PLato said,"Look to the perfection of the heavens for truth," while Aristotle said "look around you at what is, if you would know the truth" To Remember: Eskesthai
This image depicts the interaction of nine plane waves—expanding sets
of ripples, like the waves you would see if you simultaneously dropped
nine stones into a still pond. The pattern is called a quasicrystal
because it has an ordered structure, but the structure never repeats
exactly. The waves produced by dropping four or more stones into a pond
always form a quasicrystal.
Because of the wavelike properties of matter at subatomic scales,
this pattern could also be seen in the waveform that describes the
location of an electron. Harvard physicist Eric Heller created this
computer rendering and added color to make the pattern’s structure
easier to see. See:What Is This?
A Psychedelic Place Mat?
In 1941, Escher wrote his first paper, now publicly recognized, called Regular Division of the Plane with Asymmetric Congruent Polygons,
which detailed his mathematical approach to artwork creation. His
intention in writing this was to aid himself in integrating mathematics
into art. Escher is considered a research mathematician of his time
because of his documentation with this paper. In it, he studied color
based division, and developed a system of categorizing combinations of
shape, color and symmetrical properties. By studying these areas, he
explored an area that later mathematicians labeled crystallography.
Around 1956, Escher explored the concept of representing infinity on a two-dimensional plane. Discussions with Canadian mathematician H.S.M. Coxeter inspired Escher's interest in hyperbolic tessellations, which are regular tilings of the hyperbolic plane. Escher's works Circle Limit I–IV
demonstrate this concept. In 1995, Coxeter verified that Escher had
achieved mathematical perfection in his etchings in a published paper.
Coxeter wrote, "Escher got it absolutely right to the millimeter."
Snow Crystal Photo Gallery I
If you have never studied the structure of Mandala origins of the Tibetan Buddhist you might never of recognize the structure given to this 2 dimensional surface? Rotate the 2d surface to the side view. It becomes a recognition of some Persian temple perhaps? I mean, the video really helps one to see this, and to understand the structural integrity is built upon.
So too, do we recognize this "snow flake" as some symmetrical realization of it's individuality as some mathematical form constructed in nature?
I previous post I gave some inclination to the idea of time travel and how this is done within the scope of consciousness. In the same vein, I want you to realize that such journeys to our actualized past can bring us in contact with a book of Mandalas that helped me to realize and reveals a key of symmetrical expressions of the lifetime, or lifetimes.
Again in relation how science sees subjectivity I see that this is weak in expression in terms of how it can be useful in an objective sense as to be repeatable. But it helps too, to trace this beginning back to a source that while perceived as mathematical , shows the the mathematical relation embedded in nature.
Return to Home, Safety seeking, In my mind, Continually speaking
Out of the sky, Eyes Earthbound, Stalagmite in open cavern, Fertile lands all around.
The era of design, Like a Justice Hall, Women in bonnets, Mennonite clothes,
In the Town of Williams, Some time ago, In the late eighteen hundreds, Scenery I know.
by Platohagel
Before I begin I just wanted to say I am deeply connected to the science today and what I am displaying now may not sit well with scientists. Those who discount subjectivity as a part of our existence not tried and tested. This subjective existence\experience is real and very individual. How could you discount this from a point of a view of a scientist. I thought they might say, but yes, lived with responsibility and in a true validated sense?
So it was in this sense that one could consider the exercise that follows as a science fiction possibility that raises the questions about time and the relationship of the probability distribution of a possible future and the lived past. The present, in becoming, and in this case, I wanted to look at the past.
The question is that we know that the world of subjective influences and experiences are deeply personal in that they become the life you have live. We work all day and we work all night in the virtual realities.You discover the Intent in the Actualized?
This distinction if not understood within the parameters of the subject entertained it would have lacked the understanding that our virtual reality within the confines of the parameters as being explicit in what we create would have been missed. I can talk about such a park and you might believe the context of such an example if I were to tell you that I was able to remember that at a very young age.
