to one part time, all interwoven like the threads in a plaid fabric.B. Bryson (B2003, p. 125-126)

Of course space-time is four-dimensional in the trivial sense that it takes four numbers to specify when and where an event takes place, but that doesn’t mean that space and time are equivalent. In QFT, as in Einstein’s theory, space and time play separate roles in accord with our natural perceptions. The idea that space-time must be viewed as a four-dimensional entity was introduced by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski. In a speech at Cologne in 1908, he expressed this view with great eloquence:

Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality… It is only in four dimensions that the relations here taken under consideration reveal their inner being in full simplicity, and that on a three-dimensional space forced upon us a priori they cast only a very complicated projection. H. Minkowski (E1923, p. 75, 90)

Einstein, however, did not subscribe to that view; he called it “superfluous erudition”. When adapting Minkowski’s mathematical formalism to describe the gravitational field, Einstein had to add the “imaginary” number i 1 to the time term. This makes the equations more compact and easier to work with, but Einstein was careful to distinguish the formal aspect of the notation from reality (emphases added):

The discovery of Minkowski… was of importance for the formal development of the theory of relativity… The four-dimensional space-time continuum of the theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space… Under these conditions, the natural laws… assume mathematical forms in which the time coordinate plays exactly the same role as the three space coordinates. A. Einstein (E1961, p. 63)


Einstein is saying that the four-dimensional notation is useful for physicists; it is a convenient way of handling the mathematical relationship between space evolution and time evolution that is required by special relativity. One might almost say that physicists couldn’t live without it. Nevertheless, space and time are different, and I say shame on those who try to foist and force the four-dimensional concept onto the public as essential to the understanding of relativity theory.

GRAVITY ISN’T CURVATURE

In most presentations of physics today we are told that gravity is caused by “curvature of space-time”. This was not Einstein’s view, nor is it the view of QFT. Einstein believed that gravity is a force field, not unlike the electromagnetic field.

[There is] a field of force, namely the gravitational field, which possesses the remarkable property of imparting the same acceleration to all bodies.Albert Einstein (E1923, p. 114)

The idea of space-time curvature, like the four-dimensional concept, had its origin in mathematics. When searching for a mathematical method that could embody his Principle of Equivalence, Einstein was led to the equations of Riemannian geometry. And yes, these equations describe four-dimensional curvature, for those who can visualize it. Mathematicians are not limited by physical constraints; equations that have a physical meaning in three dimensions can be generalized algebraically to any number of dimensions. But when you do this, you are dealing with algebra, not geometry.

To those who are geometrically inclined, two dimensions is a breeze, three dimensions routine, and four dimensions impossible. But to those who think algebraically, two, three, or four dimensions are just particular examples of spaces with any number of dimensions. In this sense, Riemann was an algebraist.J. Schwinger (S1986, p. 175-176)

Because this is such a controversial question, I will quote two more Nobel laureates who expressed similar thoughts:

We can describe general relativity using either of two mathematically equivalent ideas: curved space-time or metric field. Mathematicians, mystics, and specialists in general relativity tend to like the geometric view because of its elegance. Physicists trained in the more empirical tradition of high-energy physics and quantum field theory tend to prefer the field view… More important, as we’ll see in a moment, the field view makes Einstein’s theory of gravity look more like the other successful theories of fundamental physics, and so makes it easier to work toward a fully integrated, unified description of all the laws. As you 160 can probably tell, I’m a field man. F. Wilczek (W2008, p. 100- 101)

It is certainly a historical fact that when Albert Einstein was working out general relativity, there was at hand a preexisting mathematical formalism, that of Riemannian geometry, that he could and did take over whole. However, this historical fact does not mean that the essence of general relativity necessarily consists in the application of Riemannian geometry to physical space and time. In my view, it is much more useful to regard general relativity above all as a theory of gravitation, whose connection with geometry arises from the peculiar empirical properties of gravitation.S. Weinberg (W1972, p. vii, p.3)

A physicist friend of mine put it more succinctly: “Why would God invent a different mechanism for another force?”

GRAVITY AND QFT ARE COMPATIBLE
It is often said that general relativity is incompatible with quantum theory. Julian Schwinger did not agree.

