Ask a Spiritual Physicist

Einstein believed in a Block Universe (there is no such thing as a flow of time, all times co-exist here and now), in absolute locality (ther can be no action at a distance, there must be some kind of matter/energy exchange to explain a force), and absolute determinism (if one knows everything there is at time A, everything at time B is determined).

Quantum contradicts all three (at least to the majority of quantum physicists). We have events linked in time (see "retrocausality"), and nonlocal (see "EPR Paradox" and "Bell's Theorum"), and indeterminate (not because we lack information, but because we cannot know, see "uncertainty principle").

Einstein could not and would not wrap his head around these ideas. I believe because they did not fit into his rather conventional world view of creation as a product of a personal creator G!d. That concept of G!d just is invalid according to quantum. "Yes, Albert, G!d does play dice with the universe".

See, not even G!d/dress can know beforehand what a quantum measurement will be. Like us, H! cannot determine beforehand because the event is not causally determined--something happens, but exactly what is not predictable. Also, two particles can be so intertwined (say they are products of the same event going in opposite directions, see "Aspect Experiment") that a million years later, two million light years apart (a light year is a measure of distance) an experiment on one will instantaneously determine the characteristics of the other. Since all particles were at one time so closely intertwined they occupied the same space (this is the Big Bang), there is the possibility of unknown quantum events in our world due to another intelligence making a simple quantum measurement.

The only way around all of this is what is called "Many Worlds Theory" or "Multiverses", which a lot of physicists write about, but very few actually believe (based on questionnaires handed out at quantum physics meetings). For me, those interpretations are just too wierd, too big. I can work out the numbers, but it amount to there being a google or so universes and a googleplex (look them up) of quantum events happening each instant.

He rejected quantum because it did not fit in with his world-view. Quantum is the most verified and tested of all theories (there are many many more tests of the quantum than relativity). That is why his Theory of Everything just could not work. If a TOE is possible the likely unification path is via either quantum loop gravity or some form of string theory. Since the latter may never be provable or disprovable (the tests require energies equivalent to the output of the sun for a year or so, or some such huge amount or a collider the size of the Milky Way), I bet on qlg.

Enough to begin the conversation?

Not really. If quantum is the most verified and tested of all theories, how could it be that the one who could know much better than you and me, did not find any sense in it, because it could not fit with his world view? That's a pill a little hard to swallow. But than again, I have met some atheists who dislike Einstein for his views that God is possible; albeit not a personal God.
Well, look up his story. I can provide lots of quotes from him and others (not overnight). He did not do quantum, he did astrophysics after 1905. His phonon, photon, and Brownian Motion papers of 1905 were essential to the foundation of the quantum theory, but 1925 was the year of Bohr's formulation (the "old quantum theory"). 1925 saw Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics, 1926 saw Schrondinger's Wave Equation, 1927 saw Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, 1930 saw Dirac and von Neumann pretty much finish QM off, later followed by Heisenberg's book originating the term "Copenhagen Interpretation" (lectures in 1928-1929, published in 30 or 31).

So by the time the QUantum Mechanics was formalized (1930, say), Einstein had been out of the racket for 25 years (a hell of a long time by the reckoning of physicists, see we came from Big bang without inflation or dark matter or dark energy to things like cyclic cosmology in the last 25 years or from a non-string-theory era to M and brane theory today over same period).

Check out "classification adopted by Einstein" at Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and "EPR Paradox" at wiki (both are pretty easy reads and pretty objective). You will find that (except for my dismissal of him as quantum physicist) wiki should be parroting me.
I wonder if this is a viable topic, please if you would, comment if you deem it a valid topic:

The difference between the two terms: "un-limited" and or, versus "Infinity".

This is a subtle question that I have seen discussed. As per the Sanskrit definition(s) of the two words being interchangable ---but, here, let's forget about the sanskrit words ---I am asking purely as per the philosophical and or maybe just the semantics of the terms . . . that is TBD.

Unlimited is an adjective inre to Quantifying a numerical count of something.


Infinity is a Noun inre to a specific philosophical notion.

The two words cannot be interchanged in a given sentence.
bhaktajan-- a quicjk repoly beofre I go into scholar mode (need to review some rather esoteric mathematical ideas). You are correct--especially see "transfinite numbers"... there are some numbers not limited, but not really infimnate.
Do you remember your Thermo? I've got a question about Entropy.

Preface to the question:
In Statistical Thermodynamics, Entropy is defined as the natural log of the probability that something will be in a particular state. For discussion sake lets pretend that atoms are actually very tiny coins which randomly switch between heads or tales when disturbed in any way. For a coin toss with two sides and 2 possible states, the 'Entropy' of a coin would be k * ln(1/2) where k is the Boltzmann constant. In the real universe the Boltzmann constant is 1.38, but in the coin universe it equals 1 so we can ignore it. For two coins, the 'Coin entropy' would be k * ln(1/4) and so on. There are other ways of explaining entropy and of understanding it than the statistical one, but generally the number of possible states is a measure of the entropy. Hot things have a higher entropy than cold ones, because the atoms have more possible states. Ordered atoms are more stable than disordered atoms, similarly to real atoms.

It is said that heat passes from hot objects to cold objects, because disorder is always increasing, but I have come across information to the effect that there is no such thing as complete disorder. Therefore I am wondering if we have the cause backwards. Given four binary digits, how could you arrange them so that there is no order to them? You probably could remove some order, but there would still be order. Couldn't you place them into complete order? Lets say you made them all 1's. That's an orderly arrangement. Extending this thought process, any system with disorder in it is not perfectly ordered, but it will contain order. Then perhaps the reason heat passes from hot objects to cold is not that disorder increases but order. I've always heard that order is increasing because the universe is growing colder, but might not the-caused actually be-the-cause? That the reason heat passes from hot to cold is that order only increases overall?

Example of what I mean:
The universe is made of coin-atoms which can either be ordered or partially ordered but never perfectly disordered. Then the universe can always be divided into ordered regions and disordered regions; but since there can never be perfect disorder the disordered regions must also contain ordered regions. Hot atoms disturb neighboring atoms, but cold ones do not. Also, since ordered atoms are more stable, they become less likely to switch to disorder. Therefore as the coin-atom universe goes through its random flipping, order slowly drives out disorder, resulting in the effect of heat passing from hot to cold items most efficiently.
Let me explain that post a touch. In the coin-universe a head is a hot coin-atom, and a tail is a cold coin-atom. Cold-coin atoms do not cause any disturbance to neighbors, because real atoms that are cold cause fewer disturbances neighbors. (I'm going for a simplified reality.) Hot coin-atoms occasionally do a random flip, as do all their neighbor coin-atoms, but cold atoms either don't randomly flip or its extremely rare. So if you have one hot coin-atom surrounded by colds, at some point they will all randomly flip, however the colds are likely to stay cold, while the hot has an even chance. It might turn cold. You could think of the coin universe as being controlled by a timer, and once a second all the hot coins flip. Starting with a lot of hot (unstable) coins, you end up with a lot of cold (stable--organized) coins.

I am not suggesting entropy is wrong. Right now we consider entropy as a measure of irreversible heat transfer which we call increasing disorder, because the heat becomes less usable. Its true that the heat become less usable when it transfers in an irreversible manner, however perhaps what drives that heat transfer is increasing order in the atoms and molecules.
Sounds remarkedly like the I Ching coin oracle. (You normally toss 3 coins to build a line, and wind up with either young yin, young yang (both stable,) old yin, or old yang (both unstable and likely to flip.)

The coin tosses:

2 yin and 1 yang = young yang (cold)
2 yang and 1 yin = young yin (cold)
3 yang = old yang (hot)
3 yin = old yin (hot)
any system with disorder in it is not perfectly ordered, but it will contain order.

heat passes from hot objects to cold is that order increases.

might not the-caused actually be-the-cause?
heat passes from hot to cold so that order increases overall?

