Arxiu de la categoria ‘General’

Don’t get what you want? | Jennice Vilhauer

dilluns, 20/05/2019

Jennice Vilhauer – Psychologist

This event took place on November 13, 2015 in Atlanta, Georgia.

TRANSCRIPT

Raise your hands if you’d like to win the lottery. Keep your hand raised, if in the past month, you actually bought a lottery ticket.

You don’t need a psychologist to tell you why you didn’t buy those tickets you didn’t expect to win. Given the odds of winning the lottery, that might seem like a reasonable conclusion. But what’s important to learn here is that you act based on what you expect, not what you want. What you want and what you expect are completely different.

An expectation is a belief about whether or not you’re going to get what you want. As a psychologist that studies how people create their futures, one of the things I have learned that having an expectation that differs from what you want isn’t just the reason you don’t buy lottery tickets. It’s the reason why there are lots of things that you want, but you can’t quite seem to attain them.

expectation + action = creation of your life experiences

Losing that last five to ten pounds, going for that dream job or relationship, it’s the reason why no matter how hard you try to create change, you often stay stuck. Because expectation + action = creation of your life experiences. Now it might surprise you to know that most people go about their daily life thinking that they are acting on what they want, when in reality, they are acting on their expectations.

I was working with a client of mine recently. I’m going to call her Amy. She was a gorgeous and successful woman, but she was also sort of shy, very self-deprecating, and she had a history of picking the wrong men. Amy had recently gotten out of a bad marriage and she worked on herself, so she was ready to meet someone new. And she decided she was going to give online dating a try.

But she was having one bad date after the next. The men didn’t look like their pictures, they would forget their wallets. Some of them didn’t show up at all. One day, Amy comes into my office, and she immediately bursts into tears. “I had the most awful date of my life.”

“Well how bad was he?”

“He was amazing,” she said, “Absolutely everything I had been looking for.” She said, “I completely blew it. I was so certain this was going to be another bad date and a waste of my time, I told him to meet me for coffee after my yoga class. Didn’t have time to shower, just showed up in my gym clothes, hot and sweaty, no make-up. And there he was, Mr. Immaculately Groomed, tall and handsome, the perfect smile.”

She said, “I was so mortified, and self-conscious, I couldn’t even make eye contact. I just sat there, staring at the ground laughing nervously, until finally I told him I had to put more money in my parking meter, and then I left, without even saying goodbye.”

Amy acted on what she expected, another bad date, not what she wanted, which was to meet that great guy. I wish I could say this kind of behavior was uncommon. But having been in practice for more than 12 years, one of the things I hear most often is “I want to change my life, but I don’t really believe that I can.”

I’ve seen people give up on their marriages, their health, their careers, give up on their entire lives, because they didn’t think they could get what they wanted, and so they weren’t willing to try.

There is probably something that you want in your life right now, but you’re not sure if you can attain it, and so you’re holding back. When you don’t act on what you want, you take yourself out of the game. Buying that lottery ticket doesn’t guarantee winning, but not buying it guarantees losing.

Now you might be wondering: why do we do this? Our brains work on the principle of anticipation; we constantly predict what we think is likely to happen before it ever occurs. If you’re walking in the park, and you hear a dog barking behind you, and then turn around to see big foot, you’re going to be very surprised, although it would make a really great selfie.

As soon as you start to anticipate any event, you begin to act and feel in ways that help you prepare for what you think is going to happen. If anyone has ever said to you, “We need to talk,” then you know exactly what I mean. I see the men nodding.

When you prepare for something that hasn’t even happened yet, you participate in creating the outcome. In other words, you create the self-fulfilling prophecy. Because Amy was acting anxious and ambivalent before her date, she acted on what she expected not on what she wanted, and so she got what she expected; another bad date.

One of the reasons that our expectations can keep us so stuck is we have an automatic tendency to use the past to predict the future. If you failed once, you’re likely to think you might fail again. When you think about the future, the same part of the brain gets activated as when you think of the past. However, just because you use the past to make predictions, doesn’t mean that your past is what’s holding you back.

What was holding Amy back wasn’t her past; it was that she didn’t believe her future could be better than the past. And without that belief, she wasn’t able to create something better, even though an opportunity had presented itself right in front of her.

If you’re aware of what your expectations are in a situation, then you have the ability to use your conscious mind to override the automatic thinking, and plan for how to create a different outcome. If Amy had planned for her date to go well, things might have turned out differently.

Our expectations about our ability to get what we want have a very profound impact on our emotional well-being. A large part of our brain is dedicated to anticipating rewards: rewards, to put it simply, are all the things you want that make life worth living. As J.R. Tolkien said, “A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities.” When you expect to get a reward, you feel positive emotions like happiness and joy. But when you don’t think you’re going to get what you want, you feel sadness, disappointment, maybe even depression.

The larger the gap between what you expect and what you want, the more distressed you feel. So what do you do when what you want doesn’t match up with what you expect? There is only two ways you can feel good in this situation. You can give up wanting what you want, tell yourself it wasn’t really worth the effort, you didn’t really want it anyway. Or you can change your expectations to match up with what you want, so that you can take consistent action.

So how do you do that? I’m going to give you three simple steps that will help you begin to shift your expectations. What I want you to do right now though is imagine an upcoming future event: it can be a goal that you’re trying to achieve, a work presentation, an upcoming holiday event with your family. Got it?

What I want you to do for step number one is: Ask yourself, “How is what I’m expecting making me feel?” If you’re expecting something positive to happen, then you’re going to be feeling really good about it, and you can stop right there. No need to fix positive emotions.

But if you’re expecting something you don’t want, then you are going to be feeling a negative emotion like anxiety, fear, dread, overwhelmed. Those are all signs that you have some negative expectations about that situation.

Step number two: Ask yourself, “What would I like to have happened instead?” What this question identifies is what you really do want in a situation. What you want, is oftentimes the very thing that you are not expecting. Remember, you want to win the lottery, but you don’t expect to.

Step number three: Ask yourself, “What do I need to do to make what I want happen?” When you have a negative expectation about a future event, it’s because you’re focused on all the things that could go wrong, why it’s not going to work out for you. You’re not generating thoughts and ideas about how to make it go right.

When you see a plan laid out in front of you for how to get what you want, your assessment of the situation starts to change; you begin to see the possibility. This is where the shift happens. Every successful action that you take towards that plan starts to change your expectations.

So I realize some of you might be thinking: “I don’t expect this to work for me.” And to be perfectly honest, several years ago, I may not have expected a simple process like this to make a difference in people’s lives either. But I was working with a very depressed patient, I had been treating him for about six months. And we had done so much work together, but nothing we did seemed to make any difference.

One day I asked him, “Where is the light at the end of the tunnel?” He looked at me with one of the blankest stares I had ever seen. After that day, I started asking all my patients this question, and I was startled to realize that many of them looked at me in the exact same way. They didn’t dare to dream about how their lives could be different, because they didn’t believe it was possible.

So I started to change the focus of my work to almost exclusively helping my patients shift those expectations, so that they could find their light at the end of the tunnel. Five years of research shows changing your expectations can significantly improve your life. and I’ve witnessed some very awe-inspiring transformations. The patient I mentioned earlier? Within a year, had quit his dead-end job and started his own successful company.

When you’re motivated by what you want, change is possible. In the words of Henry Ford, “Whether you think you can or think you can’t, you are right.” Your past isn’t what defines who you are or where you are going. It’s your expectations of the future that limit you most.

Now, here’s the good news: You can choose. You can choose to take action based on what you want. And when you do that, you give yourself the opportunity to step out of the past, and create the life that you truly want to live.

Thank you.

[APPLAUSE]

 

 

Dorothée Loorbach | about money & value

diumenge, 19/05/2019

In this talk, Dorothée Loorbach unmasks our relation to money and reveals her personal life-changing learnings from her six months project of becoming financially carefree again.

Dorothée Loorbach – TEDx Talk

TRANSCRIPT

I used to be successful according to society. I had left a well-paid job in marketing to become an entrepreneur. And very soon I could buy anything I wanted. Not anything in the world; anything I wanted which was a lot still.

00:28

My impulse purchases included a brand new car and a house. My entire life was just about fun and I can say I created some amazing memories. But it was just fun. I wanted more. I wanted joy. I wanted to do something that would last, something that mattered.

So I started working with students, and this was fantastic. For the first time in my life, people would come up to me and say “Thank you. You’ve changed my life.” And that was so valuable to me that I would do it for just a little bit of money. If they wouldn’t pay me enough, I would even do it for free a lot until I reached the point where even a small financial setback could ruin me as an entrepreneur.

And of course, it did.

01:20

In the middle of summer of 2016 when all schools are closed and I wouldn’t have any income for another two months or so, I received five envelopes at the same time from the tax services, demanding that I pay for my glory days immediately. This cost me everything I had — all my savings, all the money that I had and all I had left in an instant was just a few coins that I found between the cushions of the sofa and in my coat pockets and in my car and €3.97 in the bank.

Two days later, my daughter would come back from staying with her father. She would come back on her birthday and I couldn’t afford to bake her a cake. What I wanted to do was just to crawl into bed and cry which I don’t like and just hide under the covers until it would all just go away, but I couldn’t. I didn’t have time because I only had 48 hours to prove to myself that I was better than this, that I was a good mother.

02:36

So what I did was the most terrifying and the most embarrassing thing I’ve ever done in my life. I decided to expose myself publicly as a failure. And I thought that the best place to start would be rock bottom. So I gave away my last bit of money and then I had absolutely nothing and then the only way was up.

I called it the Money Project. I published a video on Facebook stating that I had failed gloriously as an entrepreneur, that I was totally broke and that I was determined to change my situation, to learn anything I could about entrepreneurship and business money and enhance my financial intelligence. And that I was determined to become free of financial stress within six months, and to go from nothing to a fortune or at least discover what the secret to doing that was and to become a successful entrepreneur.

03:40

And I would write a book about it and this book I would sell right away for €10 a copy and that day I didn’t dare look at the responses on my timeline because this was quite scary. But that Thursday I sold 64 books and I had a fortune. Until this day I’ve never felt more rich in my entire life because this meant I could now bake a birthday cake and she could have a proper birthday which she did.

And then I read, I blogged, I blogged, I interviewed. I learned anything I could and I succeeded. Within six months I was free of financial stress and I could say that I was a successful entrepreneur. And all this time I had been thinking that this money project — what I called it — was about money of course and business. But deep down it was about something completely different: it was about value and about life and I will share with you what I learned about life.

04:47

MONEY IS IMPORTANT

Lesson number one: money is important. Quite a cliché but I was raised in a way to believe that money is not important. And I inherited this conviction somehow — I can’t blame anyone in particular but somehow there it planted a conviction in my head that people with money are not nice people. So when I had money I would spend it as soon as I could and then when I found my purpose working with students I just didn’t ask for it. I didn’t care. I just wanted to change the world which I had no impact on whatsoever with €3.97.

And I also learned that money doesn’t make you a bad person; it just makes you more of who you are. So if you’re a jerk with a lot of money you’re probably a jerk when you’re broke as well. And if I would have more money I would simply give more but if I have to worry about money every day all day I can’t even take care of myself and I have nothing to give.

05:52

Lesson number two: money equals time.

As soon as we start working, we start exchanging time for money which is a problem because we can always make more money but we can never make more time and I started to exchange my time for far too little money I could barely survive. And at the end of the month there was nothing ever left to invest in my future.