[Consider] a neutral field that presumably possesses no internal properties and responds dynamically to the space-time attributes of other systems… It appears that in the hierarchy of fields there is a natural place for the gravitational field. J. Schwinger (S1957, p. 433)

Schwinger went on to publish two papers on “The quantized gravitational field” in the Physical Review in 1963. This is not to say there is no problem with quantum gravity. Just as the QFT equations for the EM field led to infinite values, so the gravitational field equations lead to infinities, but these infinities cannot be circumvented by renormalization, as described in Chapter 6. But this does not mean that QFT and general relativity are inconsistent. It only means that the interaction of a gravitational quantum with its self-field is not described by the theory (see “The gaps” in Chapter 10). Although renormalization doesn’t work for quantum gravity, Schwinger found another way around the problem of the infinities, using a method he called source theory. Using this method, he was able to reproduce all four of Einstein’s classic results: gravitational red shift, deflection and slowing down of light by gravity, and the perihelion precession of Mercury (S1970, p. 82- 85). The neglect of source theory by the physics community was a major disappointment for Schwinger:

The lack of appreciation of these facts by others was depressing, but understandableJ. Schwinger (S1970, Preface).

So once again, you the reader have a choice, as you did in regard to the two approaches to special relativity. Einstein’s equations can be interpreted as describing a curvature of space-time, unpicturable as this may be, or as a quantum field in three-dimensional space, similar to the other quantum force fields. To the physicist, it really doesn’t make much difference. Physicists are more concerned with solving their equations than with interpreting them:

The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images 162 on the astronomers photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so on, and it simply doesn’t matter whether we ascribe these predictions to the physical effects of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and photons or to a curvature of space and time. (The reader should be warned that these views are heterodox and would meet with objections from many general relativists.)S. Weinberg, (W1972, p. 147)

You can believe that gravitational effects are caused by curvature of spacetime if you want or, like Einstein, Weinberg, Wilczek (and me), you can view gravity as a force field that exists in three-dimensional space and evolves in time according to the gravitational field equations.

SUMMARY
1. In QFT, space is the same three-dimensional “Euclidean” space that we intuitively believe in, and time is the same time that we intuitively believe in.

2. The gravitational field is a force field like the other force fields, but with a higher spin, or helicity, of 2. Four-dimensional curvature is best left to the physicists who find it useful in their calculations.

3. General relativity is compatible with QFT, at least in Schwinger’s formulation. However, unlike the equations for the EM field, the gravity field equations cannot be renormalized and calculations cannot be made at the quantum level.
 

Channa

Jedi
FOTCM Member
Hello to all of you
First of all, a big thank you to Ark for these videos
I listened to the first video with ease (for the language) because there were English subtitles, which made it easier for me to understand.
But for the second video on "the weather", no subtitle....What a pity.
I don't know much about mathematics, let alone quantum physics, but I'm really interested.
I am a stained glass artist/craftsman and the Bluegazer question made me think of two things I thought of yesterday :
Yesterday I read a sentence like "a thought-form emitted with love and without egotistical desire propagated in the universe in different geometrical forms".
I liked this reflection
When I create a stained-glass window, it is a set of lines and colours, a sort of "grid" made of different shapes.
To begin with, I work flat, the stained glass is horizontal, in a dimension
When the welds are made, I raise it vertically, another dimension and the "grid" vibrates in another way.
Then comes the colour, if I am in front of the stained glass, I see the colours, the light in a certain way, but if I stand back, I see the light and the colours spreading out on the floor in other geometric forms, another dimension.
It is always the same object, the same time, the same light, but it vibrates and is seen in a different way.
A small reflection from a craftswoman, which I hope will not have bothered you.

Tenderness for all and thank you, Ark and the whole group.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
 

John G

The Living Force
I am really interested to know Ark's thoughts on QFT and Julian Schwinger's ideas...

Julian Schwinger was one of the most important and influential scientists of the twentieth century… Yet even among physicists, recognition of his fundamental contributions remains limited, in part because his dense formal style ultimately proved less accessible than Feynman’s more intuitive approach. However, the structure of modern theoretical physics would be inconceivable without Schwinger’s manifold insights...
Ark has worked with bounded complex domains and I have seen them related to Schwinger sources.
 
The most challenging and non-intuitive of all the concepts in the general theory of relativity is the idea that time is part of space…

only for reference and maybe to help others researchers, I use Space-Time to refer 3D (physicall) and Time-Space to refer 4D (psych).