... order slowly drives out disorder, resulting in the effect of heat passing from hot to cold items most efficiently.

I'm not sure what point I am making here:

Fire may be extinguished with Water . . . but, water is composed of 33% (or is it 66%) of Hydrogen. Hydrogen is flamable.

According to the most esoteric teachings of mystic yoga metaphysics, one must develop the descriminating skill of recognising the difference between the two following topics:

1] Material Energy:
earth = elemental elements
water = H20
Fire = ???
Air = Oxygen
Ether = ???

Mind = thinking/feeling/willing
Intelligence = refined descrimination
Material Ego = Sense of Self

2] Spiritual Energy:

Soul = Kernal of autonomous Eternality-Cognisance-Falicitude (aka, 'sat-chit-ananda').

bkaktajan, I just finished making a post about Nibbana in the thread called spirit=energy. The gifted thinkers in your tradition drew upon the knowledge available to them to make lessons which they then attempted to refine into the most useful forms possible. I think that when you say 'Fire = ???', you are not talking only about one thing. Fire is a real thing but is part of the larger world we live in, and it shows truths in common with the larger world or it could not be here.
Do you not recognise the possible reconciliation of the two schools,
Dualism of Ultimate Reality versus Unity of Ultimate Reality that can be bridged with this "Quantum Wierdnesses" dynanism?
Not in a scientific (empirical) way. There is too much that transcends the mass/energy assumptions of the physics. Meta-physically, yes, I believe it with all my heart and soul.

However, I feel the "solution" is not some TOE (theory of everything), but a patchwork Kosmos. Mathematical ideas, induction, qualia, time, creativity, emergence, and perhaps more must be added to quantum mechanics (even quantum field theory) and general relativity. And I really do not see any way for the latter two to be reconciled in an empirically testible way (M-theory/String theory may be totally correct and consistenet, meta-physically but it is incapable of test or falsification). The only idea I would remove from the mix is "multi-verse" theory.

See Godel used general relativity to describe a universe in which time loops. Because he was a Platonist, he hypothecized such a universe must exist ("I used physics to create it's rules and physics must be applicable everywhere so it must exist"). Everett, "many worlds", and "multiverse" theories just do this big time. However, Godel's universe can never be prooved (it is un-observatble), nor can the other claims. This makes them meta-physical theories masquerading as physics (jmho). And metaphysically, to me, being a hard core realist, they just do not make sense. Possible, indeed, yes, probable, no.
Not really. If quantum is the most verified and tested of all theories, how could it be that the one who could know much better than you and me, did not find any sense in it, because it could not fit with his world view? That's a pill a little hard to swallow. But than again, I have met some atheists who dislike Einstein for his views that God is possible; albeit not a personal God.

This is not the first time I have noticed you making this mistake. Einstein, while providing some equations basic for quantum theory, (1) never believed it, (2) fought his whole life against it, and (3) never practiced it after his 1905 (non-foundational, but important) paper.

For a general discussion of his opinions as expressed in the crucial Solvay debates, see For the opinion of the man who (nearly singlehandedly) gave relativity its status as a distinct discipline and who has mastered quantum in a way his master Einstein never did, see John Wheeler’s intervie w at (just search for references to Einstein). For a real devastating critique see And for what the high-point of Einstein’s lasting opinion see (I suggest you look this up on Google Scholar and just look at the thousands of citations or go to this site for a brief explanation

If you have the math and physics see and

I am sorry, while Einstein was irreplaceable to relativity and gravitational physics, he wasted a good deal of his life refuting quantum, directly adding little abstract physics after 1916. That is not to say that he was not invaluable in the construction of the Quantum Theory and the Copenhagen Interpretation due to his philosophical arguments against it.
Ask Spiritual Physicist to explain basic Electronics

I have just recently stumbled upon a great “Learning Moment”.
I’ve started officially (but casually) studying basic ‘electronics’.
And Lo and behold I encounter “Bad Instruction”.
I am being harsh saying ‘bad teaching’ ---but the text books on “basic Electricity” are typically written like old computer software manuals!
I found that “It takes a teacher to explain ---an authors’ attempt to explain a topic.