Can an individual experience the actualized past as if viewing a place in our history as part of that history. These questions had crossed my mind over 35 years ago as I explored the dream world. I tried to keep as much of this in poetic form dreaming as I was experiencing it. So I thought it would be nice to write it down in that form.
Now there are many reasons why this area of subjectivity was of interest to me. It was in that what I believed, that not only our footprints left an image in the sand, but our impressions of our life was in the footprints.
Two section variable capacitor, used in superhet receiver
Technically such excursions would have been of interest if I could track the ability by some means. So it was not beyond me to think that a tuning could take place by some individuals in helping to reconstruct the past by going back in time. Not only by Carbon dating. But possibly by some other technical means as well in terms of a super heterodyne solution.
Now I am sure the idea of a fireman and a radio might be trigger in your mind. Aurora flickering in the sky and a son who goes to work on his Dad's radio? You will find many references to time travel in this blog because of this idea I have had for a long time about our the ability each of has to visit the historical past as an Intent in the Actualized.
Frequency is a 2000 science-fiction film that contains elements of the time travel, thriller and alternate history film genres.
So the idea for me here was about creating a device that could tune into the past? Why then, is it we are not capable in consciousness as a virtual reality?
The Super Hero Versions
Miracles StudiosThrone Plates
To
activate Thorne plates, the distance between each plate must be less
than the width of an atom. The resulting wormhole will be equally small,
so getting in and out might be difficult. To widen the portal, some
scientists suggest using a laser to inject immense amounts of negative
energy. In addition, Thorne believes that radiation effects created by
gravitons, or particles of gravity, might fry you as you enter the
wormhole. According to string theory, however, this probably won't
happen, so it's scant reason to cancel your trip.
Miracles StudiosGott Loop
To
take you back one year, the string must weigh about half as much as the
Milky Way galaxy. You'll need a mighty big spaceship to make that
rectangle.
Many scientists believe the big bang that created the
universe left behind cosmic strings - thin, infinitely long filaments of
compressed matter. In 1991, Princeton physicist J. Richard Gott
discovered that two of these structures, arranged in parallel and moving
in opposite directions, would warp space-time to allow travel to the
past. He later reworked the idea to involve a single cosmic-string loop.
A Gott loop can take you back in time but not forward. The guide to
building your own:
Miracles StudiosGott Shell
This is a relatively slow method of time travel, and life inside the shell could become tedious.
In
essence, a Gott shell is a huge concentration of mass. The shell's
sheer density creates a gravitational field that slows down the clock
for anyone enclosed within it. Outside, time rolls along at its familiar
pace, but inside, it creeps. Thus the Gott shell is useful for travel
into the future only. If you're planning a jaunt to the past using a
Gott loop, you might want to bring along a Gott shell for the return
trip. What to do, step by step:
Miracles StudiosVan Stokum Cylinder
The cylinder must be infinitely long, which could add slightly to its cost.
Mass
and energy act on space-time like a rock thrown into a pond: the bigger
the rock, the bigger the ripples. Physicist W. J. van Stockum realized
in 1937 that an immense cylinder spinning at near-light speed will stir
space-time as though it were molasses, pulling it along as the cylinder
turns. Although Van Stockum himself didn't recognize it, anyone orbiting
such a cylinder in the direction of the spin will be caught in the
current and, from the perspective of a distant observer, exceed the
speed of light. The result: Time flows backward. Circle the cylinder in
the other direction with just the right trajectory, and this machine can
take you into the future as well. How it works:
Kerr Ring
The
Kerr ring is a one-way ticket. The black hole's gravity is so great
that, once you step through it, you won't be able to return.
When
Karl Schwarzschild solved Einstein's equations in 1917, he found that
stars can collapse into infinitesimally small points in space - what we
now call black holes. Four decades later, physicist Roy Kerr discovered
that some stars are saved from total collapse and become rotating rings.
Kerr didn't regard these rings as time machines. However, because their
intense gravity distorts space-time, and because they permit large
objects to enter on one side and exit on the other in one piece,
Kerr-type black holes can serve as portals to the past or the future. If
finding one with the proper dimensions is too much trouble, you can
always build one yourself:
Tom Campbell begins his full workshop"Reality 101" presentation at the University of Calgary. The Friday video is a short overview of his full workshop. Sunday's presentation in three parts completes the series. See Also:Tom Campbell: Calgary Theory only (Sat) 1/3
In the basic double slit experiment, a very narrow beam of coherent light
from a source that is far enough away to have almost perfectly parallel
wave fronts is directed perpendicularly towards a wall pierced by two
parallel slit apertures. The widths of the slits and their separation
are approximately the same size as the wavelength of the incident light.
If a detection screen (anything from a sheet of white paper to a
digital camera) is put on the other side of the double slit wall, a
pattern of light and dark fringes, called an interference pattern, will be observed.
Early in the history of this experiment, scientists discovered
that, by decreasing the brightness of the light source sufficiently,
individual particles of light that form the interference pattern are
detectable. They next tried to discover by which slit a given unit of
light (photon) had traveled.
Unexpectedly, the results discovered were that if anything is
done to permit determination of which path the photon takes, the
interference pattern disappears: there is no interference
pattern. Each photon simply hits the detector by going through one of
the two slits. Each slit yields a simple single pile of hits; there is
no interference pattern.
It is counterintuitive that a different outcome results based on
whether or not the photon is constrained to follow one or another path
well after it goes through the slit but before it hits the detector.
Two inconsistent accounts of the nature of light have long
contended. The discovery of light's interfering with itself seemed to
prove that light could not be a particle. It seemed that it had to be a
wave to explain the interference seen in the double-slit experiment
(first devised by Thomas Young in his classic interference experiment of the eighteenth century).
In the early twentieth century, experiments with the photoelectric effect
(the phenomenon that makes the light meters in cameras possible) gave
equally strong evidence to support the idea that light is a particle
phenomenon. Nothing is observable regarding it between the time a photon
is emitted (which experimenters can at least locate in time by
determining the time at which energy was supplied to the electron
emitter) and the time it appears as the delivery of energy to some
detector screen (such as a CCD or the emulsion of a film camera).
Nevertheless experimenters have tried to gain indirect
information about which path a photon "really" takes when passing
through the double-slit apparatus.
In the process they learned that constraining the path taken by one of a pair of entangled
photons inevitably controls the path taken by the partner photon.
Further, if the partner photon is sent through a double-slit device and
thus interferes with itself, then very surprisingly the first photon
will also behave in a way consistent with its having interfered with
itself, even though there is no double-slit device in its way.
In a quantum eraser experiment,
one arranges to detect which one of the slits the photon passes
through, but also to construct the experiment in such a way that this
information can be "erased" after the fact.
In practice, this "erasure" of path information frequently means
removing the constraints that kept photons following two different paths
separated from each other.
In one experiment, rather than splitting one photon or its probability wave between two slits, the photon is subjected to a beam splitter.
If one thinks in terms of a stream of photons being randomly directed
by such a beam splitter to go down two paths that are kept from
interaction, it is clear that no photon can then interfere with any
other or with itself.
Experiment that shows delayed determination of photon path
If the rate of photon production is reduced so that only one photon
is entering the apparatus at any one time, however, it becomes
impossible to understand the photon as only moving through one path
because when their outputs are redirected so that they coincide on a
common detector then interference phenomena appear.
In the two diagrams to the right, photons are emitted one at a
time from the yellow star. They each pass through a 50% beam splitter
(green block) that reflects 1/2 of the photons, which travel along two
possible paths, depicted by the red or blue lines.
In the top diagram, one can see that the trajectories of photons
are clearly known — in the sense that if a photon emerges at the top of
the apparatus it appears that it had to have come by the path that leads
to that point (blue line), and if it emerges at the side of the
apparatus it appears that it had to have come by way of the other path
(red line).
Next, as shown in the bottom diagram, a second beam splitter is
introduced at the top right. It can direct either beam towards either
path; thus note that whatever emerges from each exit port may have come
by way of either path.
It is in this sense that the path information has been "erased".
Note that total phase differences are introduced along the two
paths because of the different effects of passing through a glass plate,
being reflected off its first surface, or passing through the back
surface of a semi-silvered beam splitter and being reflected by the back
(inner side) of the reflective surface.
The result is that waves pass out of both the top upwards exit,
and also the top-right exit. Specifically, waves passing out the top
exit interfere destructively, whereas waves passing out the upper right
side exit interfere constructively.
A more detailed explanation of the phase changes involved here can be found in the Mach-Zehnder interferometer article. Also, the experiment depicted above is reported in full in a reference.[2]
If the second beam splitter in the lower diagram could be
inserted or removed one might assert that a photon must have traveled by
way of one path or the other if a photon were detected at the end of
one path or the other. The appearance would be that the photon "chose"
one path or the other at the only (bottom left) beam splitter, and
therefore could only arrive at the respective path end.
The subjective assurance that the photon followed a single path
is brought into question, however, if (after the photon has presumably
"decided" which path to take) a second beam splitter then makes it
impossible to say by which path the photon has traveled.
What once appeared to be a "black and white" issue now appears to
be a "gray" issue. It is the mixture of two originally separated paths
that constitutes what is colloquially referred to as "erasure." It is
actually more like "a return to indeterminability."
The experiment
The experimental setup, described in detail in the original paper[1],
is as follows. First, a photon is generated and passes through a double
slit apparatus (vertical black line in the upper left hand corner of
the diagram).
The photon goes through one (or both) of the two slits, whose
paths are shown as red or light blue lines, indicating which slit the
photon came through (red indicates slit A, light blue indicates slit B).
So far, the experiment is like a conventional two-slit experiment. However, after the slits a beta barium borate crystal (labeled as BBO) causes spontaneous parametric down conversion (SPDC), converting the photon (from either slit) into two identical entangled photons with 1/2 the frequency of the original photon. These photons are caused to diverge and follow two paths by the Glan-Thompson Prism.
One of these photons, referred to as the "signal" photon (look at the red and light-blue lines going upwards from the Glan-Thompson prism), continues to the target detector called D0. The positions where these "signal" photons detected by D0 occur can later be examined to discover if collectively those positions form an interference pattern.
The other entangled photon, referred to as the "idler" photon (look at the red and light-blue lines going downwards
from the Glan-Thompson prism), is deflected by a prism that sends it
along divergent paths depending on whether it came from slit A or slit
B.
Somewhat beyond the path split, beam splitters
(green blocks) are encountered that each have a 50% chance of allowing
the idler to pass through and a 50% chance of causing it to be
reflected. The gray blocks in the diagram are mirrors.
Because of the way the beam splitters are arranged, the idler can be detected by detectors labeled D1, D2, D3 and D4. Note that:
If it is recorded at detector D3, then it can only have come from slit B.
If it is recorded at detector D4 it can only have come from slit A.
If the idler is detected at detector D1 or D2, it might have come from either slit (A or B).
Thus, which detector receives the idler photon either reveals
information, or specifically does not reveal information, about the path
of the signal photon with which it is entangled.
If the idler is detected at either D1 or D2, the which-path information has been "erased", so there is no way of knowing whether it (and its entangled signal photon) came from slit A or slit B.
Whereas, if the idler is detected at D3 or D4, it is known that it (and its entangled signal photon) came from slit B or slit A, respectively.
By using a coincidence counter,
the experimenters were able to isolate the entangled signal from the
overwhelming photo-noise of the laboratory - recording only events where
both signal and idler photons were detected.
When the experimenters looked only at the signal photons whose entangled idlers were detected at D1 or D2, they found an interference pattern.
However, when they looked at the signal photons whose entangled idlers were detected at D3 or similarly at D4, they found no interference.
This result is similar to that of the double-slit experiment,
since interference is observed when it is not known which slit the
photon went through, while no interference is observed when the path is
known.
However, what makes this experiment possibly astonishing is that,
unlike in the classic double-slit experiment, the choice of whether to
preserve or erase the which-path information of the idler need not be
made until after the position of the signal photon has already been measured by D0.
There is never any which-path information determined directly for the photons that are detected at D0, yet detection of which-path information by D3 or D4 means that no interference pattern is observed in the corresponding subset of signal photons at D0.
The results from Kim, et al.[1] have shown that whether the idler photon is detected at a detector that preserves its which-path information (D3 or D4) or a detector that erases its which-path information (D1 or D2) determines whether interference is seen at D0, even though the idler photon is not observed until after the signal photon arrives at D0 due to the shorter optical path for the latter.
Some have interpreted this result to mean that the delayed choice
to observe or not observe the path of the idler photon will change the
outcome of an event in the past. However, an interference pattern may
only be observed after the idlers have been detected (i.e., at D1 or D2).
Note that the total pattern of all signal photons at D0,
whose entangled idlers went to multiple different detectors, will never
show interference regardless of what happens to the idler photons.[3]
One can get an idea of how this works by looking carefully at both the
graph of the subset of signal photons whose idlers went to detector D1 (fig. 3 in the paper[1]), and the graph of the subset of signal photons whose idlers went to detector D2
(fig. 4), and observing that the peaks of the first interference
pattern line up with the troughs of the second and vice versa (noted in
the paper as "a π phase shift between the two interference fringes"), so
that the sum of the two will not show interference.
Time relations among data
Raw results for D0 are all delivered to the same detector regardless of what happens at the other detectors.
Raw results for D0 can be sorted according to correspondences with the other detectors,1 through 4
By noting which photons reaching Detector 0 correspond with photons
reaching Detectors 1, 2, 3, and 4, it is possible to sort photon records
collected by Detector 0 into four groups. Only then will it become
possible to see interference patterns in two groups and only diffraction
patterns in the other two groups. If there were no coincidence counter,
then there would be no way to distinguish any photon that arrives at
Detector 0 from any other photon that reaches it.
Photons will not reach detectors one through four in regular
rotation, so the only way to sort out the photons that are entangled
twins with the ones that reached each of those detectors is to group
them according to which of those four detectors was activated when a
photon reached Detector 0. Note that in the schematic diagrams the
fringes or interference patterns imaged by Detector 1 and Detector 2
will add together to form a solid band. The addition of the diffraction
patterns paired with the diffraction patterns seen by Detector 3 and
Detector 4 will make the center area somewhat brighter than it would
otherwise be, but would have no other influence on the confused picture
produced by the raw data gathered at Detector 0.
It is impossible to know which group a photon appearing at Detector 0 at time T1 may belong to until after its entangled partner is found at one of the other detectors and their coincidence is measured at some slightly later time T2.
Discussion
Problems with using retrocausality
This delayed choice quantum eraser experiment raises questions about
time, time sequences, and thereby brings our usual ideas of time and
causal sequence into question. If a determining factor in the
complicated (lower) part of the apparatus determines an outcome in the
simple part of the apparatus that consists of only a lens and a
detection screen, then effect seems to precede cause. So if the light
paths involved in the complicated part of the apparatus were greatly
extended in order that, e.g., a year might go by before a photon showed
up at D1, D2, D3, or D4,
then when a photon showed up in one of these detectors it would cause
the photon in the upper, simple part of the apparatus to have shown up
in a certain mode a year earlier. Perhaps by re-routing light paths to
the four detectors during that one year so that the number of possible
outcomes is reduced to two or even perhaps to one, then the experimenter
could send a signal back through time.
Changing between the first
possible arrangement and second possible arrangement of parts in the
complicated part of the experiment would then function like the opening
and closing of a telegraph key. An objection that seems fatal is soon
raised: The photons that show up in D1 through D4 do not follow some regular rotation. Therefore the photons that show up in D0
pile onto the same detection screen in random order. There is no way to
tell, by simply looking at the time and place of each photon detected
using D0, which of the other four detectors it corresponds
to. So the result will be like trying to watch a motion picture screen
on which four projectors are focused. The whole screen will be awash
with light. In order to segregate the photons arriving at D0
into the ones that will form one or the other of two overlapping fringe
patterns and also the two diffraction patterns, it will be necessary to
know how to collect them into four sets. But to do that it is necessary
to get messages from the second part of the experiment about which
detector was involved with the detection of the entangled partner of
each photon received at D0. To oversimplify a bit, the data collected at D0
would be like an encrypted message. However, it could only be decrypted
when the key to the code was delivered by a message that could travel
at no faster than the speed of light. This daunting obstacle to sending
messages back in time has not, however, stopped all researchers from
trying to find some way of getting around the stumbling block.
Details pertaining to retrocausality in the Kim experiment
In their paper, Kim, et al.[1] explain that the concept of complementarity is one of the most basic principles of quantum mechanics. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,
it is not possible to precisely measure both the position and the
momentum of a quantum particle at the same time. In other words,
position and momentum are complementary. In 1927, Niels Bohr
maintained that quantum particles have both "wave-like" behavior and
"particle-like" behavior, but can exhibit only one kind of behavior
under conditions that prevent exhibiting the complementary
characteristics. This complementarity has come to be known as the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman
believed that the presence of these two aspects under conditions that
prevent their simultaneous manifestation is the basic mystery of quantum
mechanics.
According to Kim, et al., "The actual mechanisms that enforce complementarity vary from one experimental situation to another."[1]
In the double-slit experiment, the common wisdom is that
complementarity makes it seemingly impossible to determine which slit
the photon passes through without at the same time disturbing it enough
to destroy the interference pattern. A 1982 paper by Scully and Drühl
circumvented the issue of disturbance due to direct measurement of the
photon,[4]
according to Kim, et al. Scully and Drühl "found a way around the
position-momentum uncertainty obstacle and proposed a quantum eraser to
obtain which-path or particle-like information without introducing large
uncontrolled phase factors to disturb the interference."[1]
Scully and Drühl found that there is no interference pattern when
which-path information is obtained, even if this information was
obtained without directly observing the original photon, but that if you
somehow "erase" the which-path information, an interference pattern is
again observed.
In the delayed choice quantum eraser discussed here, the pattern
exists even if the which-path information is erased shortly later in
time than the signal photons hit the primary detector. However, the
interference pattern can only be seen retroactively once the idler
photons have already been detected and the experimenter has obtained
information about them, with the interference pattern being seen when
the experimenter looks at particular subsets of signal photons that were matched with idlers that went to particular detectors.
The main stumbling block for using retrocausality to communicate information
The total pattern of signal photons at the primary detector never
shows interference, so it is not possible to deduce what will happen to
the idler photons by observing the signal photons alone, which would
open up the possibility of gaining information faster-than-light
(since one might deduce this information before there had been time for
a message moving at the speed of light to travel from the idler
detector to the signal photon detector) or even gaining information
about the future (since as noted above, the signal photons may be
detected at an earlier time than the idlers), both of which would
qualify as violations of causality
in physics. The apparatus under discussion here could not communicate
information in a retro-causal manner because it takes another signal,
one which must arrive via a process that can go no faster than the speed
of light, to sort the superimposed data in the signal photons into four
streams that reflect the states of the idler photons at their four
distinct detection screens.
In fact, a theorem proved by Phillippe Eberhard shows that if the accepted equations of relativistic quantum field theory are correct, it should never be possible to experimentally violate causality using quantum effects[5] (see reference [6] for a treatment emphasizing the role of conditional probabilities).
Yet there are those who persevere in attempting to communicate retroactively
Some physicists have speculated about the possibility that these
experiments might be changed in a way that would be consistent with
previous experiments, yet which could allow for experimental causality
violations.[7][8]
Core optics are the 40-kg masses that form the heart
of a LIGO detector. A core optic is manufactured from fused silica,
polished to a few nanometers of smoothness and coated with dozens of
layers of optical coatings. The result is a tuning of the balance of
reflection and transmission of the mirror at the parts per million
level. See: Advanced LIGO
Philip Low presents a new use of EEG to understand our brains and potential disease.
