What We Still Don´t Know ..

**StephL** · 11-02-2013 09:17 PM

Dark Matter Still Hiding - Scientific American

It is one of the candidates that tend to get mentioned - like the m-theory-multiverse does as well - when the state of modern physics is put forth to say - see - there is something - whatever - and in case of dark matter - it´s everywhere, theoretically - so who knows, if it is not responsible for my experiences beyond dreaming - in a very wide meaning of the beyond.
I for my part have no experiences of the sort - and - I don´t think Astral Projection and Shared Dreaming exist.

But one should also be able to admit, that - indeed - there are big unknowns in modern physics.

The leap to go from dark matter further in that line of argument just seems very unlikely to me.
My conclusion.
The frontier of modern science though is completely independently of such connecting the topic with something mystical so very interesting..
But anyway - inspired by being inspired to post one of three videos on the topic What We Still Don´t Know - I´ll post those later - here we go:

Dark Matter stays illusive:

Originally Posted by Scientific American, 39.10.13

Dark Matter Still Hiding: Latest Experimental Sweep Comes Up Empty

An underground detector in a South Dakota mine has failed to find dark matter particles, casting doubt on earlier claims.

SEEKING WIMPS: The Large Underground Xenon (LUX) experiment uses this detector to look for light emitted by atoms in a vat of liquid xenon that have been impacted by a WIMP dark matter particle.

The world’s most sensitive search for dark matter announced today that it has found—nothing. The first results from the Large Underground Xenon (LUX) detector are null, scientists say, indicating that the invisible matter thought to make up a large chunk of the universe is even more elusive than many experts thought.

Buried about a kilometer and a half underground in a repurposed South Dakota gold mine that is now the Sanford Underground Research Facility, the LUX experiment searches for signs of dark matter particles colliding with the atoms in a vat of liquid xenon. During its first three months of operation the detector found no such signals whatsoever. “We looked hard for these dark matter particles and we didn’t see anything,” says physicist Rick Gaitskell of Brown University, LUX co-spokesperson. The results, presented at a seminar today and submitted to Physical Review Letters for publication, rule out a number of possible masses and characteristics for the particles that make up dark matter. The null result also conflicts with earlier experiments that had reported possible dark matter signals.

About a quarter of the universe seems to be dark matter, which makes its presence felt through gravity, despite the fact that it cannot be seen or touched. A leading explanation for dark matter posits that it is made of particles called WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles). If they exist, a billion of these WIMPs probably pass through your body every second without any of your atoms noticing. The particles’ reticence to interact with normal matter presents a challenge to physicists who aim to detect dark matter. Hypotheses suggest, however, that once in a very rare while WIMPs should slam into normal atoms instead of passing through the space between them.

LUX researchers hope to catch these scarce impacts by measuring light particles (photons) given off by a xenon atom that has been bumped by dark matter. To reduce the chances of anything else causing the xenon to emit light—such as charged particles from space called cosmic rays—the detector is heavily shielded and buried deep in the mine. In terms of background radioactivity, cosmic rays and other contaminants, the center of LUX’s tank of 370 kilograms of xenon is the “quietest place in the world,” Gaitskell says. The experiment is twice as sensitive as other detectors to hypothetical dark matter particles with large masses, and provides an even greater improvement if dark matter particles are relatively lightweight, the scientists say. The fact that LUX has yet to register any such hits indicates that the particles in the mass range it is sensitive to—between five and 10,000 times the mass of a proton (a unit called a giga–electron volt)—interact extremely rarely with regular matter.

The new LUX results also cast doubt on previous claims of possible dark matter detection. The DAMA (for DArk MAtter) project in Italy claimed to have seen signs of WIMPs more than a decade ago, and more recently the CDMS (Cryogenic Dark Matter Search) and the CoGeNT (Coherent Germanium Neutrino Technology) experiment, both in Minnesota, saw handfuls of events that might be attributable to dark matter. “I’m afraid I can’t see their claims really surviving this,” Gaitskell says.