My Point is that the “explanation” of “What is –and-- How to Understand basic Electronics”

The approach to explaining “basic Electricity” to a novice ---SEEMED SO SIMILAR TO EXPLAINING ALL THINGS META-PHYSICAL!

What? Yes, that is what I encountered now on my 3rd book on the topic of “basic Electricity for dummies”!

If you ever meet a person that can explain “basic Electricity” in one sitting ---and you can depart company knowing that you just acquired all there is to know to repair any basic electrics problem ---HIRE THAT PERSON, THEY’RE A GENIOUS!

Sounds like a simply task that any electrician could explain???

Apparently the situation is:
“Show me a working electrician, and I’ll show you a simply data-entry processor following a manufacturer’s intallation manual guidelines”.

If you thought Computer Programming Software design was full of crytic abbreviations ---that aint nothing compared to electrical engineering calculations.

Apparently the situation is:
Once an electrical system is installed for use ---all the need be to officially employ the machine is to know where the “ON” switch is.

Understanding basic electrics is easy in comparison to the difficulty of Explaining basic electrics. I found that the basic electrics text books were NOT explainations ---but depositories or Indexes of “basic electric Math Functions” ---the texts required a smart teacher to show the real life relevance & usage of the alchemy-like “Formulas”.

IE: In basic electrics the usual first topic is ‘Free Electrons’ ---that’s the easy part ---and it’s virtually irrelevant!

Teaching basic electrics is like explaining “Brahman” to a footballer. Why is the topic of basic electrics so elusive and so ponderous? Does the World guilds engage in a monopoly?

This is my concluding and initial point:

A transcendental philosopher [of any school or sect etc] is behooved to learn basic electrics to the point of being able to explian it to others ---before they attempt to proselytise or pontificate or speculate or prophecise anything!

Hey there Preacher! Before you tell me about the subtile workings of the supramundane world beyond . . . tell me how to construct an AC generator in a way that a regular guy can undrestand without use of “years of contemplation”.

It seems the EXPLANATION OF THE RULES of Electrical Engineering are akin to the EXPLANATION OF THE RULES philosophical maxims.

Think about that next time you play your Boom-Box Radio real loud in the Park.
Take a bar magnet (say 18 inches in length) and put it inside the smallest piece of PVC pipe the magnet will fit in. Now take about 500 feet of fine enameled wire (the enamel is the insulation on the outside. Wrap the wire along about a foot of the PVC, winding tightly, using non-conductive glue (like rubber cement). Now attach the ends of the wire to a sensitive milli-Volt meter.

Move the bar magnet in and out of the pipe and the needle on the meter will oscillate from right to left (depending on the direction of the windings and the pole orientation of the magnet).

An easier way to explore this might be to take a slot car (remember those?) and attach the leads (usually little pieces of metal hanging underneath the chassis) to the same meter. Now physically make the wheels spin (like playing with it on a tabletop). If one makes the wheels spin in one direction only, you will see the meter measure a DC output. If one moves the wheel by going back and forth so the wheels change direction, you get a weak AC output.

While not useable as a power source (I suppose one could attach a very sensitive LED to the wires instead of a meter), what you have in either case is an AC generator.
Any idea of what the "binding force" that allows the harmonic overtones found in the Microwave background radiation?


733px-PowerSpectrumExt.svg.png gives a pretty good explanation.

"In the early Universe before decoupling, rapid scattering couples photons and baryons into a plasma which behaves as perfect fluid. Initial quantum overdensities create potential (gravitational) wells — inflationary seeds of the Universe’s structure. Infall of the fluid into the potential wells is resisted by its pressure, thus forming acoustic oscillations: periodic compression (overdensities in the fluid; hot spots) and rarefications (underdensities; cold spots). These acoustic oscillations of the early Universe are frozen at recombination and give the CMB spectrum a unique signature."