Space exists because Time are previously created. To move from one point to another takes time, even if the time is Zero (or near Zero). I think that exactly where the Relativity and the physic Singularities live.

The relativity is in between, and Singularities in on these (extreme) Zeros and Infinites, even because the divisions by Zero result in Infinite, and divisions by infinite tends to results in Zero

---

Dear people, is not that way we can achieve a solution, based on the Aristotelic Paradox, because Aristotelic-Newtonian Paradigm "is limited to physicall world" (as visible world), So the best we can have is some good 3D (space-time) analogies, which invariably fail when approach to zeroes and infinities.

Since ancient greek Aristotelic culture to Albert Einstein versus Niels Bohr (quantum physics) modern discussions this paradox continues the same, although the Secret Societies working on Abstract Meanings (of extra-physicall world) always know how to deal with It, using a more advanced paradigm, indeed.

I'm not intended to explain all aspects, but give some ways to research by parameters more promising. First thing is understand that a time-line it's a big circle and not a straight line, so it's basically a cicle, which repeat, repeat, etc. Once that time-cicle is applied on Space, result on a Spiral Spring shape, as to say.

if you have understood this far, you may better understand what fractals could be.

Because Time is circular (and not an infinite straight line) we can relatively "predict the future" and / or "remember the past", just using statistics (quantum) data stored in one (current) single cicle, of course, if you are aware of It. Regard that by on this other new paradigm sugested, there is neither Zero nor Infinity, although still preserves a relative kind of start and ending points (like the fractals)

How to be aware of Time Cicles or the Circular Time ?
The keywords of Karma and Destiny, Memories and Yearnings are directly related to this matter, so a physic (limited) paradigm it's not suitable to work fine on psych and mental "energetic densities" .. to that need to change the working paradigm.

A good (flat) analogy is a cross-sectional cut in the trunk of a tree, where concentric circles can be observed, which determine not only the age (time) of the tree, but how each circle (cycle) have been developed. Another better analogy is the "famous" layered onion used as symbol. Another more advanced (fractal 3D) analogy, would be a small seed that grows in a huge plant that (cyclically) produces hundreds of new seeds to develop new plants.

To conclude this (controversial) post, I still add that although the surface of planet Earth appears to be visually flat, it is actually a sphere surface.

I hope these few words helps someone to understand 4D more better ..
 

Chu

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Hello to all of you
First of all, a big thank you to Ark for these videos
I listened to the first video with ease (for the language) because there were English subtitles, which made it easier for me to understand.
But for the second video on "the weather", no subtitle....What a pity.

You should be able to watch it with the subtitles now. The second one was about "time" ("temps", "tiempo", as in past, present and future) :-) It's confusing for Spanish and French speakers, because it CAN also mean "weather".
 

Madara Horseman

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
Question for Ark and Pierre.

It seems from all the sessions about the Information Field, it works with geometry and possibly frequencies as well. Chladni plates are a medium, which can help us get certain geometry configurations from frequencies we play. Maybe with AI we can even find a way to model it or simulate it.

Can we, then, go in the reverse mode and get frequencies of any kind from certain geometry configurations? Anyone else thought about this?
 

iamthatis

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Hello to all of you
First of all, a big thank you to Ark for these videos
I listened to the first video with ease (for the language) because there were English subtitles, which made it easier for me to understand.
But for the second video on "the weather", no subtitle....What a pity.
I don't know much about mathematics, let alone quantum physics, but I'm really interested.
I am a stained glass artist/craftsman and the Bluegazer question made me think of two things I thought of yesterday :
Yesterday I read a sentence like "a thought-form emitted with love and without egotistical desire propagated in the universe in different geometrical forms".
I liked this reflection
When I create a stained-glass window, it is a set of lines and colours, a sort of "grid" made of different shapes.
To begin with, I work flat, the stained glass is horizontal, in a dimension
When the welds are made, I raise it vertically, another dimension and the "grid" vibrates in another way.
Then comes the colour, if I am in front of the stained glass, I see the colours, the light in a certain way, but if I stand back, I see the light and the colours spreading out on the floor in other geometric forms, another dimension.
It is always the same object, the same time, the same light, but it vibrates and is seen in a different way.
A small reflection from a craftswoman, which I hope will not have bothered you.

Tenderness for all and thank you, Ark and the whole group.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Beautifully written. It would be wonderful to see some of your work if you would care to share.
 
Top Bottom