The other teams, however, are not ready to concede defeat. Juan Collar of the University of Chicago, who heads the CoGeNT project, says he believes that the LUX team has not properly accounted for electric field effects and may therefore have overestimated the sensitivity of the xenon detector for low-mass WIMPs. Blas Cabrera of Stanford University, who leads the CDMS project, also maintains that what his project has seen may still prove to be dark matter. “It is unlikely that LUX has ruled out the entire region of interest” for low-mass WIMPs because xenon is not as sensitive as other materials to dark matter in that mass range, he says. (CDMS uses silicon and germanium detectors.) “In spite of these friendly criticisms we are all excited by the success of a new carefully built WIMP search experiment,” Cabrera says. “We also continue to believe that, given the difficulty of all experiments and the uncertainty of the properties of dark matter particles, it is very important [to use] multiple target materials and different detector technologies.”

The competition is fierce to be the first experiment to find dark matter, but the researchers say they care more about answers than fame. “At this point in my career, I am much less concerned with which experiment discovers the dark matter particles, and much more I would like to know within my lifetime,” Cabrera says.

LUX is the latest in a series of searches that have been running for more than three decades, all without finding conclusive evidence of dark matter. But the scientists are not discouraged. “I can’t say I’m disappointed,” says LUX co-spokesman Daniel McKinsey of Yale University. “We’re just so happy the instrument is performing so well.” LUX continues to gather data, and the researchers are already planning an even bigger xenon detector called LUX-ZEPLIN. “Hopefully, next time we’ll be announcing a [positive] result,” Gaitskell* says. “That, as they say, we’ll leave in the lap of the gods.”

So they managed to make really sure with their shielding and digging themselves into a mountain, that no cosmic or background radiation could hit their liquid xenon and make it emit light.
They are very proud and happy about it.
And they should have gotten hits - but didn´t.
Other experiments, that had detected stuff - were probably (?) not as well set up and shielded - and could have, instead of dark matter, just been detecting radiation.
Silicon and germanium detectors might be better than xenon..
Anyway - they are in for the long haul it seems to me.

*R. J. Gaitskell - a scientist at Brown - not the author - I would not have put it like that in the end - though it is poetical and I can imagine, what he expresses here - how big of a news it would be, if we finally found out, what it is, that holds stuff together - who knows, if some hypothesis will have to be expanded or discarded and there´s need for new ones - how exciting for the physicists!

**floatinghead** · 11-03-2013 01:57 PM

I find this very interesting, and agree that those of us who believe in projecting ourselves into something other than our own chemically induced consciousness tend to agree that we are accessing some form of the larger invisible 'dark matter' that scientists have theorized about. Although, this reminds me of the various Aether theories which have sprung up over the last few centuries to try and explain one thing or another and were pretty much wrong on all accounts, dark matter simply looks like another incarnation of these theories until something more concrete comes along. Although, there has been somekind of evidence to suggest that this dark matter is behind the expansion of the universe.

What interests me also is the additional dimensions theorized by string theory, and ultimately the theorized 'braneworlds' . Pretend you lived on your computer screen and could only move on that two dimensional surface. The computer exists in three space dimensions but you can only move on a two dimensional subspace made by the screen, so the spacetime that you experience would look like three dimensions (two space plus time) rather than four.
That's sort of the idea in a braneworld higher dimensional theory. Our observed four dimensional spacetime is like the computer screen, a subspace of some bigger space that we can't see because all matter and forces are constrained to move (mainly) on our subspace, or brane (as in membrane). Using this theory in correlation with how one experiences the dream plane (while lucid) would definitely help to explain - those of us inclined to believe, the way that dreamtime dimensional space operates. If one then starts to believe that the dreamplane is actually an accessible higher dimension you can then fully start to comprehend the potential possibilities available to us.

**StephL** · 11-03-2013 03:45 PM

Oh - floatinghead - I have something for you - I guess you really like it..
Not the big physics side of it buut - take a look:

Sagan explains the concept of higher dimensions analogous to the book "Flatland" - see below.
He also starts out by imagining to be a being of less than three spacial dimensions.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

..

Carl Sagan helping you make sense of it all

This is part of what I answered:

The original 19th century book "Flatland" is such a lovely read - I can only warmly recommend it.
Couldn´t believe that it is that old, when I got a copy as a present - the style is so fresh and modern.

It can be had for free over the Gutenberg Project - albeit without illustrations - really worth a read - besides being about dimensions it is a spicy satire about society at that time - hilarious - really:

Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott

**StephL** · 11-03-2013 07:07 PM

What we still don´t know - are we alone..?

A bit of a follow up on links in the Lounge´s "Space Events" thread..