What it really amounts to is that there were gravitational peaks and valleys in the overall energy of the very early universe, which must have been the result of quantum-gravitational interaction (if relativity and quantum mechanics and big bang theory is correct, which is assumed in the cosmological model).

What was the interaction that caused volumes of high gravity and low gravity in those early time? See Primordial fluctuations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A bit complex but ignore the math. The secret is that if one assumes inflation (also assumed in the cosmological model), the math demands it
must be true. The "binding force" is a curvature in the matter-energy structure. If all of this is true (cosmology physics merely hypothesizes it is) and it is consistent with relativity theory, there must also be tensor fluctuations which would leave traces as gravitational waves.

All of this is speculative because dark matter and dark energy (required by standard high-school physics to explain the life of galaxies) are not well handled at early times and M-theory (string theory) has not really weighed in (I think).

I will look through the work of Penrose and Hiller (whom I believe have the best "meta-theory" beyond the big bang) and see what they say --remind me if I forget.

BOTTOM LINE: The harmonics are artifacts of a density fluctuation early in the big bang caused by inflation. The density fluctuations must exist for the harmonics to exist and inflation is required for the density fluctuations. The key factor missing as real proof are remnants of those early gravitational waves (if they do not exist the current cosmology coupling relativity and quantum is seriously flawed). There exist non-Einsteinian models (like Penrose's and Whitehead's) which would explain them differently. And the whole topic is the subject of vigorous debate among the dark matter-energy theorists (who are developing their own explanations).
Okay, SG, thanks! It seems there is a logical and (possibly) physical explanation beyond "the math demands it" of the Standard Theory. The issue is actually two-fold: anisotropies in both power (your harmonics) and in spacial orientation (the circular patterns evident in the background). And both are being explored by Penrose and his associates Gurzadyan and Sudarsky).

Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) hypotheses that the Kosmos is cyclic: moving from Big Bang to Big Crunch in a kind of Yuga time. The gravitational clumps (see previous post) under this approach are the result of mass clumping in the final moments of a Big Crunch (a physical manifestation of "Quantum Loop Gravity" or QLG). The geometric patterns (the circles or ellipses in the background) are the result of spacetime propagation of the remains of black holes before the Big Crunch.

I am no claiming "Truth" (I never do that). Just that while the Standard Theory has to hypothesize mathematical functions to describe early Big Bang moments which would lead to the harmonics or the circles, CCC instead postulates a cause pre-existing the Big Bang (the remnants of which are the "binding forces" which you asked about).

An on-going process (CCC) "fit in" with my process-taoist-panphysicalist-panpsychic metaphysics. Monist materialistic scientists (like those that believe mind is an epiphenomena or that reality is deterministic or that "relativity must triumph over quantum") will probably never understand it.

I am currently re-reading Whitehead's Relativity Theory. Once the secret bastard child of physics (a mathematician and philosopher had an alternative relativity which worked), "disproved" before dark matter or dark energy or the Big Bang, and now (in at least my opinion) no longer "disproved". I may try to write to Epperson or Stapp or Finkelstein or Hiller and let them know some bright young grad student may be able to base a good alternative Standard Model using it.

I am not qualified to know if QLG and spinor theory (the bases of the "out there" hard, hard physics of Penrose) can be incorporated. That would be a good physics maters topic.

Thank you again.
During the inflationary period, is there a difference between "matter plasma" and "antimatter plasma?" Could these be the source of the fluctuations that cause the gravity waves? (I think I remember something about matter-antimatter interactions producing particles that move backwards in time. I could be mistaken about this. Particles moving backwards in time as a result of the decoupling and interacting with their antiparticles could certainly explain the pre-decoupling fluctuations.)

Recursive causation tends to make my head spin a bit. :eek: