Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: holographic principle & complementarity & big bang

Expand Messages
  • tom
    Mary, I have even heard that some theoretical physicists prefer one theory over another, because to them it is more beautiful. I have also heard it argued
    Message 1 of 10 , May 7, 2010
      Mary, I have even heard that some theoretical physicists prefer one theory over another, because to them it is more beautiful. I have also heard it argued that the birth experience the physicist experienced may very well have subliminal impacts that lean the physicist toward one or the other of theories. I guess until fairly conclusive proof is established, people will lean toward what they like.

      Tom .
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Mary
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 10:16 AM
      Subject: [existlist] Re: holographic principle & complementarity & big bang

      Just to clarify this rambling offering, I don't know that Hawking is working specifically w/ holographic theory. I mixed up the date of his limit constant. I also realize that physicists have their pet theories as much as we have our preferred exisentialism. Mary

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <josephson45r@...> wrote:
      > I'm ill equipped, Bill, to provide adequate explanations for what has taken physicists at least three decades to work out mathematically and for which we must take their word. Apparently, during the Black Hole War, a hand full of physicists decided to challenge Hawking's belief that black holes destroyed matter/energy. So what arose were further theories involving thermodynamics and quantum gravity, all of which led to the mathematical refutation of Hawking's idea. What they discovered was that all the 'information' which was assumed to be lost forever in the black hole was actually 'stored' in the event horizon of the black hole. Extrapolation led to the theory that the universe is a holographic image projected by mathematical 'film' at the edge of the universe. This new paradigm is producing equations from Hawking and others.
      > As for complementarity, I refer to the wave/particle duality and uncertainty principle.
      > For the first time in a long time, and thanks to Bohm's holomovement theory of thought and perception, I now understand how there is no absolute knowledge, only continual abstractions which usually 'work.' There remains so much that doesn't, and this is where existentialism stagnates, in a phenomenological quagmire. That physical theoretics has split existentialism into ethical and nihilist camps excites me; because if every bit of information, including human activities is both* the projector and the projection, each affecting the other, we inhabit a reality with no exit. Rather than concern ourselves strictly with how the universe is affecting us, we might include how we're affecting the universe. It hasn't really been that long ago since we assumed we could dump whatever we wanted into seemingly huge oceans, sky, and earth. Existential projects might be viewed through this filter of reciprocal relatedness of everything. As I mentioned in a previous post, I see the hunger for communication and information of many people, virtual connection, as a manifestation of actual connection.
      > Pre-big bang theories are mainly M and string theory which as I recall, you reject.
      > Mary
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "William" <v.valleywestdental@> wrote:
      > >
      > > What was the energy that expanded in the big bang? We can know it only by its relativistic products. All the mass in the present universe becomes the template for that energy but we do not know what form that energy assumed. An expansion into nothingness where the phenominal energy expanded to the size of an orange from an infintessimal point also assumes a cooling. Why would expansion into nothingness entail cooling? Why did quarks condense from the initial energy burst?
      > > The very words mass and energy are most inadequate to describe what happned. The sort of energy and mass we experience now did not exist in the pre atomic bang environment. We can only destrapolate from values present in our universe of energy and mass.
      > > Nothingness is not space, it would seem to be pre space which was defined by the happenstance of the big bang. It was the void and was violated by the products of the big bang.
      > > As our vice president has so eloquently said,"This is a big ,fucking deal!"I think it is the whole enchaleda and would ask Mary to further explain her holographic theories. Are you speaking of the laser projected apperitions in free space. To me they are projections without a screen. I do not see them as being any complementary reality. Bill
      > >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.