Originally Posted by Aristaeus

..
Also, though they are not exactly space events, I thought others here might find these interesting:

4.5 Billion 'Alien Earths' May Populate Milky Way | Space.com

Closest 'Alien Earth' May Be 13 Light-Years Away | Space.com

...Hmm, to think, one day we may very well possess the technology to travel to different worlds, and maybe even find new life. It is truly a shame I will not live to see that day. (Sigh) Would I would not give for another three or four hundred years or so of life...

Oh - try to stay a believer in these respects - that is better for many, many reasons - I hope I live to witness first contact and I also hope to die a bit - or a lot later, than I expected in my childhood´s time!

Billions of Earth-like alien planets likely reside in our Milky Way galaxy, and the nearest such world may be just a stone's throw away in the cosmic scheme of things, a "new" (Feb. 2013) study reports.

Astronomers have calculated that 6 percent of the galaxy's 75 billion or so red dwarfs — stars smaller and dimmer than the Earth's own sun — probably host habitable, roughly Earth-size planets. That works out to at least 4.5 billion such "alien Earths," the closest of which might be found a mere dozen light-years away, researchers said.

"We thought we would have to search vast distances to find an Earth-like planet," study lead author Courtney Dressing, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), said in a statement. "Now we realize another Earth is probably in our own backyard, waiting to be spotted."

..
The researchers used data from NASA's prolific planet-hunting Kepler space telescope, which is staring at more than 150,000 stars simultaneously. Kepler detects planets by measuring the temporary brightness dips caused when the worlds pass in front of, or transit, their stars' faces from the instrument's perspective.

The team pulled out a sample of 3,897 red dwarfs — stars dimmer and smaller than our own sun — and determined that Kepler has identified 95 exoplanet candidates circling them. Three of these candidates are roughly Earth-size and orbit within their stars' "Goldilocks zone," where liquid water (and possibly life as we know it) can exist.

Kepler isn't able to detect every planet circling every star that it's watching, researchers noted. Many worlds don't orbit in the right plane for Kepler to observe transits, and the signals of others may be masked by brightness variations inherent to red dwarfs.

Taking this into account, about 6 percent of red dwarfs in the Milky Way galaxy should host Earth-like planets, the astronomers said.

.. The research team stressed, however, that this is a tentative figure because the distribution of stars varies widely.

On this site is much more and all with videos - what they mention, is that red dwarfs are much older than our type of sun, so chances are life around these is advanced in comparison ..

Thanks for the heads-up Aristaeus!

So - the Fermi Paradoxon raises it´s heads anew..

**floatinghead** · 11-03-2013 10:51 PM

Thanks for the link mate - this is the second time this has been bought to my attention (it was mentioned in Thomas Cambell's 'my big toe') I will definitely give it a read

**floatinghead** · 11-04-2013 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by StephL

What we still don´t know - are we alone..?

A bit of a follow up on links in the Lounge´s "Space Events" thread..

Oh - try to stay a believer in these respects - that is better for many, many reasons - I hope I live to witness first contact and I also hope to die a bit - or a lot later, than I expected in my childhood´s time!

On this site is much more and all with videos - what they mention, is that red dwarfs are much older than our type of sun, so chances are life around these is advanced in comparison ..

Thanks for the heads-up Aristaeus!

So - the Fermi Paradoxon raises it´s heads anew..

Very interesting!

I have always considered that, due to how technology is evolving; before meeting an alien life form we will be able to 'view' alien life forms and civilizations from afar using some kind of high powered telescopic device. Granted we will be viewing their planet how it existed hundreds or even millions of years ago (depending on the distance of the planet to earth) but it would still be fascinating and perhaps even possible in our own life time!

**floatinghead** · 11-04-2013 10:56 AM

This is in line with what I am talking about: (this example is of a heat seeking telescope which could 'see' alien life forms through heat signature - it's potential power is estimated to be able to see at 60-70 light years away! and scientists say that it could be built within just a few years)

Heat-Seeking, Alien-Hunting Telescope Could Be Ready In 5 Years | Colossus Telescope | Space.com

**StephL** · 11-04-2013 03:48 PM

Oh - great link!!

They say they could have it assembled within five years, if they get the funds raised for it - they also have 6 patents pending and a lot of partners on board already - unfortunately no NASA or other federal funds..

Kuhn's team builds on a concept first proposed by physicist Freeman Dyson in the 1960s. Humans can capture only a fraction of the energy sent out by the sun, but a more advanced civilization would want to grab as much as possible.

