Mission Impossible (Or Highly Improbable): Part Two

In Alice in Wonderland (or was that Through the Looking-Glass – I can never remember which one of the two it was*) it’s stated that it’s possible to believe many (as in six) impossible things before breakfast. Science and associated philosophies have had to deal with impossibilities and wildly improbable things, some of which are straight forward, and some of which aren’t – perhaps to the point where something possible is in fact impossible and fundamentally wrong. Conversely, something considered impossible might in fact be possible and fundamentally right. 

A cautionary note: when it comes to what’s possible or impossible; plausible or implausible; probable or improbable, majority doesn’t rule. This isn’t a democracy. If a billion people believe nonsense, it’s still nonsense. This however is in contrast to what has been proven beyond a reasonable scientific doubt. If a billion people continue to disbelieve something that has been proved, then it’s those billion people who are nonsense, not the idea.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

THIRDLY, let’s look at commonly accepted scientific beliefs that are IMHO ultimately flawed concepts – flawed to the point where I suggest they are either flat out impossible or at best wildly improbable. [This is the section where scientists wish there really were a Hell they could send me to!]

IMPOSSIBLE COSMOLOGY

There are those cosmologists who believe (or so they say) that our Universe was created from nothing – absolute nothing. First there was nothing; then there was something, so they say, but without bothering to explain in acceptable layman’s language the ‘how’ of that. If fact, they just take that as given and then just deal with, and devote their time and energy to, the subsequent expansion and understanding of that something. That something can be created out of nothing somehow violates one of the most cherished and fundamental of all scientific principles, one which even elementary school students are taught. It’s a violation of the ultimate conservation of matter and energy. Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed in form, from one kind of matter to another; one kind of energy to another; or matter to energy and vice versa. 

That the Big Bang somehow created time and space. I propose instead that the Big Bang happened in previously existing time and space.

That the Big Bang somehow created both matter and energy - matter and energy being two sides of the same coin as per Einstein’s famous equation. I propose instead that the matter/energy that we observe in our Universe was actually matter/energy that was recycled from a previous universe.

You will sometimes find in the literature statements by scientists (who should know better) that at the moment of the Big Bang event, the temperature of our ‘Universe’ – such as it was in the beginning – was infinite. As the Universe expanded, and expanded some more, expanding ever outwards, it cooled and continued cooling to reach what we note as today’s cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) temperature, just several degrees above the theoretical absolute zero. This is absolute nonsense. It is rubbish. It is impossible (the infinite temperature in the beginning, not today’s measured CMBR temperature). Scientists sometimes play extremely loosely with the word ‘infinity’, when they actually mean ‘extremely’ high (or dense or vast, etc.). So, why can’t the Big Bang event have had infinite temperature? Simplicity itself! If you add, subtract, multiply or divide any finite number into infinity, you get – infinity! In the case of the Universe expanding, if you double her dimensions, you have a reduction in her density (mass or energy) by a factor of eight. That’s fine if you start with a finite value, but infinity divided by eight is still infinity. Our Universe would never cool below an infinite temperature no matter how much it expanded! That’s clearly not what we observe (and if that weren’t the case we wouldn’t be here to contemplate the matter since life couldn’t arise in an environment of infinite temperature), so clearly the origin of our Universe had a finite (even if extremely high) temperature from the get-go.   

Then there are cosmologists would have you believe that space itself is expanding; that ‘dark energy’ is a property of space that pushes apart space itself, creating more space, which comes equipped with its own quota of ‘dark energy’, which further expands or pushes apart space, creating thus even more space and more ‘dark energy’ – it’s a vicious circle and the ultimate ‘free lunch’ if true. However, I maintain that’s impossible.  There may well be a repulsive force, a sort of antigravity called ‘dark energy’, and it may be a property of space itself, but it repels or pushes matter further apart, not space. Translated, the Universe’s matter is expanding, with the assistance of ‘dark energy’, through existing space. That matter is not being carried along by space itself, space expanding due to the repulsive nature of its ‘dark energy’. [As an aside, if one prefers, one can think of ‘dark energy’ as a pull force that pulls things apart, and thus gravity as a push force that pushes things together, instead of associating ‘dark energy’ with push, and gravity with pull. A rose by any other name… . The bottom line is that ‘dark energy’ is repulsive; gravity is attractive, which has nothing to do with one being prettier than the other!]  