So I would have to spend all my time to make just a little bit of money and I would probably have to do that for the rest of my life because there was nothing left. And for the rest of my life I would have given away the one thing that means the very most to me which is time: time with my loved ones and time for myself.

So I decided that it was time that I value my time. I would spend it more consciously and when it comes to work, I would have to exchange it for more money so I could spend less time working and more time actually living.

06:58

MONEY EQUALS VALUE

Lesson number three: money equals value. It took me two years to discover that the Money Project is not about money; it’s about value. And I’ve always seen myself as a confident person but I didn’t value myself because the way you treat yourself is a reflection of the way you see yourself. And I’ve been treating myself like crap which I found it terrible example to set for my daughter.

So changing my rates was not enough. I had to change the way I see myself. I had to start seeing myself as a person of value and that was not easily done, it’s a process and I’m still working on it. So I still — on a regular basis I still have to remind myself it’s okay; you’re worth every penny. And even now I find it hard to say this out louder. I get a bit embarrassed so I’m still learning. I have to keep practicing.

08:01

WHAT PEOPLE SAY DOESN’T MATTER

Lesson number four: what people say doesn’t matter. “You’re a cheap whore, you’re a fraud, how can you do this to your child”, just a few of the comments that I received. The hateful ones were on my timeline on Facebook. But the quiet ones they hit safely in my inbox confessing only to me that they had screwed up too, that they too had found that purpose and wanted to change the world and worked really hard 80 hours a week just like me and barely surviving but no one could know. So they didn’t go public because they were too ashamed to be a failure.

But they were very glad that I went public and exposed myself as a failure because now they could learn from my mistakes.

08:56

And I was thankful that I could help them and I was also thankful for the haters whether it was the strangers on my timeline or even some of my own friends talking badly about me behind my back, because they taught me that nothing is ever personal, not really. What people say about you and what people think about you it comes from their view of the world; it’s from their opinions and their values and their experiences and maybe they’re having a bad day or they’re very insecure or unhappy. It has nothing to do with you and the way other people treat you is not a reflection of who you are, it’s a reflection of who they are.

So now when someone says something hurtful to me it still hurts but not as much, because I know it probably has nothing to do with me.

09:45

WHAT PEOPLE SAY MATTERS

Lesson number five: what people say matters. What people say matters most when people is you, because a person with the most opinions about you, the person who talks to you the most is you and you tend to believe yourself right, so be kind.

A few days into the project I asked my daughter how do our money worries make you feel and she said we don’t have money worries, we just have less money than most people .And then I realized that until that moment I had been saying to myself on a regular basis you’re such a failure. And then I realized because of my daughter that that kind of thinking was not going to do my circumstances any good and that’s what they are – circumstances. They don’t define you; your response to them does. And my response was to be kind to myself, to say to myself you’ll be ok, you can do this and then whatever it took I would do it.

10:53

IT’S REALLY SIMPLE

Lesson number six: it’s really simple. I learned so much about business and entrepreneurship and compounding investing, entrepreneurship, about scalability, our rates, sales, low-hanging fruit, runway, value propositions but to be honest everything I learned I could have learned from my grandmother. Because the essence is this: spend less; earn more; invest wisely; and most of all value yourself.

But simple is not always easy. Let me ask you a question: who makes more money today than you did at your very first job? That’s quite a lot of people okay, be ready.

There’s another question. Be honest; I promise I won’t tell anyone but be honest. Who’s still at the end of the month sometimes is out of money or a lot of times maybe yeah, that’s quite a lot. Huh! Okay you’re not alone and this is why it’s called Parkinson’s Law. Your expenses will always rise to match your income. This is why most people retire poor and why lottery winners tend to end up with less money a few years after they won than they had before.

And about a year after I started the money project, I was earning a lot of money. I was doing well but still I didn’t really have anything left at the end of the month. And I realized that when it comes to spending, I’m a 12 year old so I should treat myself accordingly. So now I hardly have any access to my money. As soon as money comes in most of it goes straight to accounts that I cannot touch and I will probably have to do this for the rest of my life and I don’t care, because if there’s one thing that I learned from this project is I can’t afford to be poor.

06:13

BEING BROKE SUCKS

Lesson number eight: being broke sucks. It does. Two years ago, my entire life was urgent, everything was urgent. I had to be a full-time problem solver which is both exhausting and impossible; it’s a catch-22 because scarcity captures the mind. Research shows that when all you can think about and that was a case for me — when all you can think about how do I get food on the table tonight, how do I get money today, that takes up all of your thinking space, there’s no room left to solve anything for tomorrow or next week or to make a change next year; you’re stuck in the situation.

And my situation was that my brain felt like a ticking time bomb. I can still today hear the sound of the bills dropping on my doormat and it still freaks me out. And day and night I felt this blind panic. I couldn’t breathe. There was no way out. I was suffocating. So the first thing and the only thing that I could do was breathe… I freed my mind and I made a decision that I was going to be successful in the direction of my purpose. I found my focus. I stopped sabotaging myself and I became successful.

14:30

STAY BROKE

Lesson 9: Stay broke. Epictetus said a very long time ago, “Wealth consists not in having great possessions but in having few wants.” The paradox is that the more money you have, the more silence and no Wi-Fi become a luxury. It’s ridiculous how much money rich people — money-wise — rich people spend on going somewhere quiet.

When I had nothing all I could have thought was to go somewhere quiet to just sit still or read a book or go outside, go for a run, play with my child and in those moments I found my most profound moments of happiness. I learned that my daughter doesn’t need any money or expensive gifts or fancy trips. All she wants really is a few moments a day of my undivided attention. And all I really want is to be present in my own life.

So now that I have money I choose to live as if I’m broke and without the worries I can finally say money is not important.

{Applause}

Bernard d’Espagnat et Étienne Klein

dilluns, 13/05/2019

Une brillante initiation aux problématiques de la physique, science qui entre toutes a connu récemment les plus grands bouleversements.

Bernard d’Espagnat : la réalité c’est quoi ?

dilluns, 13/05/2019
Conférence Bernard d’Espagnat, Professeur émérite de l’université Paris-Orsay, membre de l’Institut, 2012.

La physique classique de nos pères passait pour lever le voile des apparences et décrire le réel tel qu’il est vraiment. Ses échecs la firent remplacer par la physique quantique, couronnée de succès dans ses multiples applications mais dont la structure est difficilement compatible – on verra pourquoi – avec un tel pouvoir de description. La phrase de Henri Poincaré : “les objets réels que la nature nous cachera éternellement” était-elle donc prémonitoire ? Si oui quelles révisions cela nous incite-t-il à faire quant à notre conception de la science en général ? Quant à la signification des apports de nos sens ? Quant à ce qu’est “le monde” et notre relation à lui ?

 

 

 

 

Matter, what is it exactly?

dijous, 2/05/2019

Everything around us is made of ‘stuff’, from planets, to books, to our own bodies. Whatever it is, we call it matter or material substance. It is solid; it has mass. But what is matter, exactly?

We are taught in school that matter is not continuous, but discrete. As a few of the philosophers of an-cient Greece once speculated, nearly two and a half thousand years ago, matter comes in ‘lumps’, and science has relentlessly peeled away successive layers of matter to reveal its ultimate constituents.Surely, we can’t keep doing this indefinitely. We imagine that we should eventually run up against some kind of ultimately fundamental, indivisible type of stuff, the building blocks from which everything in the Uni-verse is made. The English physicist Paul Dirac called this ‘the dream of philosophers’. But science has discovered that the foundations of our Universe are not as solid or as certain and dependable as we might have once imagined. They are instead built from ghosts and phantoms, of a peculiar quantum kind. And, at some point on this exciting journey of scientific discovery, we lost our grip on the reassuringly familiar concept of mass.How did this happen? How did the answers to our questions become so complicated and so difficult to comprehend? In Mass Jim Baggott explains how we come to find ourselves here, con-fronted by a very different understanding of the nature of matter, the origin of mass, and its implications for our understanding of the material world. Ranging from the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus, and their theories of atoms and void, to the development of quantum field theory and the discovery of a Higgs boson-like particle, he explores our changing understanding of the nature of matter, and the fundamental related concept of mass.

Transcript

[Music]Now this is called mass. But I’m not taking confession well if you really insist and make me beg me maybe later on we can do something along those lines over a pint of beer in the pub afterwards I know it doesn’t always seem like it but trust me an author really does need a reason to sit down and write a book

00:26

so my reason for wanting to write this particular book was to try to convey something some sense of what has been an understanding in contemporary physics for already quite a number of years

00:43

but which I felt actually wasn’t really that wonderfully well understood or commonly understood and that is the way that modern physics conceives the nature of matter and in particular the property of massso what I want to try and do is to give you a sense of the journey that I went on myself researching and then writing this book to give you some sense perhaps also of the maybe sense of astonishment or wonder where contemporary science feels that we’ve landed up

01:17

and I’m gonna give by setting myself a hopefully not too difficult mission so this is my mission Jim should I choose to accept ithere’s a cube of ice and I’m gonna ask myself to really hopefully quite simple questions about this stuffI want to know what is it made of and I want to try to answer the question where would I look to find its mass

01:51

so we know ice don’t we it’s what you put in your gin and tonic

or increasingly the cosmopolitan is among you in your glass of Sauvignon Blanc as the Italians do

we know it’s made of water and we’re going to start the story with the ancient Greeks

02:18

because much of our common understanding of the nature of material substance actually comes from a handful of Greek philosophers dating back about 450 years before Year Zero before the Common Era

names like Leucippus if he really existed Democritus then later a hundred years later or so Epicurus and much of Epicurus work was actually translated into a grand poem by the Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius

02:52

and a great place to start because Epicurus once said nothing comes into being out of what is non-existent

that’s philosophers for you

I can guarantee you the cryptic crossword puzzles were ace in ancient Greek times

we’re talking of course about the famous Greek elements earth air fire and water that’s good because we know ice is made of water and we’re interested in exploring a little bit more about what is what what that water is made of

and we get the sense that nothing comes out of stuff that doesn’t exist

a great start what Epicurious is really saying is it’s our common observation that nothing magically appears out of nothing stuff just doesn’t appear

03:41

and there’s a corollary to that if it’s a common experience that stuff doesn’t magically appear it is also our common experience that stuff doesn’t magically disappear

push that to its logical conclusion and you end up in a situation where you have to accept

that nature resolves everything

into its constituent atoms

and nothing no substance can be resolved completely into nothing

it’s a simple logical consequence if nothing can come from nothing and nothing can be resolved into nothing then by definition when I have something it must resolve into some indestructible individual indivisible bits stuff

what the Greeks called atoms

even better we know that the ancient Greeks speculated that if you accept that substance like water consists of atoms then by definition atoms must be moving in something which the Greeks called the void empty space is how we think of it today

and there had to be a reason for that motion

04:58

and so the Greeks had no real difficulty in ascribing properties to these atoms as you can see from the little diagram they gave them different shapes

some were spiky with hooks that would cling to each other giving them certain characteristic properties that we can actually see manifested in our experience of different substances

but if they were perpetually in motion then the argument went they must have something called wait (weight) they you know fall through the void

much like heavy rain drops will fall from the heavens on an otherwise warm June Sunday afternoon

05:38

ok even further sea water being fluid ok must consist of round atoms so here we’re getting quite a few answers to our opening questions

what is it made of well ice is made of water water is made of hard round atoms that are indestructible and indivisible

and those atoms in their turn must have the property of weight okay

good start everyone happy, everyone happy, thank you

alright then we have to wait (weight) Oh quite a long time I don’t want to give you the impression that there was nothing going on in the thirteen or fourteen hundred years between the ancient Greek philosophers and the times perhaps a little bit before Isaac Newton the times of Galileo, Bacon, Robert Boyle and others contemporary with Newton

06:40

but I just thought I’d pull this quote from an online encyclopedia of philosophy called the Stanford online encyclopedia of philosophy and at this when I read it at really struck a chord

here is a recipe for producing medieval philosophy and the stuff that was going on in the thirteen hundred years between the Greeks and Newton

combine classical pagan philosophy mainly Greek but also in its Roman versions with the new Christian religion seasoned with a variety of flavoring from the Jewish and Islamic intellectual Heritage’s stir and simmer for 1300 years or more until done

so there was a lot going on but most of the intellectuals most of of the minds of thinkers in this period were devoted to trying to reconcile the pagan philosophical texts of the Greeks with the demands effectively of the Catholic Church and other orthodoxes

and eventually things started to free up the first universities of course were created out of out of monasteries to all intents and purposes so that kind of sense of monastic scholarship translated itself into academic scholarship and it’s slowly over a long period of time began possible to start speculating along lines that were not so long not not any longer theological you could start to speculate about the nature of the natural world that didn’t necessarily have always to reference back to some kind of religious orthodoxy

so to be fair though Newton we tend to regard Newton as one of the the first among a generation of scientists

08:31

but in truth Newton was a mechanical philosopher his famous book published in 1687 was it’s English tragic English title is the mathematical principles of natural philosophy

so these folks understood that they were doing natural philosophy but of a particular mechanical kind it was the mechanical investigation of nature

Newton of course had a lot to say about things like motion and gravitation which we’ll talk about in a little while

but these philosophers these mechanical philosophers also held an understanding that substance was ultimately composed of indivisible hard atoms but their concept of mechanical atoms was not really that much more sophisticated than the conceptions that the ancient Greeks had put forward hundreds of thousands of years before

09:24

all right Newton Oh went further Newton speculated that not only were these little hard know what you thought were little hard billiard balls of material substance

moving in the void that they might also actually have forces acting between them that was something the Greeks never latched onto as far as they were concerned all of the motion was due to the weight of the atoms the idea that there might exist different kinds of forces between atoms was new but very speculative Newton had no experimental grounds for making tha kind of statement

09:56

the other thing tha we would look to Newton for is really a good understanding of things that are manifest in our visual world of experience to do with the motion of objects

things with mass things with acceleration as a result of the acting of a force of some kind and so here at least if we can’t get further insigh into the nature of atoms themselves we can at least get some insights into the nature of this thing that we’re calling mass or weight

10:29

which are no differentiating between in these in this talk

and indeed there is a definition of mass in Newtons mathematical principles of natural philosophy and it reads something like this the quantity of matter or mass is a measure of the same

arising from its density and bulk which we can interpre as volume conjointly

see anything wrong with that it was Ernst Mac coming a couple of hundred years later who actually pointed out the formulation of Newton is unfortunate as we can only define density as the mass

of a unit of volume the circle is manifest and that by the way in the corner there is a vicious circle

so Newton who would expect to be the champion of clarity his second law of motion is force equals mass times acceleration these are concepts that are embedded deep in our common understanding of what’s known now as classical physics

and and I would say that’s a physics that is just consistent with our everyday observations a watch a game of tennis watch Andy Murray lose in the semi-final of the French Open to Stan Wawrinka and you get a sense for the way that their motion of the tennis ball is affected by a force

11:57

watch a game of snooker on the TV get in your car and accelerate at high speed along the m4 well until you get to the first set of traffic cones and you get a sense for what Newton’s classical physics is trying to tell you

but start to pick at it and you’ll find that some of the fundamental concepts that we are so very familiar with and start to unravel a little bit because in truth something as important and fundamental as mass was never really defined properly in the first place

mark had a go at defining mass but only relative to other masses

there was no real attempt to come up with a a firm understanding at a derivation almost as to what mass is

all right so we’ve got some problems we have not any further along with our understanding of the nature of atoms and we’ve got this bit of a wobble when it comes to understanding what mass is but let’s keep going those two questions where I started at the beginning seemed so fairly straightforward we’ve should surely be able to get some light at the end of the tunnel if we keep our heads down and keep going

13:09

okay move on well when you don’t get clarity from the chemists from the physicists you can always rely on chemists and some hundred years after Newton again John Dalton wasn’t the only one here I’m picking ou and singling out these heroes jus really to encapsulate what was essentially a movement the responsibility of many individuals involved in its development

13:35

but John Dalton famously said that he’d come to some enlightened understanding of the nature of chemical substances by looking at their weights

and understanding in fact that he could understand chemical substances in terms of the nature of the atoms that they contained

13:58

so this is the beginnings of a burgeoning understanding of chemistry and in fact if I’m hones really the foundations along with the development of the science of thermodynamics the development of the beginnings the seeds of the Industrial Revolution

Dalton was was pretty commercially when it came to an understanding of the composition of water as far as he was concerned it was one out of them hydrogen and one atom of oxygen

Antoine Lavoisier wasn’t sure but Antoine Lavoisier didn’t survive the French Revolution I’m afraid he was guillotine for his efforts not for his scientific efforts I have to say but for his efforts as a tax collector and it took a little while after some confusion maybe the clarifying voice was an Italian chemist called Stanislaw karat sorrow who in this quote makes it quite clear what he thinks the nature of chemical substance is all about the difference the different quantities of the same element contained in different new molecules are all whole multiples tha was the singular thing that the chemists were observing all whole multiples of one and the same which always being entire has the right to be called an atom I love that quote and of course coming out of the work that was being done on understanding the nature of the relationships between the constituents

15:22

the atomic constituents of differen molecular substances we’ve came to the firm understanding that water is a molecule of h2O okay I won’t tell you the amount of confusion created around even that simple understanding because of course if you take hydrogen as a gas your instinct is to think that it’s a monatomic gas

15:44

it’s one atom of hydrogen if you take oxygen as a gas your initial instinct is to think of oxygen as a monatomic gas

Oh but when H and O were combined to produce water things didn’t work out and it was only the realization that Mollick hydrogen is actually a molecular gas its h2 and oxygen is a molecular gas O2 combine those and you can then begin to work out how water can be h2O

all righ so we’ve come quite some way this looks I actually think we’re up for a mission update okay so we started off this evening with two very simple questions around this cube of ice and as a resul of endeavors beginning with the ancien Greeks two and a half thousand years ago we’ve understood that ice being water is made of round atoms with weight

we’ve got a lot more sophisticated thanks to the efforts of the mechanical philosophers in the 17th 18th centuries and in the chemists in the 18th 19th centuries and we now understand that we can drill in to ice as a substance and what we’ll find is a lattice of molecules of h2o here the red ball represents an atom of oxygen and the two little white balls represent atoms of hydrogen so ice is a regular lattice of water molecules which we write as h2O

17:12

where would we then look to find its mass well we can find its mass or its weight I’m not differentiating in the mass or weight of its hydrogen and oxygen atoms but we have to remember the caveat whatever that is because we haven’t got a good definition of mass yet

17:32

okay everybody happy we all knew this righ but I’m sorry I feel I might have wasted 20 minutes of your lives going through stuff you already know but I think it’s important you understand the nature of the journey that we’re on okay so that’s good let’s move forward a little further ah now see pesky physicists are now back in the picture you can’t trust them

jus at the time at the beginning of the 20th century when we were starting to ge hold of evidence that atoms really existed they weren’t just figments of a fertile imagination just at the time when we were getting evidence that atoms really existed physicists were working out how to split them apart I don’t know honestly not to be trusted and again this is a model that should be very familiar the kind of planetary model of the atom Rutherford famously did some experiments bombarding thin gold foil with something called alpha particles effectively the nuclei of helium atoms

18:37

and was astonished expecting that this is like shooting 15-inch shells at a piece of tissue paper how astonishing was it then to find some shells bouncing back at him

and what that meant simply was that all of the mass of a Gold atom or any atom is actually concentrated firmly concentrated in a small central nucleus and in fact we now understand that oxygen atoms consist of nuclei surrounded by orbiting electrons and those nuclei contain a total of 16 particles 8 protons positively charged eight neutrons neutral hydrogen is the periodic tables lightest element i consists of just a single proton in its nucleus

19:34

well fantastic so time for another mission update okay so we’ve gone a bit further okay the physicists have meddled but we’ve gone a bit further we now understand that in fact our molecule of water can be imagined as hard sen or nuclei oxygen to hydrogen atoms in a structure around which are wrapped orbiting electrons and it’s the nature of the way that the electrons wrap around these three atoms that create the molecular properties of something like water

20:10

fantastic even better news is 99% of the mass of an atom is to be found in its nucleus yay oh we still don’t know what mass is but we know where to look for it that’s good news

okay we can worry about what it is later okay so our attention now turns to the nature of the protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms themselves that’s where we look to find we now know what water consists are we now its atomic structure we know its nuclear structure we’re going an awful long way to answering the first question what is water made of what is the Ice Cube made of and we are think a least we’re getting some clarity and where we think we need to look to find its mass

20:56

okay keep going oh

now I can’t tell you what kind of mess this makes again just when you thought things were starting to become clearer we hit this period of scientific scientific endeavor where we get nothing other than madness and confusion

so we can credit Prince Louis 5th Duke de Blois with the insight that the discovery made by Einstein in 1905 wha did Einstein discover in 1905 he discovered that light waves can be particles what we now know as photons

21:49

Louis Dubrow speculated that a result of some further observations in experimental science over the subsequen nearly 20 years then maybe it’s also a possibility that electrons can be waves now we’d always cherish the notion right from the beginnings of the speculations of the ancient Greeks tha we would be able to take material substance except that it ultimately we must hit a final kind of indivisible stuff

22:24

out of which everything is made and now we’ve got this French French Prince telling us well actually you know what you thought were little hard billiard balls of material substance that happened to be negatively charged electrons can also be waves why is that a problem well let’s have a quick look

22:47

I’m just want to spend a few minutes talking about what I call the essential mystery of quantum mechanics there’s a famous experiment it may already be familiar to you it’s called the two-slit experiment and it’s easy to understand what we see in the context of a wave theory of light

23:07

we take a light source we take two narrow slits or holes and we shine the light through these now there’s only one caveat the distance the spacing between the slits has to be of a certain magnitude and the slits themselves have to be of the order of the wavelength of light and the chances are you’re going to see what you need to see only if that light itself is monochromatic in other words it has a single wavelength it’s not contaminated with different colors

23:35

do that and what you see projected on a far screen is what’s known as the two slit interference pattern it’s very easy to understand as the light waves squeeze through the slits they diffract they spread out beyond and in the space beyond where a wave crest runs into a wave crest coming from the other slit you get what’s known as constructive interference the waves add up to give a stronger wave where a trough meets a trough you’re going to deeper trough constructive interference but where a wave crest meets a wave trough you get a cancellation destructive interference and the result is a pattern of alternating light and Frenchy’s these were first discovered by Thomas Young in about 1804 easy to understand with a wave theory of light

24:27

but debris is now telling us electrons can be waves so how about if we do that experiment with electrons and how about we do that experiment in such an arrangement so that only one electron goes through these two slits at a time think about that for a second an electron is an individual indivisible bit of it’s a fundamental particle the elementary particle does a negative electrical charge but it also has a mess

25:00

whatever that is we anticipate that the electron surely must go through one or other of these two slits and the one thing that you don’t expect to get is an interference pattern coming out of that how can it possibly

but debris was saying electrons can also be waves and a wave passes through both slits simultaneously to interfere on the far side so let’s do the experiment here’s what we see when a few electrons have passed through these two slits this is fine what we see is for each electron we see a definitive spot it says an electron hit here struck here and that seems very entirely entirely consistent with the idea that a single electron maintains its integrity goes through one of the other slits to be detected on the screen on the far side

25:48

then let’s let in a few more electrons and a few more electrons and a few more

now although the resolution is a little bit fuzzy and this is not HDMI quality we get the sense that even though these electrons are passing through this apparatus one at a time what we’re seeing is an interference pattern of light and dark fringes

what I love about this experiment is if indeed the electron is passing through both slits simultaneously as a wave what happens to its mass while it does that now I don’t know how many of you familiar with the work of Tom Stoppard

he wrote a play called Hapgood was put on stage in I think the late 1980s 1988 or there abouts he had a character Koerner it was a play about double agent in mi6 I think but the double agent was a metaphor for wave particle duality stop art is a clever guy

and Koerner said every time we don’t look we get wave pattern because of course faced with that kind of puzzling experiment you might be tempted to say okay well I’m bloody well going to trace the path of an electron through this thing I’ll show you but the minute you do that every time we look to see how we get the wave pattern we get the particle pattern

27:23

the act of observing determines the reality and that’s the essential mystery okay Einstein and Bohr had a famous debate the problem with this kind of thing is that when we see a single spot on the far screen there’s a phrase it says it says that if the electron is described as a wave it’s kind of distributed it could be anywhere across that screen it ends up being in only one place it’s detected there but that place cannot be predicted

27:51

it’s left to chance it seems that’s the nature of quantum probability and Einstein didn’t like that he said God does not play dice Bohr on the other side of course answered it is not for us to tell God how he should run the world

all right so this is the mystery of quantum mechanics we were doing so well we’d started with our cube of ice got molecules of water in a regular lattice we found the mass of molecules of water in the nuclei of its the protons and neutrons in its nuclei

28:26

and and now we run into this sea of confusion called quantum mechanics I’m going to press on because okay the thing about quantum mechanics is that it works really well it is by far and away one of the best theories of physics that have ever been designed even though it’s bizarre and nobody understands it

28:47

do you think I’m joking I’m not

there’s an extension of quantum mechanics perhaps less familiar than some of these things called quantum field theory and one of the first successful developments of quantum field theory was this guy here the charismatic American physicist Richard Feynman but there were others involved julian Schwinger Sinha Taro Tominaga and an English physicist called Freeman Dyson were responsible for putting it together it’s called quantum electrodynamics

29:19

and the subtlety and sophistication of quantum electrodynamics is a thing to behold I think Feynman once said that the prediction is the things you can calculate with quantum electrodynamics is like knowing the distance from San Francisco to New York to within the width of a human hair it is so precise that you can’t but accept that this version of quantum field theory is is it’s got some essential truth in it despite the fact that we don’t understand it

29:47

and that was fine QED worked really well but then when physicists theorists started to assemble about 20 years after this something called the second world war intervened 20 years after afterwards when theorists started to try to create a quantum field theory to describe protons and neutrons they hit a snag in the meantime quantum waves by the way so we’ve not lost the idea of wave particle duality in this we still have to deal with this confusion it’s just that those wave ideas have been translated into a field it’s still an extended distributed structure we’ve still got the problem of the collapse of the wave function we still understand that in Truong field somehow interacts with the screen and ends up producing a single dot over here in a way that cannot be predicted

there was a problem and that is that early quantum field theories they dealt with only massless particles now the photon is a good example of a massless particle and so having got the clarity even though I use clarity probably in the inverted commas having got the clarity of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory we’re now at a situation where things have gone horribly wrong again and we’ve lost sight of mass we cannot get to the mass of protons or neutrons even though we know that these things do have a mass

31:12

so what do we do well actually the first thing to do so actually understand what a massless particle actually looks like and for that I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to indulge me a little bit of Einstein’s special theory of relativity I promise not it won’t hurt too much

so here’s a particle very simply conceived it’s a billiard ball type thing it has a diameter I called it d0 you’re with me okay I’m going to push that particle to travel it’s travelling with a velocity “V” and I’m going to push that particle so that it moves at ever increasing speeds up to the speed of light which is given the special symbol “C”

31:55

all right now to understand what goes on I need to recognize one of the effects of Einstein’s special theory of relativity is that distances contract and time dilates

don’t ask me to go into that right now but anyone who wants to buy a beer afterwards for me I will happily regale them with the reason why that happens so what we do is we push our particle let’s push it to something like 87 percent of the speed of light this factor here given the Greek symbol gamma is called the Lorentz factor

you don’t have to worry where it comes from or what it represents you just need to know that it started off with a value of 1

and now it has a value of 2 and what it means according to that little equation up there it means that the diameter of this particle in the direction of travel has compressed to half its original diameter

32:53

that’s special theory of relativity for you push it a little bit further now 98% of the speed of light by the way we’re getting now to the kinds of speeds at which protons are hurled around the Large Hadron Collider at CERN they get up to about 99 percent of the speed of light we see now that this Lorentz factor gamma is moved to a value of about five that means the diameter of this particle is 1/5 of its original diameter in the direction in which it’s moving

I think you can figure out what’s going to happen if we push this all the way to the speed of light we’re going to end up with the thing going off the top there and we end up with effectively a dimensionless a two-dimensional particle if that makes sense

now in truth we can’t accelerate we can’t move particles with mass at the speed of light only mass less particles can travel at this speed it’s a characteristic and by the way massless particles only ever traveled at the speed of light

okay so what that means is a massless particle traveling at the speed of light is flat or two-dimensional it’s kind of lost the third dimension it cannot possibly exist in a third dimension and in fact for those of you who know about light polarization you’ll know that light actually has only two states of polarization which we can think of perhaps as vertical and horizontal there’s no light polarization in this direction if this is light traveling towards you here it’s either I always say horizontal when I do that and then vertical vertical or horizontal there’s no polarization in this direction for the very simple reason is that has no third dimension to travel in

34:43

what a pot to be polarized in okay so that’s a bit of a problem so in effect to fix this problem in quantum field theory in the early 1950s what you need is a trick we need massless particles going in we need something magical to happen and we need to get particles with mass coming out you know what this is it’s called the Higgs field

and the fundamental particle of the Higgs field is this thing called the Higgs boson now here’s a dirty little secret about theoretical physics if you’re a theoretical physicist sitting down pondering great thoughts about the nature of material substance and elementary particles

you are your mission is to get the maths to work out correctly that’s your first priority get the maths to work in a way that’s consistent with theoretical structures that have gone before and and hopefully in such a way that might give you some insights as to a experimental test you can do or give you something to look for in a in a laboratory like CERN but these theorists are not overly concerned as to what it means

36:03

and it’s then left when these things do turn out to have a bit of life to them it means that we’re left scrambling to try to understand what on earth this means as far as they’re concerned they’ve got a mathematical trick they invoke something called a Higgs field and suddenly mass is switched on as a result what is supposed to happen well believe it or not politicians get puzzled by this – and if you can cast your mind back those of you are old enough to another conservative government that actually in the end became a minority Conservative government under John Major in the 1980s

John Major had a science Minister called William Waldegrave and William Waldegrave was facing a challenge of understanding as to whether it was worthwhile for the UK to continue funding the European Center for Nuclear Research CERN I think we spent in those days about 50 million pounds on CERN and of course the message he was getting from high-energy physicists we need to find the Higgs boson and William Waldegrave said so tell me what the hell this is on one sheet of A4 paper and I will give the best entry a bottle of vintage champagne as a reward and he got many entries and in fact he got many good entries but perhaps the best one actually comes from a guy called Professor David Miller close by here at the University of College London

37:30

who said well maybe think of it like this imagine a singularly important personality in Conservative Party politics Thatcher had gone but let me tell you now she was still a force to be reckoned with and imagine that we have a room here full of conservative party workers this is the Higgs field

now facture being two dimensional and massless comes in to this room of Higgs field and immediately the field starts to cluster around her because we all want to hear what she has to say we’re waiting for her to pronounce on you know polit political decisions the big political decisions of the day and as a consequence of this grouping of this clustering of the field around a massless particle its motion is impeded it can’t get through the room in quite the speed of light that it was travelling before and as a consequence it has acquired mass now it’s an imperfect analogy but William Waldegrave kind of liked it

38:35

okay so that’s how the Higgs field gives elementary particles mass what about the Higgs boson itself well well the Higgs boson is like a softly spoken rumor of course this is clearly something that’s contentious we don’t want everyone to be hearing this so as the rumor goes around the room the party workers cluster to hear what it says and that motion that clustering of the field itself is the Higgs boson

all absolutely clear now good alright so actually a you know the story there was a search for the Higgs boson it was discovered or found in 2012 I rather incredibly had a book about this discovery in stores only six weeks after the discoveries announced I had an agreement with my publisher I will write a book that is 95% finished which you then print and then we wait

and I actually listened to the live webcast from CERN on the morning of the 4th of July 2012 and and finished the the chapter and the book was then as I say in the store six weeks later I thought was quite good but so completing finding the Higgs boson completes the standard model now this is effectively the particle physicists equivalent of the chemists periodic table these are the ingredients that we need finally to get to our current contemporary understanding of the nature of matter

40:09

we don’t need all this though that’s the good news we can shrink this down to just a few bits what we need is two things called up and down quarks these combine in triplets in threes to form protons and neutrons so protons and neutrons are not in themselves elementary particles any longer we need these things called gluons these gluons literally glue physicists have limited creativity really at the end of the day when they come up with these names they’re normally pretty obvious what they’re kind of getting at so gluons glue the quarks together inside protons and neutrons we need electrons obviously electrons are still the thing that it counts for most chemistry and most molecular biology at the end of the day

so we need them and they form patterns around the outside of the atomic nuclei the force that holds the electrons and the nuclei together is the electromagnetic force and that is force that’s a force that’s carried by photons familiar particles of light

we also need this thing called the Higgs boson because the Higgs boson is about the Higgs field and the Higgs field Higgs field is necessary in the standard model of particle physics to give particles mess right mission update are we ready so we learned that cube of ice consists of a lattice of water molecules h2O we learned that an oxygen atom has a central nucleus with 8 protons 8 neutrons hydrogen atoms have a central nucleus each of 1 proton we drilled into the proton itself

42:01

I’m glad you didn’t all run screaming from the room now we have a real problem because you kind of would expect that if we can trace the history the map the mass of substance like a cube of ice to its molecules to its atoms to its atomic nuclei to its protons and neutrons and we learn that protons and neutrons are themselves composed of quarks you might expect now ok those quark masses are coming from interactions with the Higgs field let’s not get too detained by that they have a mass we know what that is but when we do the sums we find that a mass of a proton only 1% of the mass of a proton is accounted for by adding up the masses of its two up quarks and one down quark

something seems to have gone horribly wrong fortunately there was this guy called Einstein and he wrote a paper in 1905 you know what’s einstein’s most famous equation

everybody knows that equation right maybe you’d be a little bit disappointed to learn that in his singular paper in 1905 about this aspect of special relativity that equation doesn’t appear at all what Einstein discovered his big insight is actually not a equals MC squared it’s this M equals E over C squared mass is the measure of the energy content of a body now I got to tell you I mean who remembers the Quatermass experiment on BBC television all those years ago I see a smile in the audience yes a kindred spirit

who remembers video footage of atomic explosions in the 1960s 1970s frighten you to death as these bombs got ever bigger you take the fishing of a uranium nucleus uranium-235 nucleus and a fifth of the mass of one proton is converted into the energy of an atomic explosion you kind of have that almost cultural understanding that e equals mc-squared represents the vast reservoir of energy that is somehow locked up in mass and when you convert mass into energy as was done towards the end of the Quatermass experiment

you get this enormous release but that wasn’t Einstein x’ inside despite the fact that the e equals mc-squared became the most known well known equation in the whole history of physics so here’s what’s really going on it’s math Jim but not as we know it the mass about 1% of the mass of a proton let’s say comes from interactions between otherwise massless quarks and the Higgs field which is all around us by the way if it didn’t exist if it were somehow magically switched off we’d all explode

45:20

well and not in an aspect spectacular explosion but we’d all would there be out all our particles will become massless there’d be no mechanism to give them mass

so you hope that Higgs field stays switched on okay so it comes from the energy of these particles interaction of the Higgs field but it’s only 1% of the total sum where’s the rest of it the bulk of the proton mass comes from the energy of the gluons that are dancing back and forth between the quarks holding them together the gluons are massless particles but they possess very very very high energy

and once they’re locked up in the confines of a proton or a neutron that energy translates into what we understand and perceive as mass

46:05

Frank Wilczek who is one of the architects of the standard model worked on something called quantum chromodynamics which is the theory that describes quarks and gluons put it this way if the body is a human body whose mass overwhelming it arises from the protons and neutrons it contains the answer is no clear and decisive the mass of that body with 95% accuracy is its energy content

I would quite like to do something about the energy content of a certain part of my body but so far I haven’t come up with a diet that will actually disconnect the Higgs field just in this specific region but who knows I’m hopeful well this is this mass without mass in scrambling to try and find a way to articulate this in the book I said look mass is not a property ever since the ancient Greeks we’ve always understood that atoms would have weight weight or mass being an intrinsic or primary property of these indivisible indestructible bits of substance

47:10

but now we learn that mass is actually not a property it’s not something that matter has it is rather a behavior it’s something that quantum fields do

now this isn’t the end the standard model of particle physics has lots of explanatory holes the one thing that it doesn’t do is it doesn’t explain for example gravity and at the moment there’s a lot of endeavor there’s a lot of work going on both in the string theory community and in another area called loop quantum gravity to try to devise a quantum theory of gravity there may yet be more to learn however I’m pretty confident that our understanding of matter and the nature of mass is not going to change as a result of these endeavors so get used to it when you climb on the scales in the morning you’re weighing the energy content of the gluons locked up inside the protons and neutrons of your body I don’t know whether that will make a difference to what the scales were sir but sometimes a bit of enlightenment is a good thing now I want to thank you I’ve gone on a little bit longer than I’d intended I want to thank Carlo Rovelli is an Italian theorist who very kindly agreed to read the manuscript over my shoulder and make sure I didn’t commit any howlers

Latha (Menon), Jenny (Nugee) Phil (Henderson) who’s in the audience our folks at Oxford University Press who helped turn my ramblings into a hopefully readable book

my mother well we should all thank our mother right but my mother who’s 80 this year I’ve got to tell you she has an endless curiosity in her seventies she decided that she would study for a degree in history at the University of Warwick which he did part-time bless her

and she agreed to read the manuscript coming back saying Jim why do you have to use all these big words can’t you make it just a little bit simpler which I did try to do Martin Davis who introduced me thank you very much for asking me to come along this evening and of course you for being so very patient.

Thank you very much.
(Applause)

¿Qué decimos cuando hablamos?

diumenge, 28/04/2019

…  tras una completisima hipnosis regresiva, según las transcripciones de audio y video, estos seres, dijo, eran altos y transparentes… y hablaban franchute.

Lo dijo bién dicho, y a pesar de que se le consintió rectificación: insistió y lo repitió, hizo hincapié para que no quedara ninguna sombra de duda.

McMinnville, Oregon, 1950

dijous, 25/04/2019

Ervin Laszlo declaration at TEDx

dimecres, 24/04/2019

Prof. Dr. Ervin Laszlo is generally recognized as the founder of systems philosophy and general evolution theory. His work in recent years has centered on the formulation and development of the “Akasha Paradigm”, the new conception of cosmos, life and consciousness emerging at the forefront of the contemporary sciences. He serves as Editor of World Futures: The Journal of New Paradigm Research.  He published nearly 70 books translated into as many as 18 languages.

Transcript

11.02

I am part of the world. The world is not outside of me, and I am not outside of the world. The world is in me, and I am in the world.

I am part of nature, and nature is part of me. I am what I am in my communication and communion with all living things. I am an irreducible and coherent whole with the web of life on the planet.

11:26
I am part of society, and society is part of me. I am what I am in my communication and communion with my fellow humans. I am an irreducible and coherent whole with the community of humans on the planet.

11:53
I am more than a skin-and-bone material organism: my body, and its cells and organs are manifestations of what is truly me: a self-sustaining, self-evolving dynamic system arising, persisting and evolving in interaction with everything around me.

I am one of the highest, most evolved manifestations of the drive toward coherence and wholeness in the universe. All systems drive toward coherence and wholeness in interaction with all other systems, and my essence is this cosmic drive. It is the same essence, the same spirit that is inherent in all the things that arise and evolve in nature, whether on this planet or elsewhere in the infinite reaches of space and time.

There are no absolute boundaries and divisions in this world, only transition points where one set of relations yields prevalence to another. In me, in this self-maintaining and self-evolving coherence- and wholeness-oriented system, the relations that integrate the cells and organs of my body are prevalent. Beyond my body other relations gain prevalence: those that drive toward coherence and wholeness in society and in nature.

The separate identity I attach to other humans and other things is but a convenient convention that facilitates my interaction with them. My family and my community are just as much “me” as the organs of my body. My body and mind, my family and my community, are interacting and interpenetrating, variously prevalent elements in the network of relations that encompasses all things in nature and the human world.

The whole gamut of concepts and ideas that separates my identity, or the identity of any person or community, from the identity of other persons and communities are manifestations of this convenient but arbitrary convention. There are only gradients distinguishing individuals from each other and from their environment and no real divisions and boundaries. There are no “others” in the world: We are all living systems and we are all part of each other

Attempting to maintain the system I know as “me” through ruthless competition with the system I know as “you” is a grave mistake: It could damage the integrity of the embracing whole that frames both your life and mine. I cannot preserve my own life and wholeness by damaging that whole, even if damaging a part of it seems to bring me short-term advantage. When I harm you, or anyone else around me, I harm myself.

Collaboration, not competition, is the royal road to the wholeness that hallmarks healthy systems in the world. Collaboration calls for empathy and solidarity, and ultimately for love. I do not and cannot love myself if I do not love you and others around me: We are part of the same whole and so are part of each other.

The idea of “self-defense,” even of “national defense,” needs to be rethought. Patriotism if it aims to eliminate adversaries by force, and heroism even in the well-meaning execution of that aim, are mistaken aspirations. A patriot and a hero who brandishes a sword or a gun is an enemy also to himself. Every weapon intended to hurt or kill is a danger to all. Comprehension, conciliation and forgiveness are not signs of weakness; they are signs of courage.

“The good” for me and for every person in the world is not the possession and accumulation of personal wealth. Wealth, in money or in any material resource, is but a means for maintaining myself in my environment. As exclusively mine, it commandeers part of the resources that all things need to share if they are to live and to thrive. Exclusive wealth is a threat to all people in the human community. And because I am a part of this community, in the final count it is a threat also to me, and to all who hold it.

Beyond the sacred whole we recognize as the world in its totality, only life and its development have what philosophers call intrinsic value; all other things have merely instrumental value: value insofar as they add to or enhance intrinsic value. Material things in the world, and the energies and substances they harbor or generate, have value only if and insofar they contribute to life and wellbeing in the web of life on this Earth.

The true measure of my accomplishment and excellence is my readiness to give. Not the amount of what I give is the measure of my accomplishment and excellence, but the relation between what I give, and what my family and I need to live and to thrive.

Every healthy person has pleasure in giving: It is a higher pleasure than having. I am healthy and whole when I value giving over having. A community that values giving over having is a community of healthy people, oriented toward thriving through empathy, solidarity, and love among its members. Sharing enhances the community of life, while possessing and accumulating creates demarcation, invites competition, and fuels envy. The share-society is the norm for all the communities of life on the planet; the have-society is typical only of modern-day humanity, and it is an aberration.

I recognize the aberration of modern-day humanity from the universal norm of coherence in the world, acknowledge my role in having perpetrated it, and pledge my commitment to restoring wholeness and coherence by becoming whole myself: whole in my thinking and acting – in my consciousness….

Visualizing eleven dimensions -bilingual-

dimarts , 23/04/2019

In this talk Thad Roberts reveals a theory that could prove to be the key in simplification of the various complexities of quantum mechanics, space, and time.

TRANSCRIPT

Does anybody here happen to be interested ¿Hay alguien aquí interesado
in other dimensions? en otras dimensiones?
(Applause) (Aplausos)
Alright. Bien.
Well, thank you all for your time… Bueno, gracias a todos por su tiempo…
and your space. y por su espacio.
(Laughter) (Risas)
Good, I’m glad that one worked here. Bien, qué bien que eso funcionó
Alright. Bien.
Imagine a world Imaginen un mundo cuyos
whose inhabitants live and die habitantes viven y mueren
believing only in the existence creyendo sólo en la existencia
of two spatial dimensions. de dos dimensiones espaciales.
A plane. Un avión. Estos Flatlanders
These Flatlanders are going to see (habitantes de un universo con dos dimensiones espaciales)
some pretty strange things happen; verán ocurrir algunas cosas bastante raras:
things that are impossible to explain cosas imposibles de explicar dentro
within the constraints of their geometry. de los confines de su geometría.
For example, imagine that one day, Por ejemplo, imaginen que un día,
some Flatlander scientists observe this: algunos científicos “flatlander” ven esto:
A set of colorful lights un juego de luces de colores
that appear to randomly appear que aparecen aleatoriamente
in different locations along the horizon. en distintos lugares a lo largo del horizonte.
No matter how hard they try No importa cúan arduo intenten
to make sense of these lights, darle sentido a estas luces,
they’ll be unable to come up no podrán llegar a una teoría
with a theory that can explain them. que pueda explicarlas.
Some of the more clever scientists Algunos de los científicos más listos
might come up with a way podrían haber resuelto una manera de describir
to probabilistically describe the flashes. estos destellos de forma probabilística.
For example, for every 4 seconds, Por ejemplo, cada 4 segundos,
there’s 11% chance that a red flash hay un 11% de probabilidad de que
will occur somewhere on the line. un destello rojo ocurra en algún lugar de la línea.
But no Flatlander will be able Pero ningún flatlander podrá
to determine exactly when determinar exactamente cuándo o
or where the next red light will be seen. dónde se verá la próxima luz roja.
As a consequence, they start to think Como una consecuencia, empezaron a pensar
that the world contains que el mundo contenía
a sense of indeterminacy, un sentido de indeterminación,
that the reason que la razón por la que
these lights cannot be explained, estas luces no pueden explicarse.
is that at the fundamental level es que en el nivel fundamental,
nature just doesn’t make sense. la naturaleza simplemente no tiene sentido.
Are they right? ¿Están en lo cierto? ¿Acaso el hecho
Does the fact that they were forced de que se vieron forzados
to describe these lights probabilistically en describir estas luces probabilísticamente
actually mean that en realidad significa que
the world is indeterministic? el mundo es indeterminista?
The lesson we can learn from Flatland La lección que podemos aprender de los “Flatland”
is that when we assume only es que cuando suponemos sólo una parte
a portion of nature’s full geometry, de la geometría completa de la naturaleza,
deterministic events can appear eventos deterministas pueden aparecer
fundamentally indeterministic. fundamentalmente indeterministas.
However, when we expand our view Sin embargo, cuando
and gain access expandemos nuestra visión
to the full geometry of the system, y ganamos acceso a la geometría completa del sistema,
indeterminacy disappears. la indeterminación desaparece.
As you can see, we can now Como pueden ver, ahora podemos
determine exactly when and where determinar exactamente cuándo y dónde
the next red light la siguiente luz roja
will be seen on this line. se verá en la línea.
We are here tonight Estamos aquí esta noche
to consider the possibility para considerar la posibilidad de
that we are like the Flatlanders. que somos como los flatlanders.
Because, as it turns out, Porque, como resulta, nuestro mundo
our world is riddled with mysteries está plagado de enigmáticos misterios
that just don’t seem to fit inside que simplemente no parecen ajustarse a
the geometric assumptions we have made. las supuestos geométricos que hemos hecho.
Mysteries like warped space-time, Misterios como espacio tiempo deformado,
black holes, quantum tunneling agujeros negros, túneles cuánticos,
the constants of nature, las constantes de la naturaleza,
dark matter, dark energy, etc. materia y energía oscuras, etc.
The list is quite long. La lista es bastante larga.
How do we respond to these mysteries? ¿Cómo respondemos a estos misterios?
Well, we have two choices: Bueno, tenemos dos opciones:
We can either cling podemos ya sea aferrarnos a
to our previous assumptions, nuestras suposiciones previas
and invent new equations e inventar nuevas ecuaciones que existen
that exist somehow outside of the metric, de alguna forma afuera de lo métrico,
as a vague attempt como un vago intento de
to explain what’s going on, explicar lo que está pasando,
or we could take a bolder step, o podemos dar un paso más audaz,
throw out our old assumptions, desechando nuestros viejos supuestos
and construct a new blueprint for reality. y construir un nuevo anteproyecto de la realidad.
One that already includes Uno que incluya
those phenomena. estos fenómenos.
It’s time to take that step. Es hora de dar ese paso.
Because we are in the same situation Porque estamos en la misma
as the Flatlanders. situación que los flatlanders.
The probabilistic nature La naturaleza probabilística
of quantum mechanics de la mecánica cuántica
has our scientists believing tienen a nuestros científicos en la creencia
that deep down, muy en el fondo, que
the world is indeterminant. el mundo es indeterminado.
That the closer we look, Entre más cerca miremos,
the more we will find más averiguaremos que
that nature just doesn’t make sense. la naturaleza no tiene sentido.
Hmm… Mmhh…
Perhaps all of these mysteries Quizá lo que todas estos misterios
are actually telling us nos están diciendo en realidad
that there’s more to the picture. que hay más de lo que vemos en el cuadro.
That nature has a richer geometry Que la naturaleza tiene una geometría
than we have assumed. más abundante de la que suponemos.
Maybe the mysterious phenomena Quizá los fenómenos
in our world misteriosos de nuestro mundo
could actually be explained se pueden en efecto explicar
by a richer geometry, con una geometría más abundante
with more dimensions. con más dimensiones.
This would mean that we are stuck Esto quiere decir que estamos atrapados
in our own version of Flatland. en nuestra propia versión de ‘llanura’.
And if that’s the case, Y si ese es el caso,
how do we pop ourselves out? ¿cómo salimos?
At least conceptually? ¿Al menos conceptualmente?
Well, the first step is to make sure Bueno, el primer paso es asegurarnos que
that we know exactly what a dimension is. sabemos exactamente qué es una dimensión.
A good question to start with is: Una buena pregunta para empezar es:
What is it about x, y and z ¿Qué tienen X, Y y Z que
that makes them spatial dimensions? las hacen dimensiones espaciales?
The answer is that a change in position La respuesta es que un cambio
in one dimension en posición en una dimensión
does not imply a change in position no implica un cambio de
in the other dimensions. posición en las otras dimensiones.
Dimensions are independent descriptors Las dimensiones son descriptores
of position. independientes de posición.
So z is a dimension because an object Así Z es una dimensión porque un objeto
can be holding still in x and y se puede mantener quieto en X y Y
while it’s moving in Z. mientras se mueve en Z.
So, to suggest that Entonces para proponer que
there are other spatial dimensions hay otras dimensiones espaciales
is to say that it must be possible es decir que debe ser
for an object posible para un objeto
to be holding still in x, y and z, mantenerse quieto en X, Y y Z,
yet still moving about y aún así moverse en
in some other spatial sense. algún otro sentido espacial.
But where might these ¿Pero en donde podrían
other dimensions be? estar estas otras dimensiones?
To solve that mystery, Para resolver ese misterio,
we need to make a fundamental adjustment necesitamos hacer un ajuste fundamental
to our geometric assumptions about space. de nuestros supuestos geométricos del espacio.
We need to assume that space Necesitamos suponer que el espacio
is literally and physically quantized, es cabal y físicamente cuantificable,
that it’s made of interactive pieces. que está hecho de piezas interactivas.
If space is quantized, Si el espacio es cuantificable,
then it cannot be infinitely divided entonces no se puede dividir infinitamente
into smaller and smaller increments. en incrementos cada vez más pequeños.
Once we get down to a fundamental size, Una vez que alcanzamos un tamaño fundamental,
we cannot go any further no podemos ir más allá
and still be talking y aún hablaremos de
about distances in space. distancias en el espacio.
Let’s consider an analogy: Consideremos una analogía:
Imagine we have a chunk of pure gold imaginen que tenemos un pedazo de oro puro
that we mean to cut in half que queremos cortar en
over and over. mitades una y otra vez
We can entertain two questions here: Podemos jugar con dos preguntas:
How many times can we cut ¿cuántas veces podemos cortar
what we have in half? la mitad que tenemos?
and: How many times can we cut  Y, ¿cuántas veces podemos cortar la mitad
what we have in half and still have gold? que tenemos y que siga siendo oro?
These are Estas son dos preguntas completamente diferentes,
two completely different questions,  porque una vez que
because once we get down  llegamos a un átomo de oro,
to one atom of gold, no podemos ir más allá
we cannot go any further sin rebasar
without transcending la definición de oro
the definition of gold. Si el espacio se cuantifica,
If space is quantized, .entonces la misma cosa se aplica.
then the same thing applies. No podemos hablar de
We cannot talk about distances in space distancias en el espacio
that are less than que sean menores a la unidad
the fundamental unit of space fundamental de espacio
for the same reason y por la misma razón, no podemos
we cannot talk about amounts of gold hablar de pedazos de oro
that are less than 1 atom of gold. que sean menores a un átomo de oro.
Quantizing space brings us Cuantificar el espacio nos lleva
to a new geometric picture. a un cuadro geométrico nuevo.
One like this, Uno como éste,
where the collection of these pieces, donde la colección de
these quanta, estas piezas, estos quanta
come together to construct se unen para construir
the fabric of x, y and z. la tela de X, Y y Z.
This geometry is eleven-dimensional. Esta geometría tiene 11 dimensiones.
So if you’re seeing this, you already Así que si están viendo esto, ya lo
got it. It’s not gonna be beyond you. entendieron. No irá más allá de Uds.
We just need to make sense Sólo necesitamos darle sentido
of what’s going on. a lo que está pasando.
Notice that there are Noten que hay tres tipos
three distinct types of volume distintos de volumen
and all volumes y todos los volúmenes
are three-dimensional. son tridimensionales.
Distance between any two points in space La distancia entre dos puntos en el espacio
becomes equal to the number of quanta se vuelve igual al número de quanta
that are instantaneously between them. que hay instantáneamente entre ellos.
The volume inside each quantum El volumen dentro de
is interspatial, cada cuánto es interespacial,
and the volume that y el volumen en que se mueven
the quanta move about in is superspatial. los cuántos es superespacial.
Notice how having perfect information Noten cómo teniendo información
about x, y, z position, perfecta de la posición X, Y y Z,
only enables us to identify sólo nos permite identificar
a single quantum of space. a un solo cuánto de espacio.
Also notice that it’s now possible También noten que ahora
for an object es posible para un objeto
to be moving about interspatially que se mueve interespacialmente
or superspatially o superespacialmente
without changing sin cambiar en absoluto
its x, y, z position at all. su posición X, Y y Z.
This means that Esto significa que hay
there are 9 independent ways 9 formas independientes
for an object to move about. para que un objeto se mueva.
That makes 9 spatial dimensions. Esto hace 9 dimensiones espaciales:
3 dimensions of x, y, z volume, 3 dimensiones de volumen X, Y y Z,
3 dimensions of superspatial volume, 3 dimensiones de volumen superespacial,
and 3 dimensions of interspatial volume. y 3 dimensiones de volumen interespacial.
Then we have time, Luego tenemos al tiempo,
which can be defined as que se puede definir como
the whole number of resonations el número total de resonancias
experienced at each quantum. experimentadas por cada cuánto.
And super-time allows us to describe Y el supertiempo nos permite describir
their motion through super-space. su movimiento a través del superespacio.
OK, I know this is a whirlwind, De acuerdo, sé que esto es un revoltijo,
a lot faster than I’d like to do it, dicho más rápido de lo que quisiera,
because there are so many details porque hay tantos más detalles
we can go into. que podríamos examinar.
But there’s a significant advantage Pero hay una ventaja significativa
to being able to describe space el poder describir el espacio
as a medium that can possess como un medio que puede poseer
density, distortions and ripples. densidad, distorsión y ondas.
For example, we can now describe Por ejemplo, ahora podemos describir
Einstein’s curved space-time el espacio tiempo curvo de Einstein
without dimensionally sin dimensionalmente
reducing the picture. reducir el cuadro.
Curvature is a change La curvatura es un cambio en
in the density of these space quanta. la densidad de estos cuántos de espacio.
The denser the quanta get, Entre más densos los cuántos se hagan,
the less they can freely resonate menos pueden resonar libremente
so they experience less time. y por tanto experimentan menos tiempo.
And in the regions Y en las regiones
of maximum density, de máxima densidad
and the quanta are all donde los cuántos están todos
packed completely together, compactados completamente,
like in black holes, como en los agujeros negros,
they experience no time. no experimentan el tiempo.
Gravity is simply the result La gravedad es simplemente
of an object traveling straight el resultado de un objeto que viaja directo
through curved space. a través del espacio curvo.
Going straight through x, y, z space Viajar directamente en el espacio X, Y y Z
means both your left side significa que tanto su lado
and your right side izquierdo como el derecho
travel the same distance, viajan la misma distancia, interactúan
interact with the same number of quanta. con el mismo número de quanta.
So, when a density gradient Así cuando existe un gradiente
exists in space, de densidad en el espacio,
the straight path is the one el trayecto directo es aquel que provee
that provides an equal spatial experience una experiencia de espacio uniforme
for all parts of a traveling object. a todas las partes de un objeto en movimiento.
OK, this is a really big deal. Bueno, esto es un gran problema.
If you’ve ever looked at a graph Si han visto alguna vez una gráfica
of Einstein curvature before, de la curvatura de Einstein,
space-time curvature, la curvatura de espacio tiempo,
you may have not noticed that one quizá hayan notado que una de
of the dimensions was unlabeled. las dimensiones no está etiquetada.
We assumed we took La suposición fue que tomamos
a plane of our world un plano de nuestro mundo
and anytime there was mass in that plane y cada vez que hubo una masa
we’ll stretch it; en ese plano, lo estirábamos;
if there was more mass, si había más masa,
we stretch it more, la estirábamos más,
to show how much curvature there is. para demostrar cuánta curvatura había.
But what’s the direction ¿Pero en qué dirección
we’re stretching in? estábamos estirando?
We got rid of the z dimension. Nos deshicimos de la dimensión Z.
We blow over that every single time Nos olvidamos de ella todas
in our books. las veces en nuestros libros.
Here, we didn’t have to get rid Aquí, no tuvimos que
of the z dimension. deshacernos de la dimensión Z.
We got to show curvature Llegamos a mostrar
in its full form. la curvatura en toda su forma.
And this is a really big deal. Y esto es un verdadero gran problema.
Other mysteries Otros misterios que
that pop out of this map, surgen de este mapa,
like quantum tunneling – como los túneles cuánticos…
Remember our Flatlanders? ¿Recuerdan a nuestros flatlanders?
Well, they’ll see a red light appear Bueno, ellos ven un destello rojo
somewhere on the horizon aparecer en algún lugar del horizonte
and then it’ll disappear, y luego desaparecer y
and as far as they’re concerned, por lo que a ellos respecta,
it’s gone from the universe. se ha ido del universo.
But if a red light appears again Pero si un destello rojo aparece otra vez,
somewhere else on the line, en algún otro lugar de la línea,
they might call it quantum tunneling, podrían llamarlo túnel cuántico.
The same way when we watch an electron, De la misma forma que cuando vemos un electrón,
and then it disappears y luego desaparece
from the fabric of space de la tela del espacio
and reappears somewhere else, y reaparece en algún otro lugar
and that somewhere else y aquel otro lugar
can actually be beyond the boundary that ¿puede estar más allá de la frontera
it’s not supposed to be able to get beyond. que no se supone que puede rebasar?
OK? Can you use this picture now? ¿De acuerdo? ¿Pueden ver este cuadro
To solve that mystery? ahora para solucionar ese misterio?
Can you see how the mysteries of our world ¿Pueden ver cómo los misterios de nuestro mundo
can transform into elegant aspects pueden transformarse en aspectos elegantes
of our new geometric picture? de nuestro cuadro geométrico?
All we have to do Todo lo que tenemos que hacer
to make sense of those mysteries para darle sentido a estos misterios
is to change our geometric assumptions, es cambiar nuestros supuestos
to quantize space. geométricos para cuantificar el espacio.
OK, this picture also Bien, este cuadro también
has something to say tiene algo que decir
about where the constants acerca de dónde vienen
of nature come from; las constantes de la natualeza;
like the speed of light, Planck’s constant, como la velocidad de la luz, la constante de
the gravitational constant and so on. Planck, la constante gravitacional y demás.
Since all units of expression, Puesto que todas la unidades de expresión:
Newtons, Joules, Pascals, etc, Newtons, Joules, Pascales, etc.,
can be reduced to five combinations se pueden reducir a cinco combinaciones
of length, mass, time, de longitud, masa, tiempo,
ampere and temperature, amperaje y temperatura,
quantizing the fabric of space, cuantificar la tela del espacio
means that those five expressions significa que esas 5 expresiones deben
must also come in quantized units. también ser unidades de cantidad.
So, this gives us five numbers Así esto nos da 5 números que
that stem from our geometric map. brotan de nuestro mapa geométrico.
Natural consequences of our map, Las consecuencias naturales de
with units of one. nuestro mapa, con unidades de uno.
There’s two other numbers in our map. Hay otros dos números en nuestro mapa.
Numbers that reflect Números que reflejan
the limits of curvature. los límites de la curvatura.
Pi can be used to represent Pi se puede usar para representar
the minimum state of curvature, el estado mínimo de curvatura,
or zero curvature, o cero curvatura, mientras que
while a number we are calling zhe, un números que llamaremos zhe,
can be used to represent se puede usar para representar
the maximum state of curvature. el estado máximo de curvatura.
The reason we now have a maximum La razón de que ahora tengamos un máximo
is because we’ve quantized space. es porque hemos cuantificado el espacio.
We can’t infinitely continue to go on. No podemos continuar así indefinidamente.
What do these numbers do for us? ¿Qué hacen estos números por nosotros?
Well, this long list here Bueno, esta larga lista aquí
is the constants of nature, son las constantes de la naturaleza,
and if you’ve noticed, even though y si han notado, aun cuando
they’re flying by pretty fast, están pasando muy rápido,
they’re all made up of the five numbers todos están hechos de 5 números
that come from our geometry que provienen de nuestra geometría
and the two numbers y los dos números
that come from the limits of curvature. que provienen de los límites de curvatura.
That’s a really big deal by the way, Por cierto, eso es un auténtico problema
to me it’s a really big deal. para mí, es un verdadero problema.
This means that the constants of nature Esto significa que las constantes de la naturaleza
come from the geometry of space; provienen de la geometría del espacio:
they’re necessary consequences son necesariamente
of the model. consecuencias del modelo.
OK. This is a lot of fun Bueno, esto es muy divertido
because there are so many punch lines, porque tiene tantos remates,
it’s hard to know exactly pues es difícil saber exactamente
who’s going to get caught where. quién quedará atrapado en dónde.
But, this new map, Pero este nuevo mapa,
allows us to explain gravity, nos permite explicar la gravedad,
in a way that’s en una forma que es
totally conceptual now, totalmente conceptual hoy,
you get the whole picture in your head, conciben todo el cuadro en sus cabezas,
black holes, quantum tunneling, agujeros negros, túneles cuánticos,
the constants of nature, las constantes de la naturaleza,
and in case none of those y en caso de que ninguno de
caught your fancy, ellos capture su imaginación,
or you’ve never heard o nunca antes haya oído de ellos,
of any of them before, en definitiva apenas han oído
you’ve definitely just barely heard de la materia y la energía oscuras.
about dark matter and dark energy. Esas también son
Those too are geometric consequences. consecuencias geométricas.
Dark matter, La materia oscura, cuando
when we look at distant galaxies, miramos galaxias distantes,
and watch the stars y vemos las estrellas que
that orbit about in those galaxies, orbitan alrededor de esas galaxias,
the stars out at the edges las estrellas en las orillas
are moving too fast, se mueven demasiado rápido,
they seem to have extra gravity. parecieran tener gravedad extra.
How do we explain this? ¿Como nos explicamos esto?
Well, we couldn’t, so we say Bueno, no pudimos, entonces dijimos
there must be some other matter there, que debe de haber alguna materia
creating more gravity, ahí, que crea más gravedad,
making those effects. que ocasiona esos efectos,
But we can’t see the matter. pero no podemos ver la materia.
So we call it dark matter. And we define Entonces la llamamos materia oscura, y la
dark matter as something you can’t see! definimos como algo ¡que no pueden ver!
Which is fine, it’s a good step, Lo cual está bien, es un buen paso,
it’s a good start, es un buen comienzo,
but here in our model we didn’t have to pero aquí en nuestro modelo no tenemos
take that kind of a leap. que hacer ese tipo de salto.
We took a leap, Dimos un salto, dijimos
we said space is quantized, que el espacio se cuantifica,
but everything else pero todo lo demás
fell out from that. queda fuera de eso.
Here, we’re saying, Aquí decimos que el espacio está
space is made up of fundamental parts, hecho de partes fundamentales,
just the same way we believe air de la misma forma en que creemos
is made out of molecules. que el aire está hecho de moléculas.
If that’s true, Si eso es cierto, entonces
then an automatic requirement is el requisito automático es
you can have changes in density, que podemos tener cambios en densidad,
this is where gravity comes from, esto es de donde viene la gravedad,
but you should also have phase changes. pero también deben
And what stimulates a phase change? tener cambios de fase.
Well, temperature. ¿Y qué estimula un cambio de fase?
When something gets cold enough, Bueno, la temperatura.
its geometric arrangement will change, Cuando algo se enfría,
and it will change phase. su arreglo geométrico cambiará,
A change in the density here, y cambiará su fase.
at the outer regions of the galaxies, Un cambio de fase aquí, en
is going to cause las regiones externas de las galaxias,
a gravitational field, producirá un campo gravitacional,
because that’s what porque eso son
gravitational fields are, los campos gravitacionales,
they’re changes in density. son cambios de densidad.
OK? ¿De acuerdo?
Totally skipped through all that. Nos saltamos todo esto.
And now we’ll go to dark energy, Y ahora veremos la energía
in 15 seconds. oscura en 15 segundos.
When we look out into the cosmos, Cuando miramos hacia el cosmos,
we see that distant light vemos que la luz distante
is red shifted, OK? se corre hacia el rojo, ¿de acuerdo?
That it loses some of its energy Esto es que pierde algo de
as it’s traveling to us su energía al viajar hacia nosotros.
for billions of years. durante miles de millones de años.
Now how do we explain Ahora, ¿cómo explicamos
that red shift? ese corrimiento al rojo?
Well, currently we say it means Actualmente decimos que esto significa que
the universe is expanding. OK? el universo se expande, ¿sí?
All of our claims that the universe Todas nuestras afirmaciones de que el universo
is expanding come from this, se expande provienen de esto,
from measurements of how de mediciones de cómo
the red shift changes, el corrimiento al rojo cambia,
out of this distance de esta distancia a
to this distance to that distance. esta distancia a esa distancia.
OK? And also we measure ¿Bien? Y también medimos
the expansion that way. la expansión de esa forma.
But there’s another way Pero hay otra forma de
to explain red shift. explicar el corrimiento al rojo.
Just like there’d be another way Así como hay otra forma de explicar
to explain how if I had a tuning fork cómo es que tenía un diapasón
tuned to middle C, entonado en Do,
and I went in a tunnel y cuando entré al túnel,
and you could hear… a B note. podían oír la nota Si.
Sure, you could say it’s because Seguro pueden decir que se debe a
I’m moving away from you inside the tunnel, que me estoy moviendo dentro del túnel,
but it could also be because pero también puede ser porque
the pressure of the atmosphere la presión de la atmósfera
is decreasing while the sound está disminuyendo mientras
is traveling to your ear. el sonido viaja a sus oídos.
Here, that seemed Eso como que es
a little far fetched un poco descabellado
because atmospheric pressure porque la presión atmosférica
doesn’t decrease fast, no disminuye rápido,
but when we’re talking billions of years pero cuando hablamos de miles de millones
of light traveling through space, de años luz de viaje por el espacio,
all we need are the quanta themselves todo lo que necesitamos son los quanta
to have a small amount of inelasticity para tener una pequeña cantidad de
and red shift is imminent. inelasticidad y el cambio al rojo es inminente.
Alright, there’s a lot more Bueno, hay mucho más
to explore in this, por explorar en esto,
because if you’re interested, y si están interesados,
feel free to check out this website revisen este sitio web
and give all the feedback you can. y dennos toda la retroalimentación que puedan.
We’re out of time so let me just say, Se nos acaba el tiempo; sólo diré que este
that this blueprint gives us a mental tool, anteproyecto nos da una herramienta mental
a tool that can expand una herramienta que puede expander
the reach of our imagination, el alcance de nuestra imaginación
and, maybe, even respark y quizá, incluso vuelva a encender
the romanticism of Einstein’s quest. la búsqueda del romanticismo de Einstein.
Thank you. Gracias.
(Applause)  (Aplausos)

Visualizing Dimensions

dilluns, 22/04/2019

Thad Roberts is a theoretical physicist, a philosopher of physics, the inspiration behind the New York Times best seller Sex on the Moon: The Amazing Story Behind the Most Audacious Heist in History, and the author of ‘Einstein’s Intuition: Visualizing Nature in Eleven Dimensions‘.

(Applause)

Does anybody here happen to be interested in other dimensions? All right.

Well, thank you all for your time and your space. Good, I’m glad that one worked here.

All right. Imagine a world whose inhabitants live and die believing only in the existence of two spatial dimensions. A plane. These Flatlanders are going to see some pretty strange things happen; things that are impossible to explain within the constraints of their geometry. For example, imagine that one day, some Flatlander scientists observe this: A set of colorful lights that appear to randomly appear in different locations along the horizon. No matter how hard they try to make sense of these lights, they’ll be unable to come up with a theory that can explain them.

Some of the more clever scientists might come up with a way to probabilistically describe the flashes. For example, for every 4 seconds, there’s 11% chance that a red flash will occur somewhere on the line. But no Flatlander will be able to determine exactly when or where the next red light will be seen.

As a consequence, they start to think that the world contains a sense of indeterminacy, that the reason these lights cannot be explained, is that at the fundamental level nature just doesn’t make sense. Are they right? Does the fact that they were forced to describe these lights probabilistically actually mean that the world is indeterministic?

01:50

The lesson we can learn from Flatland is that when we assume only a portion of nature’s full geometry, deterministic events can appear fundamentally indeterministic. However, when we expand our view and gain access to the full geometry of the system, indeterminacy disappears. As you can see, we can now determine exactly when and where the next red light will be seen on this line.

We are here tonight to consider the possibility that we are like the Flatlanders. Because, as it turns out, our world is riddled with mysteries that just don’t seem to fit inside the geometric assumptions we have made. Mysteries like warped space-time, black holes, quantum tunneling, the constants of nature, dark matter, dark energy, et cetera. The list is quite long.

How do we respond to these mysteries? Well, we have two choices: We can either cling to our previous assumptions and invent new equations that exist somehow outside of the metric, as a vague attempt to explain what’s going on, or we can take a bolder step, throw out our old assumptions, and construct a new blueprint for reality. One that already includes those phenomena.

It’s time to take that step. Because we are in the same situation as the Flatlanders. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics has our scientists believing that deep down, the world is indeterminant. That the closer we look, the more we will find that nature just doesn’t make sense. Hmm… Perhaps all of these mysteries are actually telling us that there’s more to the picture. That nature has a richer geometry than we have assumed.

Maybe the mysterious phenomena in our world could actually be explained by a richer geometry, with more dimensions. This would mean that we are stuck in our own version of Flatland. And if that’s the case, how do we pop ourselves out? At least conceptually? Well, the first step is to make sure that we know exactly what a dimension is.

04:08

A good question to start with is: What is it about X, Y and Z that makes them spatial dimensions? The answer is that a change in position in one dimension does not imply a change in position in the other dimensions. Dimensions are independent descriptors of position. So Z is a dimension because an object can be holding still in X and Y while it’s moving in Z. So, to suggest that there are other spatial dimensions is to say that it must be possible for an object to be holding still in X, Y and Z, yet still moving about in some other spatial sense.

But where might these other dimensions be? To solve that mystery, we need to make a fundamental adjustment to our geometric assumptions about space. We need to assume that space is literally and physically quantized, that it’s made of interactive pieces. If space is quantized, then it cannot be infinitely divided into smaller and smaller increments. Once we get down to a fundamental size, we cannot go any further and still be talking about distances in space.

Let’s consider an analogy. Imagine we have a chunk of pure gold that we mean to cut in half over and over. We can entertain two questions here: How many times can we cut what we have in half? and How many times can we cut what we have in half and still have gold? These are two completely different questions, because once we get down to one atom of gold, we cannot go any further without transcending the definition of gold.

If space is quantized, then the same thing applies. We cannot talk about distances in space that are less than the fundamental unit of space for the same reason we cannot talk about amounts of gold that are less than 1 atom of gold.

Quantizing space brings us to a new geometric picture. One like this, where the collection of these pieces, these quanta, come together to construct the fabric of X, Y and Z. This geometry is eleven-dimensional. So if you’re seeing this, you already got it. It’s not going to be beyond you. We just need to make sense of what’s going on.

Notice that there are three distinct types of volume and all volumes are three-dimensional. Distance between any two points in space becomes equal to the number of quanta that are instantaneously between them. The volume inside each quantum is interspatial, and the volume that the quanta move about in is superspatial.

Notice how having perfect information about X, Y, Z position, only enables us to identify a single quantum of space. Also notice that it’s now possible for an object to be moving about interspatially or superspatially without changing its X, Y, Z position at all. This means that there are 9 independent ways for an object to move about. That makes 9 spatial dimensions. 3 dimensions of X, Y, Z volume, 3 dimensions of superspatial volume, and 3 dimensions of interspatial volume. Then we have time, which can be defined as the whole number of resonations experienced at each quantum. And super-time allows us to describe their motion through super-space.

OK, I know this is a whirlwind, a lot faster than I’d like to do it, because there are so many details we can go into. But there’s a significant advantage to being able to describe space as a medium that can possess density, distortions and ripples. For example, we can now describe Einstein’s curved space-time without dimensionally reducing the picture.

08:02

Curvature is a change in the density of these space quanta. The denser the quanta get, the less they can freely resonate so they experience less time. And in the regions of maximum density, and the quanta are all packed completely together, like in black holes, they experience no time. Gravity is simply the result of an object traveling straight through curved space. Going straight through X, Y, Z space means both your left side and your right side travel the same distance, interact with the same number of quanta.

So, when a density gradient exists in space, the straight path is the one that provides an equal spatial experience for all parts of a traveling object.

OK, this is a really big deal. If you’ve ever looked at a graph of Einstein curvature before, space-time curvature, you may have not noticed that one of the dimensions was unlabeled. We assumed we took a plane of our world and anytime there was mass in that plane we’ll stretch it; if there was more mass, we stretch it more, to show how much curvature there is.

But what’s the direction we’re stretching in? We got rid of the Z dimension. We blow over that every single time in our books. Here, we didn’t have to get rid of the Z dimension. We got to show curvature in its full form. And this is a really big deal.

Other mysteries that pop out of this map, like quantum tunneling — Remember our Flatlanders? Well, they’ll see a red light appear somewhere on the horizon and then it’ll disappear, and as far as they’re concerned, it’s gone from the universe. But if a red light appears again somewhere else on the line, they might call it quantum tunneling, the same way when we watch an electron, and then it disappears from the fabric of space and reappears somewhere else, and that somewhere else can actually be beyond the boundary that it’s not supposed to be able to get beyond.

OK? Can you use this picture now to solve that mystery? Can you see how the mysteries of our world can transform into elegant aspects of our new geometric picture? All we have to do to make sense of those mysteries is to change our geometric assumptions, to quantize space.

OK, this picture also has something to say about where the constants of nature come from; like the speed of light, Planck’s constant, the gravitational constant and so on. Since all units of expression, Newtons, Joules, Pascals, et cetera, can be reduced to five combinations of length, mass, time, ampere and temperature, quantizing the fabric of space, means that those five expressions must also come in quantized units. So, this gives us five numbers that stem from our geometric map. Natural consequences of our map, with units of one.

There’s two other numbers in our map. Numbers that reflect the limits of curvature. Pi can be used to represent the minimum state of curvature, or zero curvature, while a number we are calling zhe, can be used to represent the maximum state of curvature. The reason we now have a maximum is because we’ve quantized space. We can’t infinitely continue to go on.

11:21

What do these numbers do for us? Well, this long list here is the constants of nature, and if you’ve noticed, even though they’re flying by pretty fast, they’re all made up of the five numbers that come from our geometry and the two numbers that come from the limits of curvature. That’s a really big deal by the way, to me it’s a really big deal. This means that the constants of nature come from the geometry of space; they’re necessary consequences of the model.

This is a lot of fun because there are so many punch lines, it’s hard to know exactly who’s going to get caught where. But, this new map, allows us to explain gravity, in a way that’s totally conceptual now, you get the whole picture in your head, black holes, quantum tunneling, the constants of nature, and in case none of those caught your fancy, or you’ve never heard of any of them before, you’ve definitely just barely heard about dark matter and dark energy. Those too are geometric consequences.

Dark matter, when we look at distant galaxies, and watch the stars that orbit about in those galaxies, the stars out at the edges are moving too fast, they seem to have extra gravity. How do we explain this? Well, we couldn’t, so we say there must be some other matter there, creating more gravity, making those effects. But we can’t see the matter. So we call it dark matter. And we define dark matter as something you can’t see. Which is fine, it’s a good step, it’s a good start, but here in our model we didn’t have to take that kind of a leap. We took a leap, we said space is quantized, but everything else fell out from that.

Here, we’re saying, space is made up of fundamental parts, just the same way we believe air is made out of molecules. If that’s true, then an automatic requirement is you can have changes in density, this is where gravity comes from, but you should also have phase changes.

And what stimulates a phase change? Well, temperature. When something gets cold enough, its geometric arrangement will change, and it will change phase. A change in the density here, at the outer regions of the galaxies, is going to cause a gravitational field, because that’s what gravitational fields are, they’re changes in density.

OK? Totally skipped through all that. And now we’ll go to dark energy, in 15 seconds. When we look out into the cosmos, we see that distant light is red shifted, OK? That it loses some of its energy as it’s traveling to us for billions of years.

Now how do we explain that red shift? Well, currently we say it means the universe is expanding. OK? All of our claims that the universe is expanding come from this, from measurements of how the red shift changes, out of this distance to this distance to that distance. And also we measure the expansion that way.

But there’s another way to explain red shift. Just like there’d be another way to explain how if I had a tuning fork tuned to middle C, and I went in a tunnel and you could hear a B note. Sure, you could say it’s because I’m moving away from you inside the tunnel, but it could also be because the pressure of the atmosphere is decreasing while the sound is traveling to your ear.

Here, that seemed a little far-fetched because atmospheric pressure doesn’t decrease fast, but when we’re talking billions of years of light traveling through space, all we need is the quanta themselves to have a small amount of inelasticity and red shift is imminent.

All right, there’s a lot more to explore in this, because if you’re interested, feel free to check out this website and give all the feedback you can. We’re out of time so let me just say, that this blueprint gives us a mental tool, a tool that can expand the reach of our imagination, and maybe, even respark the romanticism of Einstein’s quest.

Thank you.

(Applause)