Dyson suggested an extraterrestrial civilization would surround their star with a structure — now known as a "Dyson sphere" — that would capture the energy needed and then bleed the rest off into space.

From Earth, a star that is faint optically but very strong in the infrared could be an indication of such a sphere, Dyson mused.

Kuhn's team, rather than focusing on stars, is instead looking at the surfaces of alien planets.

"Similarly, an exoplanet that was optically dark, but thermally bright, would be evidence of extraterrestrial civilization," Kuhn said.

Ah Dyson - often came across his concepts in science fiction - making sense.

Seeking the heat

To date, there are few images obtained of exoplanets — they're faint and their parent stars tend to overwhelm their radiated light. That's why such a large mirror is needed to peer at them, Kuhn said.

"The biggest telescopes that we're likely to see in the next 100 years or so will not be able to directly image cities or organized structures on the planet," he said. Still, he added, local heat sources could be visible.

"We do that by using the fact that the planet has to rotate, and that civilization is clustered either by the formation of continents or the use of land, which is agrarian versus organized into population centers. The assumption we make is that civilizations will cluster their heat use. It won't be uniform; they distribute it."

Volcanoes and other natural features also produce heat, Kuhn said, but astronomers would probe heat sources in at least two different wavelengths to obtain the temperature. Natural features are likely to be far above the background heat of the planet. Those heat sources that are slightly above the planet's natural radiation are more likely to be signs of civilization, he said.
The method does have limitations, he added.

"It is possible to be confused on a planet which is perpetually cloud-covered, and we wouldn't be able to detect a signal on a planet where somehow the alien society managed to uniformly distribute itself around the planet so it isn't clustered," Kuhn said.

Isn´t is just great that we are at a stage, where we are thinking along those lines, instead of wondering, if there are suitable planets to look at at all?

Okay - high time - I post the series which inspired the thread - hosted by the wonderful Martin Rees - cosmologist and Astronomer Royal - and looking the business as well - not the guy you see below - click and watch - he looks a bit like count Dracula in friendly and astute!

What We Still Don't Know - Are We Alone (Episode 1)

Enjoy - this is wonderful stuff!!
Following up with two more videos - only one per post possible..

**StephL** · 11-04-2013 03:49 PM

And - it goes further:

What We Still Don't Know - Why Are We Here (Episode 2)

**StephL** · 11-04-2013 03:49 PM

And further:

What We Still Don't Know: "Are We Real?"

This is something, where you should have some quality time with (hm - that´s what my dictionary suggests - anyway - do really take it in and fully enjoy it) - one could think, they arrive at quite different conclusions - if one stops after 20 min. - and later once more..

Do watch and listen to all of it!

**fogelbise** · 11-04-2013 06:58 PM

This thread is over my head at the moment but I was reading it last night and I don't know if it has anything to do with a fragment of something I remembered from a dream last night...it involved energy as lots of tightly wound balls. It looks like you posted that information about capturing energy sometime this morning after my dream but they don't seem directly related anyway. Does this mean anything to anyone?

**FryingMan** · 11-04-2013 07:16 PM

In terms of "what we still don't know" I think the answer is: just about EVERYTHING! We have a tiny smattering of knowledge about matter, limited by our senses and our abilities to create machines to simulate senses. It would probably be easier for a bacterium to graduate with a PhD in quantum mechanics than for a human to fully comprehend the nature and reality of the universe.

For goodness sake, we have no clue about gravity yet other than being able to observe (in a manifestation measurable to our measely senses) the force it produces.

**sloth** · 11-04-2013 10:31 PM

Dark matter is not necessary if you reject the 3rd dimensional view of our universe, and consider the possibility that the very SHAPE of our universe, IN the 4th dimension, could be the driving force behind our expansion.

If every action has an equal and opposite reaction, where is this opposite reaction for the expansion of the universe?

**StephL** · 11-04-2013 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by fogelbise

This thread is over my head at the moment but I was reading it last night and I don't know if it has anything to do with a fragment of something I remembered from a dream last night...it involved energy as lots of tightly wound balls. It looks like you posted that information about capturing energy sometime this morning after my dream but they don't seem directly related anyway. Does this mean anything to anyone?

Hm - from where do you have it - like what paragraph?
What comes to my mind first are the Dyson-spheres around suns - capturing their energy to provide it to an advances alien civilisation?
This would lead to the suns being optically shielded - dark - but they would bleed away energy into the universe as heat.
So - finding something like this - it does appear time and again in science fiction - another hobby of mine!

Originally Posted by FryingMan

In terms of "what we still don't know" I think the answer is: just about EVERYTHING! We have a tiny smattering of knowledge about matter, limited by our senses and our abilities to create machines to simulate senses. It would probably be easier for a bacterium to graduate with a PhD in quantum mechanics than for a human to fully comprehend the nature and reality of the universe.

For goodness sake, we have no clue about gravity yet other than being able to observe (in a manifestation measurable to our measely senses) the force it produces.

Yepp - Sokrates has put it nicely long ago: "I know one thing: that I know nothing"

Originally Posted by sloth

Dark matter is not necessary if you reject the 3rd dimensional view of our universe, and consider the possibility that the very SHAPE of our universe, IN the 4th dimension, could be the driving force behind our expansion.

If every action has an equal and opposite reaction, where is this opposite reaction for the expansion of the universe?

Nope - not necessarily necessary maybe - there we would/will go into String-Theory and I got to heavily read up on that - or lightly - depends on my sources.
We will see if I go on.

Has somebody watched the videos?
What do you think?
They are slow-going - I tend to get impatient - but well made and structured and really clear and understandable.
That article on dark matter is a bit of a read - these videos are not strenuous but really fun!

**fogelbise** · 11-04-2013 11:07 PM

^^StephL, yes the only thing I found related to energy in this thread was this morning and it was the Dyson sphere stuff that didn't seem related to my dream fragment. I was wondering if "energy as tightly wound balls" could have anything to do with either this discussion or something else you may have posted...and perhaps it just bled over into my dream as day residue. I don't study astrophysics and I haven't studied physics in many years so I was just trying to see if there was a connection and mostly wondering why in the world I was dreaming about "energy as tightly wound balls" and the only thing I could think of is having read this thread the night before.

**sloth** · 11-04-2013 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by StephL

Nope - not necessarily necessary maybe - lol - there we would/will go into String-Theory and I got to heavily read up on that - or lightly - depends on my sources.
Hehe - we will see if I go on.

Correct, this is not necessarily a correct model of the universe, and is not actually spelled out in string theory. It's just what makes sense to me.
Religious and scientific book thumpers hate me.

**StephL** · 11-04-2013 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by fogelbise

^^StephL, yes the only thing I found related to energy in this thread was this morning and it was the Dyson sphere stuff that didn't seem related to my dream fragment. I was wondering if "energy as tightly wound balls" could have anything to do with either this discussion or something else you may have posted...and perhaps it just bled over into my dream as day residue. I don't study astrophysics and I haven't studied physics in many years so I was just trying to see if there was a connection and mostly wondering why in the world I was dreaming about "energy as tightly wound balls" and the only thing I could think of is having read this thread the night before.

Well - the next associative bell would be the dimensions curled up into - hm.

I am like that - I love such pictures - no M-Theory - just his from the Wikipedia article - whatever it means:

This is nice - they seem not to consent on what it might mean:

Originally the letter M in M-theory was taken from membrane, a construct designed to generalize the strings of string theory. However, as Witten was more skeptical about membranes than his colleagues, he opted for "M-theory" rather than "Membrane theory". Witten has since stated that the different interpretations of the M can be a matter of taste for the user, such as magic, mystery, and mother theory.

rolleyes.gif

**StephL** · 11-04-2013 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by sloth

Correct, this is not necessarily a correct model of the universe, and is not actually spelled out in string theory. It's just what makes sense to me.
Religious and scientific book thumpers hate me.

Sorry for double posting - didn´t see this somehow..

What are book thumpers?
I would rather surround myself with scientific books - but what would be thumping?
Take into account - I´m German..

**fogelbise** · 11-04-2013 11:49 PM

Thanks StephL

Intriguing picture. I checked out the Wikipedia for M-theory and searched this thread and see that you mentioned M-theory at the beginning of the original post, but I don't think I have ever read anything about what M-theory is. Oh well, it will just have to be another one of those mysteries with me wondering why in the world am I dreaming about some of this stuff...reminds me of Sageous' Other People's Dreams thread...just doesn't feel like something I would dream about when the dream realm is supposed to be all about our subconscious...anyway, didn't mean to throw your thread off on a tangent. Thanks again

Edit regarding "thumping..." Well Bible Thumping is a common term in the United States:

Bible Thumper - "denoting a person who expounds or follows the teachings of the Bible in an aggressively evangelical way." As in a person tapping or thumping their finger(s) on a Bible and saying "That's not what my Bible says" or "The Bible says (x) is the truth."

**StephL** · 11-05-2013 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by fogelbise

Edit regarding "thumping..." Well Bible Thumping is a common term in the United States:

Bible Thumper - "denoting a person who expounds or follows the teachings of the Bible in an aggressively evangelical way." As in a person tapping or thumping their finger(s) on a Bible and saying "That's not what my Bible says" or "The Bible says (x) is the truth."

Thought so - no - no plans on thumping any books ever at all!

Originally Posted by fogelbise

Thanks StephL

Intriguing picture. I checked out the Wikipedia for M-theory and searched this thread and see that you mentioned M-theory at the beginning of the original post, but I don't think I have ever read anything about what M-theory is. Oh well, it will just have to be another one of those mysteries with me wondering why in the world am I dreaming about some of this stuff...reminds me of Sageous' Other People's Dreams thread...just doesn't feel like something I would dream about when the dream realm is supposed to be all about our subconscious...anyway, didn't mean to throw your thread off on a tangent. Thanks again

Well - as I came to realize only after reading one of Sageous posts - we did interact with each other in very real ways - something to be aware of - I posted things on here and you got a notion of inspiration maybe - that would be phantastic from my standpoint.
Maybe this is my way into your dreams?
I like this thought.

Me - sitting in front of my laptop and you also having a screen and keyboard - and we communicate.
Even if you only read something, somebody has written, you are interacting with the mind behind the information I think now - not so before reading the post I mentioned - also asking - well - what if I posted on the forum -wrote or whatever something somewhere - surfed the net..
What should I be aware of of my interaction with reality?
Well - my interaction with in this case you lovely people on here!

**fogelbise** · 11-05-2013 02:05 AM

^^It really makes me wonder sometimes. I think it would be terrific if we really can access knowledge or inspiration directly from the universe itself that isn't already in our heads. Several dream experiences have made me wonder as much and I have seen theories along those lines. I keep falling back to the rational, scientific or most plausible possibility...usually I think to myself:
"I must have seen, read, or heard that somewhere..." (somewhere within traditional forms of media)
...But the other possibility is way more interesting to ponder, I agree!

Edit: This has inspired me to learn more about astrophysics. Although not serious study, I enjoyed watching an episode of "Through the Wormhole" last night and the episode was all about the vast voids in space and matter, dark matter and theories on symmetrical items in the universe (electrons/selectrons, quarks/squarks, etc). I found it surprisingly fascinating.

**floatinghead** · 11-09-2013 09:51 PM

I have mentioned it a couple of times before, but I feel if the hypothesis of 'the dreaming' is something happening other than within our own heads then what we would actually be perceiving would be a form of pure energy. If you go with the line of thinking that this physical reality is a collective manifestation of our 'agreed' perception (kind of like one huge shared dream) then what this reality would then be made up with would be some kind of pure manipulated energy, for some reason it is more solid within this reality in comparison to the dreaming reality where things can be directly manipulated because we all consciously 'agree' on what we perceive (for some reason or other)

Somewhere in this puzzle lies the experiment which I feel helps to corroborate this hypothesis - the double slit experiment where consciousness (the very act of viewing the experiment changes the outcome) is the key in determining the important role self aware beings have in this universe, I'm just not sure how yet.

**StephL** · 11-09-2013 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by floatinghead

I have mentioned it a couple of times before, but I feel if the hypothesis of 'the dreaming' is something happening other than within our own heads then what we would actually be perceiving would be a form of pure energy.

If I do follow this line of thinking - I would rather want to speak of pure information.

Originally Posted by floatinghead

If you go with the line of thinking that this physical reality is a collective manifestation of our 'agreed' perception (kind of like one huge shared dream)

You could see it so.

More or less all of us humans agree on one physical reality, on the basis of the similarity in our expressions.
We express our perceptions of this shared physical reality, including concepts like time and interactions, probability and so on.

So - we do share the physical reality in it´s representations in our brains.
I think, you are talking about these representations - and these are real - neurons communicating with each other about what awareness and attention let in - with some colour thrown in from our filters.
But they are also a shared dream, in as far as we never contact reality "directly".
We only represent it - we can not not represent.

I think, in our dreams, we represent, what our brain has taken hold of and giving memory a peek in.
There are mechanisms at work, which form narratives. We are even less aware of everything than we are in real life most of the time.

While we are lucid - the point of view comes alive, we are conscious of the fact, that it is us, spinning the narrative, and that we are free.
And this in relation to our mastership of the skills involved.
As free as our imagination reaches.
But also we are ultimately alone in our dreams - this is my view.

Originally Posted by floatinghead

then what this reality would then be made up with would be some kind of pure manipulated energy, for some reason it is more solid within this reality in comparison to the dreaming reality where things can be directly manipulated because we all consciously 'agree' on what we perceive (for some reason or other)

Waking reality is stable and stays agreed on because it is constantly updated by our senses - it also stays true to the laws of physics.
This is why people can reasonably assume.

Assume for example, that when they did meet at the Eiffel Tower earlier tonight, and drive home - that they were at this same location, at the same time.
That they have communicated, and about what, what exactly they have said.
They can take up the conversation seamlessly on the phone later.

Also somebody not connected with them, except observing them, won´t have the details wrong.
Presuming healthy recall here..

It is this reality, that constantly gets updated by sensory input and this input is computed with what our brain has taken hold of before.
While the sensory input does not (or only subliminally..) play a role while dreaming.
So I see this.

Originally Posted by floatinghead

Somewhere in this puzzle lies the experiment which I feel helps to corroborate this hypothesis - the double slit experiment where consciousness (the very act of viewing the experiment changes the outcome) is the key in determining the important role self aware beings have in this universe, I'm just not sure how yet.

Quantum-entanglement as something, which could account in part for the workings of our minds.

I have to think of Roger Penrose here - a mathematician, who put forth a popular and nice hypothesis concerning this.
I am afraid, there was something un-overcome-ably flawed with his take on it - from a neurobiological viewpoint.

This is more of a second-hand-knowledge of mine, though - and it looks like something, I might want to take a deeper look into.
Thanks for bringing him up in my "inner reality" - and even if only over the mundane internet ..

Like before - I am that way - let there be pictures..hehe
Penrose is a mathematician and physicist and known esp. for the Penrose Tilings, which happen to look great.

Penrose tilings, invented by Oxford mathematician Roger Penrose and author of the popular book The Emperor's New Mind, have made a big splash in the math world in recent years, but you may be asking yourself what the excitement is all about? Aside from being beautiful, Penrose tiles are interesting because they always tile the plane nonperiodically, even though they can be constructed from just two tiles, following a few simple rules. This caught everyone by surprise, because you would think that such a tiling would turn out to be very symmetric, like the wallpaper tilings.

While Penrose tilings nonperiodic, at first glance they seem like they ought to be periodic. If you look more closely, you will see they are almost but not quite periodic. Mathematicians call such tilings quasiperiodic. In a symmetric tiling, you can shift a copy of the tiling around so that it exactly matches up with the original again. With a quasiperiodic tiling, you can can still shift a copy so that it partly matches up with the original, but only right around where you are doing the shifting. Further away, the tilings will inevitably fail to match. Sometimes this is called local symmetry.

Oil painting by Urs Schmid (1995) of a Penrose tiling using fat and thin rhombi:

**StephL** · 11-09-2013 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by fogelbise

^^It really makes me wonder sometimes. I think it would be terrific if we really can access knowledge or inspiration directly from the universe itself that isn't already in our heads. Several dream experiences have made me wonder as much and I have seen theories along those lines. I keep falling back to the rational, scientific or most plausible possibility...usually I think to myself:
"I must have seen, read, or heard that somewhere..." (somewhere within traditional forms of media)
...But the other possibility is way more interesting to ponder, I agree!

Edit: This has inspired me to learn more about astrophysics. Although not serious study, I enjoyed watching an episode of "Through the Wormhole" last night and the episode was all about the vast voids in space and matter, dark matter and theories on symmetrical items in the universe (electrons/selectrons, quarks/squarks, etc). I found it surprisingly fascinating.

Hehe - wormholes - I came across the series and will take a look!
Now there you gave me my entry..