That one can squeeze the contents of the entire observable universe into a volume less than that of a pinhead – much less in actual fact. Okay, pull the other one! 

IMPOSSIBLE PHYSICS

Item one in the ‘impossible physics’ category is that the elementary or fundamental particles are only ‘point** particles’ existing as dimensionless objects with no volume. That might simplify particle physics maths, but is nonsense. That idea, if correct, would render impotent particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider. How could two particles collide if they don’t have any volume?

A second item in the ‘impossible physics’ category is that particles also behave as waves (the wave-particle duality). The wave aspect, despite experimental evidence, is an illusion IMHO. Particles are particles – tiny billiard balls if you will. If you have mass you do not wave (although under the right circumstances you might vibrate). Photons don’t have mass and so you do have light (photons) behaving as waves, which is also why photons travel at the speed of light. That’s unlike mass particles, for example like electrons that do have mass. They can’t travel at the speed of light. Look at it this way, or at least through the philosophy of Occam’s (Ockham’s) Razor that simpler is better; the fewer the assumptions required to explain things, the better. Say you have an electron emitted from a specific point ‘A’ in space and time – say from the electron-gun in your TV set. That electron impacts your TV screen at a specific point ‘B’ in time and space. What happens to the electron in-between ‘A’ and ‘B’? Does it wave all over the place on the journey so that its location between ‘A’ and ‘B’ is just probability, or does it travel like a little billiard ball in a straight line from ‘A’ to ‘B’? If all the electrons emitted by your TV set’s electron-gun waved all over the place, each could take varying intervals of time to reach your TV screen. Your TV picture would be a mess!

Thirdly, Black Holes have singularities at their centre with zero volume and infinite density. The problem with that is that if you chuck matter into a Black Hole (ending up ultimately in their singularity), the Black Hole’s event horizon grows in size. If that is so, that is if the Black Hole grows in size, then the singularity must have finite volume that increases as you throw more and more stuff into it.

Now, it has been speculated that matter that gets sucked into a Black Hole undergoes a phase change into a new form of matter, sort of like ice to water to steam, or steam to water to ice. What exactly the nature of that inside-the-Black-Hole phase change is – well, your guess is as good as mine. However, I have come up with an idea. The matter sucked inside a Black Hole has been transformed into ‘dark matter’! Now ‘dark matter’ has mass and gravity, but doesn’t interact with any electromagnetic forces. We know that because ‘dark matter’ exists within our Universe; not of necessity hidden exclusively within Black Holes. So, how does ‘dark matter’ get out of a Black Hole and into our Universe at large? It doesn’t, at least not as ‘dark matter’ but maybe a Hawking radiation. Well, that doesn’t explain the ‘dark matter’ all around us. So there has to be an exception, and I suggest that exception was the transformation of a previous universe’s Big Crunch – forming the Mother of all Black Holes – so warping space-time that it turned itself inside out and emerged as a While Hole, spilling out its contents and forming our Universe in the process. The Mother of all Black Holes transformed much of that universe’s ordinary matter into ‘dark matter’, but the process of Black to While Hole transformation happened so rapidly that not all matter got so converted before the spewing. So, what was vomited as our Universe was a lot of ‘dark energy’, but not quite 100%, keeping in line with what we observe, or detect but don’t observe directly, today. 

A fourth item has to do with the Holy Grail of physics, the TOE (Theory of Everything). It is commonly accepted that there are four fundamental forces in the cosmos – electromagnetism (quantum physics), the strong nuclear force (quantum physics), the weak nuclear force (quantum physics), and gravity (classical physics). A TOE would somehow relate all four forces; they would be unified into just one overall grand physics concept. But, the fly in the ointment has been gravity. Perhaps gravity isn’t a force but a property of space itself (as is its counterpart, ‘dark energy’). If that’s so, then it might prove to be impossible to come up with a TOE that unifies the three quantum forces with classical gravity. Put another way, gravity in the form of general relativity (the macro) and quantum physics (the micro) are forever bound to be un-bonded – it’s like there are two totally separate types of incompatible software governing the cosmos.

Another concept that has actually mastered the TOE is known as string theory, superstring theory, or M-theory. It’s one of these wildly improbably ideas that’s the ‘in thing’ in modern physics – and has been for decades. And therein lays one of the problems. While it is ascetically beautiful and explains much about life the universe and everything from Hawking radiation to the unification of quantum and classical physics, it has three flaws. Firstly, it’s pure abstract mathematical theory. Secondly, variations on string theory is now over 30+ years strong without having one shred of experimental evidence to back up the basic idea that elementary particles are tiny vibrating strings and not little billiard balls. Thirdly, string theory requires the total existence of ten or eleven dimensions. These extra six or seven unobserved and undetected dimensions (additional to the four we commonly interact with) are unobserved and undetected because they are curled up so tightly that they’re down to ultra micro size, way below the threshold of observation and detection – how connivent. If you accept that premise, well there’s this bridge in Sydney I have going for sale real cheap! 

Particle/nuclear physicists would have you accept that unstable (radioactive) nucleus decays into more stable nucleus without any reason; without any cause. First it is unstable; then all of a sudden, at a time undeterminable, ‘poof’, it is stable, or at least on the pathway to eventual stability, with alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation given off in the process. Firstly, things don’t happen without a cause. That’s impossible IMHO. Maybe the unstable nucleus got hit with a cosmic ray or a neutrino (there’s lots of them around) which triggered the ‘poof’ event. But something was the trigger. Secondly, how could radioactive decay happen to individual nuclei without cause, yet collectively all the nuclei decay over time by following a neat and precise and predictable (half-life) mathematical relationship?

I believe there is a prim and proper causality explanation to radioactive decay. I suggest above the impact between an unstable nucleus and either a cosmic ray or a neutrino. Of the two, cosmic rays can’t penetrate very far into the ground, but neutrinos can and do, in fact nearly all neutrinos pass right through the Earth itself without the slightest fuss and bother. However, a few neutrinos do run smack into something. Most of the times it’s a stable nucleus and nothing happens. Occasionally, it’s an unstable nucleus and that impact is enough to trigger the instability cascade down the slope to stability. So, unstable nuclei, deep inside the Earth, get whacked too and thus decay too, generating a lot of Earth’s interior heat in the process. Now, I suggest my idea is subject to experimental research and verification – or not. All one needs to do is artificially increase the normal background neutrino rate and see if the half-life of a radioactive element changes! These external influences like neutrinos (maybe cosmic rays), are uniform enough (everyday normal constant background rates) so that given impact events, if 1000 unstable nuclei  go ‘poof’ after one time unit; the next time unit sees 500 nuclei go ‘poof’ and so on. So, my neutrino (or cosmic ray) impact idea explains the half-life phenomena.

By analogy, picture a roomful of inflated toy balloons. Standing outside the room, toss dart after dart into the room. At first, you hit lots of balloons; say half of them in one hour’s worth of dart tossing. But, as the number of inflated balloons decrease, so in the next hour worth of dart tossing, you’re not going to hit as many inflated balloons, maybe only half of the half that’s left, and in the hour after that even less (another half of the half), until there’s one balloon left standing - until a stray dart find that and the room is now stable and free of inflated balloons. It’s a half-life relationship. Now substitute a collection of unstable nuclei for the balloons and neutrinos (or maybe cosmic rays) for the darts and there you have it. Causality rules, okay?

Either that or maybe you have to assume intelligent, communicating, all-knowing unstable nuclei. Imagine this conversation as an explanation. Jane: “Hi Clive” Clive: “Hi Jane” