Entrades amb l'etiqueta ‘english’

James Clarkson

dilluns, 6/05/2019

James Clarkson is an investigator who has stood in two worlds for many years – a career professional investigator in the criminal justice field and as a lifelong researcher of the UFO Mystery. He has been a plainclothes military police investigator, a 20-year career city police officer and fraud investigator who has had many titles: patrol supervisor, detective sergeant, fatal accident team manager and training officer.

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)

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)

 

What it is like for a bat to be a bat?

diumenge, 21/04/2019

Batman and Nagel

About logical significance of what we can never understand

diumenge, 21/04/2019

If anyone is inclined to deny that we can believe in the existence of facts like this whose exact nature we cannot possibly conceive, he should reflect that in contemplating the bats we are in much the same position that intelligent bats or Martians would occupy if they tried to form a conception of what it was like to be us. The structure of their own minds might make it impossible for them to succeed, but we know they would be wrong to conclude that there is not anything precise that it is like to be us: that only certain general types of mental state could be ascribed to us (perhaps perception and appetite would be concepts common to us both; perhaps not). We know they would be wrong to draw such a skeptical conclusion because we know what it is like to be us. And we know that while it includes an enormous amount of variation and complexity, and while we do not possess the vocabulary to describe it adequately, its subjective character is highly specific, and in some respects describable in terms that can be understood only by creatures like us. The fact that we cannot expect ever to accommodate in our language a detailed description of Martian or bat phenomenology should not lead us to dismiss as meaningless the claim that bats and Martians have experiences fully comparable in richness of detail to our own. It would be fine if someone were to develop concepts and a theory that enabled us to think about those things; but such an understanding may be permanently denied to us by the limits of our nature. And to deny the reality or logical significance of what we can never describe or understand is the crudest form of cognitive dissonance.

Thomas Nagel What is it like to be a bat phenomenology neurology problem hard consciousness chalmers sjöstedt-H neuroscience limits

——-

Thomas Nagel,  “What is it like to be a bat?”
From The Philosophical Review LXXXIII, 4 (October 1974)

Canada: UFO sightings increasing

dimecres, 20/03/2019

Wed, Mar 12: Ross Lord reports

The number of UFO sightings in Canada has soared 10-fold over the past 25 years. The majority of those flying objects eventually get identified, but a few are never explained. That’s enough to keep some sky watchers wondering if just one sighting could be real.

UFO sightings Statistics

dimarts , 19/03/2019

According to data from the National UFO Reporting Center, UFO sightings around the world have reached an all-time high. Statistics show individuals in the US are more likely to witness a UFO.

The findings are based on data crunched by Sam Monfort, a doctoral student in Human Factors and Applied Cognition at George Mason University. Monfort wrote up his findings in a blog update that used information from the National UFO Reporting Center (NUFORC), an organization that documents UFO sightings.

According to Monfort’s report, UFOs have been increasingly popping in, with 104,947 reported sightings on record over the past 100-plus years.

John Salter, Robert Taylor, Charles L. Moody and Weiner brothers

dijous, 7/03/2019

 

 

4. John Salter Jr and his Son A respected professor at the University of North Dakota, John Salter Jr. and his son, John the third were driving in their pick up truck on March 20, 1988. It was 6:25 PM and the two were on an isolated stretch of Route 61 in Wisconsin. An hour and a half later, the two found themselves traveling in the complete opposite direction from where they were heading and realized they had no idea what happened to the lost time. Utterly confused, they decided to rest for the night and continue their trip the next morning.

3. Robert Taylor – The Dechmont Woods Incident It was supposed to be a normal day for forester, Robert Taylor. He had been working for the Livingston Development Corporation for 16 years and for most of that, his job involved doing inspections inside the Dechmont Forest in Scotland. On the morning of November 9, 1979, he said goodbye to his wife and together with his dog, drove his van to work. He parked on a backroad in the woods, took his tools and began to hike to the remote forest area he was going to inspect. It was midmorning, around 10:15, not long after his hike began when Robert came across a strange sight. At a small clearing within the dense forest, he saw a spherical dark object hovering menacingly in the air. It was about 20 feet across, metallic but with an emery-like surface. Although he could clearly make out its shape, it would become partly transparent so that Robert could see the fir trees behind it – as if the thing was trying to camouflage itself.

2. Sergeant Charles L. Moody U.S. Air Force Sergeant Charles L. Moody was watching a fantastic meteor shower in New Mexico during the early morning hours of August 13, 1975. At approximately 1:15, he spotted a bright, glowing metallic disk in the sky falling approximately 300 feet away from where he was. It was around 50 feet long and 18-20 feet wide and just before it hit the ground it stopped. Now floating 15-20 feet above the ground it wobbled a bit before moving towards Moody. When he realized what was happening, he rushed to his car and attempted to get away but his vehicle wouldn’t start. The object stopped no more then 50 feet from him and it emanated a high-pitched humming sound. HE could see a figure through a rectangular window in the craft, the humming sound stopped and that’s when his entire body went numb.

1. Allagash Waterway Abduction the Allagash Waterway Abduction is Considered one of the most popular group abduction cases ever recorded. On August 20, 1976, twins, Jim and Jack Weiner along with their two friends, Chuck Rak and Charlie Folts, decided to have a relaxing wilderness getaway along the Allagash River in Northern Maine. The four young art students had been friends since high school and decided to getaway for a little backwoods adventure. For the next few days, the four canoed and camped along the waterway before reaching Eagle Lake on August 26th. They set up camp and decided to go night fishing for some trout. Before leaving their camp, they made sure to create a huge bonfire, fueling it with big logs that would burn for 2-3 hours, so they could easily find their way back. A little while after they started fishing, Chuck said he felt as if they were being watched. He turned around and that’s when he saw a large bright sphere silently hovering about 2 to – 300 feet above the water coming toward them. He yelled to the others to look at it and all four saw the bright colored orb.