There´s a German saying - do it twice - it has more of a chance..
Well - sounds much more catchy..
What I am getting at is intro to post this here again:

On Black, White And Wormholes..:

Spoiler for Some Text To The Video:

A look at the mysteries of black holes and theories about the existence of other kinds of holes, such as "mini" or microscopic black holes that exist at the atomic level; "white holes" -- the opposite of black holes where matter is eject out; and "wormholes" -- gateways in hyperspace that connect points in space and time and possibly lead to other dimensions.

A black hole is a region of spacetime from which gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping. The theory of general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass will deform spacetime to form a black hole. Around a black hole, there is a mathematically defined surface called an event horizon that marks the point of no return. The hole is called "black" because it absorbs all the light that hits the horizon, reflecting nothing, just like a perfect black body in thermodynamics. Quantum field theory in curved spacetime predicts that event horizons emit radiation like a black body with a finite temperature. This temperature is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole, making it difficult to observe this radiation for black holes of stellar mass or greater.

Objects whose gravity fields are too strong for light to escape were first considered in the 18th century by John Michell and Pierre-Simon Laplace. The first modern solution of general relativity that would characterize a black hole was found by Karl Schwarzschild in 1916, although its interpretation as a region of space from which nothing can escape was first published by David Finkelstein in 1958. Long considered a mathematical curiosity, it was during the 1960s that theoretical work showed black holes were a generic prediction of general relativity. The discovery of neutron stars sparked interest in gravitationally collapsed compact objects as a possible astrophysical reality.

A wormhole, also known as an Einstein-Rosen Bridge is a hypothetical topological feature of spacetime that would be, fundamentally, a "shortcut" through spacetime. For a simple visual explanation of a wormhole, consider spacetime visualized as a two-dimensional (2D) surface. If this surface is folded along a third dimension, it allows one to picture a wormhole "bridge". (Please note, though, that this is merely a visualization displayed to convey an essentially unvisualisable structure existing in 4 or more dimensions. The parts of the wormhole could be higher-dimensional analogues for the parts of the curved 2D surface; for example, instead of mouths which are circular holes in a 2D plane, a real wormhole's mouths could be spheres in 3D space.) A wormhole is, in theory, much like a tunnel with two ends each in separate points in spacetime.

There is no observational evidence for wormholes, but on a theoretical level there are valid solutions to the equations of the theory of general relativity which contain wormholes. Because of its robust theoretical strength, a wormhole is also known as one of the great physics metaphors for teaching general relativity. The first type of wormhole solution discovered was the Schwarzschild wormhole which would be present in the Schwarzschild metric describing an eternal black hole, but it was found that this type of wormhole would collapse too quickly for anything to cross from one end to the other. Wormholes which could actually be crossed in both directions, known as traversable wormholes, would only be possible if exotic matter with negative energy density could be used to stabilize them. (Many physicists such as Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, and others believe that the Casimir effect is evidence that negative energy densities are possible in nature.) Physicists have not found any natural process which would be predicted to form a wormhole naturally in the context of general relativity, although the quantum foam hypothesis is sometimes used to suggest that tiny wormholes might appear and disappear spontaneously at the Planck scale, and stable versions of such wormholes have been suggested as dark matter candidates. It has also been proposed that if a tiny wormhole held open by a negative-mass cosmic string had appeared around the time of the Big Bang, it could have been inflated to macroscopic size by cosmic inflation.

The American theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler coined the term wormhole in 1957; however, in 1921, the German mathematician Hermann Weyl already had proposed the wormhole theory, in connection with mass analysis of electromagnetic field energy.

Also nice for wondering - getting to know some more, and also to know more about what we still don´t know - and enjoy the optics..

They take up the point, that indeed the science fiction novel "Contact" (later also the movie..) of Carl Sagan did in the late 90s sort of spark a new interest in wormholes esp. on the theoretical physicists side of the scientific community - wow, I didn´t know that - well done Sagan!

There is a lot of background and outlooks, on what really might be possible.
The laws of physics allow for it - that is the magic phrase.

But also that wormholes and white holes are still in the realm of only theoretical entities - "the unicorns of physics" or "one of the great physics metaphors for teaching general relativity".
We have yet to find and observe these two but so it was in the past for black holes as well!

Quite funny, when Clifford Johnson takes a bite of an apple a bit after 8 min!

**fogelbise** · 11-11-2013 07:24 AM

Awesome info you compiled StephL!! Thank you

Thread: What We Still Don´t Know ..

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

What We Still Don´t Know ..

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions