Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Tom Campbell: Calgary Theory


 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


Quantum mechanics
\sigma_x \sigma_p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}
Introduction
Glossary · History
A delayed choice quantum eraser, first performed by Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih, and Marlan O. Scully,[1] and reported in early 1999, is an elaboration on a quantum eraser experiment involving the concepts considered in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. It was designed to investigate peculiar consequences of the well-known double slit experiment in quantum mechanics, as well as the consequences of quantum entanglement.

Contents

 

Introduction


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

Kim EtAl Quantum Eraser.svg

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]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y.H. Shih, and Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters 84: 1–5. arXiv:quant-ph/9903047. Bibcode 2000PhRvL..84....1K. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.
  2. ^ Jacques, Vincent; Wu, E; Grosshans, Frédéric; Treussart, François; Grangier, Philippe; Aspect, Alain; Rochl, Jean-François (2007). "Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment". Science 315 (5814): pp. 966–968. arXiv:quant-ph/0610241. Bibcode 2007Sci...315..966J. DOI:10.1126/science.1136303. PMID 17303748.
  3. ^ Greene, Brian (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos. Alfred A. Knopf. p. 198. ISBN 0-375-41288-3.
  4. ^ Scully, Marlan O.; Kai Drühl (1982). "Quantum eraser: A proposed photon correlation experiment concerning observation and "delayed choice" in quantum mechanics". Physical Review A 25 (4): 2208–2213. Bibcode 1982PhRvA..25.2208S. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.25.2208.
  5. ^ Eberhard, Phillippe H.; Ronald R. Ross (1989). "Quantum field theory cannot provide faster-than-light communication". Foundations of Physics Letters 2 (2): p. 127–149. Bibcode 1989FoPhL...2..127E. DOI:10.1007/BF00696109.
  6. ^ Bram Gaasbeek. Demystifying the Delayed Choice Experiments. arXiv preprint, 22 July 2010.
  7. ^ John G. Cramer. NASA Goes FTL - Part 2: Cracks in Nature's FTL Armor. "Alternate View" column, Analog Science Fiction and Fact, February 1995.
  8. ^ Paul J. Werbos, Ludmila Dolmatova. The Backwards-Time Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - Revisited With Experiment. arXiv preprint, 7 August 2000.

External links




See Also:

Posted by at
4 comments:
Labels:

Core Optics

A pair of polished Advanced LIGO end mirrors (ETM's)
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
Posted by at
No comments:
Labels: , ,

Monday, June 25, 2012

Sensor Developments for Human Condition


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.

See Also:



Update:
Posted by at
2 comments:
Labels: ,

Friday, June 22, 2012

Why is it Dark At Night?



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?



Posted by at
No comments:

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Reality is Information?




ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?BY NICK BOSTROM
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.
 Nick Bostrom interviewed about the Simulation Argument.




 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.

See Also:

Posted by at
7 comments:
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Newton lecture 2010: String theory and the Universe


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

See Also: Newton lecture 2010: String theory and the Universe
Posted by at
No comments:

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Science of the Heart


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.
See:Institute of HeartMath






 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.

See Also: The Heart Connection



Posted by at
14 comments:
Labels:

Tracking the Trackers



 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.


See Also: Collusion
Posted by at
No comments:
Labels: ,

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

The Heart Connection

If the heart was free from the impurities of sin, and therefore lighter than the feather, then the dead person could enter the eternal afterlife.


Many times we talk about the heart as a physical thing that exists within our bodies. That to supplant it with  mechanical means that the person is some how still whole. But it is more then that for me. The individual in terms of the way in which we as human beings send messages through out our bodies, is as quick as the thought in experience,  can encapsulate our emotions and remembrance "as a tool" is a messenger?

So it is more then the physical aspect of it that is of some importance in my thinking,  that we use it to measure the emotive quality of our being.  To transfer the baser question of our ancient self,  to a more transient capacity of the heart in mind?

It is understood then that the heart is more the connection between the lower reactive part of our being  and the mind with which intellectually we like to deal with the world. So you say you are quite smart but really without this emotive understanding of our being you really are no smarter, but more a reactive ancient product of the evolution just on an animal scale absent of that heart in mind?

So I should clarify more with what I am saying about the idea.  I throw out such thoughts into society.  Somehow having them know what I am talking about. I listed a new label as Heart at the bottom of this post so maybe that will help if you are interested on what thoughts I may have about this heart connection.

So I am going to add some words that may have no comprehension to you. How we change from day to day is how we learn more which helps us to see reality in different ways. Not so localized in the event of your observation that you loose sight of the larger reality? Larger reality?


Ah, so you have collapse the wave theory? So ya, its all data..... lets not be picky:) The realization is, "the measure." That is why I say certain scientists practise "in measure" and VR. An inevitable consequence of applying science in the virtual way.

If I ask you who the objectifier is in the case of your acceptance of NPMR(Non Physical Matter Reality) then who is it that has decided that this experience will have been the result of accepted data?

As a receiver of the data, whether you are aware of it or not, you pick up this information and translate it for an "anticipated future?" How is it you can reason without "not using" the creative imagination here so as to discern the path in life is a consequential and selective one based on the criteria of the life you live now?
How do you imbue memory with out not making an impression with the use of the emotive element of your being in any moment?

The creative imagination then is a predictive feature of how we select events within the anticipated future? For all concerned this is an objectified reality for you(who?) whether it may be deemed subjective or not, as an acceptance of the data we process at a much higher level of observation.

You(who?) already have calculated this and this already exists within the potential of our acceptance. How else could any course of action have been reasoned? This higher function within the context of the subconscious is much more aware of the conditions that exist in the objectified reality as you(who?) see the subtle much clearer then you(everyday life) would by recognizing any dealing in the objectified condense feature? The containment of experience relegates a "kind of gravity" toward the understanding of that which is to aggregate too, is with an emotive realization.

So I would say the objectified understanding and usage of the creative is much more developed in each of us, to be able to see from the perspective of realizing undercurrents that exist in society. What is the current of the individual on mass as the larger collective gathering of the belief?

If you do not practise the understanding of the emotive elements of experience then you will not recognize how you send things to the lived past. I would say then that your EQ is much more important then your IQ. Why I discount your "only intellectual reasoning" as prevalent.

Mr. JOHN A. R. NEWLANDS read a paper entitled "The Law of Octaves, and the Causes of Numerical Relations among the Atomic Weights."[41] The author claims the discovery of a law according to which the elements analogous in their properties exhibit peculiar relationships, similar to those subsisting in music between a note and its octave. Starting from the atomic weights on Cannizzarro's [sic] system, the author arranges the known elements in order of succession, beginning with the lowest atomic weight (hydrogen) and ending with thorium (=231.5); placing, however, nickel and cobalt, platinum and iridium, cerium and lanthanum, &c., in positions of absolute equality or in the same line. The fifty-six elements[42] so arranged are said to form the compass of eight octaves, and the author finds that chlorine, bromine, iodine, and fluorine are thus brought into the same line, or occupy corresponding places in his scale. Nitrogen and phosphorus, oxygen and sulphur, &c., are also considered as forming true octaves. The author's supposition will be exemplified in Table II., shown to the meeting, and here subjoined:--See Also: Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev: The Law of Octaves

For you, since you mentioned Gurdieff and Ouspensky, how does one translate the octaves(Look at the table of elements and Seaborg) is the realization of harmonic empathetic resonance in other things? You have to be able to translate experience? When is it that you are locked in your own frame of reference and how the objectified selection would be to see this experience from another and higher perspective? Is self remembering "a place of equilibrium?" If the flow of information is unimpeded, move from "the birth of a new universe" from the one previous, how is that done?

You come back to this life "unaware" but you had already set the course of action in the acceptance of reliving life all over again? Why unaware? Imagine then, you set your body of the NPMR within the objectified concrete reality of where you are at now. It is of consequence then that you loose sight of the larger perspective. Emotively we live this way all the time, unaware of the larger perspective. Emotional experience(gravity of the situation) limits that understanding of the larger view because it becomes the lived past?

You have to "inside" transform the baser emotion from "the four square" to the triangle? In ancient time, the process of four square was an arrangement of astrological process of the Plato's elements. Quintessence comes later? Since I am not an alchemist I would say the understanding is that any baser emotion has to go through this transformation in order to reach Quintessence?

Hence once this change( our acceptance and our responsibility of being and its never emotively over) takes place, our understanding then is that the experience in reality "is a frame of reference?"

I had placed this in terms of the Socratic development later, but you might also then see some correspondence toward how experience is based on the emotive hierarchical understanding of placement on that triangle. What does the "tip" represent?

This then is the transition too, "the heart" in mind.:) How does one then "raise the octave?" The heart then becomes a very important location between the lower and higher centres? This does not say we overcome "the emotive struggle" because it is forever the emotive struggle toward perfecting. Toward reasoning in a "higher emotive mind."

I will say I was able to identify some correlation to "predictive outcomes by chance" by looking at the I CHING constructive formation. Trigrams and hexagrams as constituents of a the formative experience of an ancient way of thinking. You always had to have "the question in mind" for an outcome to have materialize in chance parameters of how outcome was constructed, as a choice of direction? Yarrow sticks, or, roll the dice.


 Explain logic in the simplest terms possible  as the 'aha moment.'
  
 It is placed as a philosophical question of how can we simplify that transference....but in context of VR and in measure how can you measure your intuition and recognize the truth in the most simplest of statements?

Your aha is a immediate recognition of the greater potential as it all comes together in your mind in a split second? There is no possible way to measure that in any VR way?

Unless, you believe it is the synapse with which such potentials allow information into your brain. You know I mean more then just the matter aspect of the thinking potential. The complete grokking of the subject at hand.

So the synapse is a portal of a kind in terms of your connection to a vast reservoir of information? If you stand at the portal, and have access to all information, how big is your memory that you can draw from experience? If you are standing "at the portal" then it is about your last question asked. Who is the questioner/observer but to have realized you are an accumulation of the information you have assimilated in life? It is more then the question itself if you understand what I am saying. It is more then a question mark appearing at the end of the sentence.
 
Posted by at
No comments:
Labels: ,

Monday, June 11, 2012

The Black Hole of What?




In networking, black holes refer to places in the network where incoming traffic is silently discarded (or "dropped"), without informing the source that the data did not reach its intended recipient.

When examining the topology of the network, the black holes themselves are invisible, and can only be detected by monitoring the lost traffic; hence the name.

Contents

Dead addresses

The most common form of black hole is simply an IP address that specifies a host machine that is not running or an address to which no host has been assigned.
Even though TCP/IP provides means of communicating the delivery failure back to the sender via ICMP, traffic destined for such addresses is often just dropped.
Note that a dead address will be undetectable only to protocols that are both connectionless and unreliable (e.g., UDP). Connection-oriented or reliable protocols (TCP, RUDP) will either fail to connect to a dead address or will fail to receive expected acknowledgements.

Firewalls and "stealth" ports

Most firewalls can be configured to silently discard packets addressed to forbidden hosts or ports, resulting in small or large "black holes" in the network.

Black hole filtering

Black hole filtering refers specifically to dropping packets at the routing level, usually using a routing protocol to implement the filtering on several routers at once, often dynamically to respond quickly to distributed denial-of-service attacks.

PMTUD black holes

Main article: Path MTU discovery#Problems with PMTUD
Some firewalls incorrectly discard all ICMP packets, including the ones needed for Path MTU discovery to work correctly. This causes TCP connections from/to/through hosts with a lower MTU to hang.

Black hole e-mail addresses

A black hole e-mail address is an e-mail address which is valid (messages sent to it will not generate errors), but to which all messages sent are automatically deleted, and never stored or seen by humans. These addresses are often used as return addresses for automated e-mails.

See also

External links

Posted by at
No comments:
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)