NeuroVigil, Inc. is dedicated to the betterment of the human condition. By merging neuroscience, non-invasive wireless brain recording technology and advanced computational algorithms, an accurate and automated reading of brain wave data is rapidly generated. This information is being used to assist with the diagnosis and treatment of a myriad of medical conditions. The Company successfully went to market in 2009. See: NeuroVigil
Mission Statement
It is with some interest as we developed the technologies with regard to technical methods of bodily sensors ( bio-feedback) I foresee a vast burst in development of methods that might be synced with the computer technologies. These are to provide for psychological and recognizable means to teach people and children to identify the markers that provide for the most efficient transfer of information, in our daily activities. Methods which might help us to recognize how psychological makeup can be recognized in the data transfers to describe states.
It was with some interest to me that I was exploring the emotive functions of human beings in our psychological makeup. It was important to me to be able to quiet emotions that would well up inside me.
So it was important back in the seventies that what I wanted to find was a method that was more advanced then what I had seen and read about with regard to meditation. Visiting my local doctor then, it just so happen he was dong research at the time into methods to help patients to be able to find effective solutions while using physical markers of the body. At that time, the methods used were a thermometer and measuring pulse rate, before and after entering this quiet state.
It was with some interest back then that I was also exploring the bio-feed back subject as it pertained to the development of sensors. This was so as to replicate this physical function in a measured process, other then the methods I had physically been using. It was through "game development" over the years I saw significant value to using it to lower one's heart rate and body temperature in order to see cursor movements as controllable. Controllable by the mind having reach specific temperature and pulse rate level that would allow the cursor to move.
This was the natural process of computerized technologies then. This was happening at all levels of society in the transference of newer technologies. At the time I was also involved in still am in "process controls" using those same physical measures(flows in a manufacturer process). So this method was of the times by way of the adaptations that many people would go through. The physical intensive regimes that many have worked turned into the trends in the industries that we are involved in one form or another today.
Why is it dark at night? Join Alice & Bob in nine fun-filled,
animated adventures as they wonder about the world around us. Discover
with them that it is sometimes the simplest questions - like this one -
that lead us to the most profound insights into the nature of our
amazing universe. The one-minute episodes are light and fun, but be
forewarned that they may turn some of your ideas of reality upside down! See: Why is it Dark at Night?
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.
In this informal interview in Atlanta June 8, 2012, Tom Campbell, author
of My Big TOE, expands on the significance of the scientific
experiment called the Double Slit in terms everyone can understand.
" If you understand the Double Slit experiment, you understand how our reality works". He continues " Everything we do is not different from the Double Slit experiment".
This
explanation is valuable to scientists as well as the general public.
Tom takes a difficult subject and applies helpful analogies to clarify
the implications of this scientific experiment. See:Tom Campbell: Our Reality Is Information
Up Date: There is further information later on that Campbell recognizes as needed to further solidify his understanding on Double Slit, so he is open to that, which is good.
This year the lecture was given by the 2010 winner of the Isaac
Newton medal, Professor Edward Witten, Institute for Advanced Study and
was chaired by Professor Michael B Green, Cambridge University.
There are two parts to the lecture. Videos by Kevin Hull
The human heart emits the strongest electromagnetic field in our body. This electromagnetic field envelops the entire body extending out in all directions, and it can be measured up to several feet outside of the body. Research from the Institute of HeartMath shows that this emotional information is encoded in this energetic field. HeartMath researchers have also seen that as we consciously focus on feeling a positive emotion - such as care, appreciation, compassion or love - it has a beneficial effect on our own health and well-being, and can have a positive affect on those around us.
The site above was referred by someone in place of the question with regard to Intelligence in the Subconscious.
I can speak on this subject because of the research path I took independent of the system described above. So I have developed many insights with regard to the heart on my own that ring with the same understanding that the site above speaks too.
As you surf the Web, information is being collected about you. Web
tracking is not 100% evil -- personal data can make your browsing more
efficient; cookies can help your favorite websites stay in business.
But, says Gary Kovacs, it's your right to know what data is being
collected about you and how it affects your online life. He unveils a
Firefox add-on to do just that.
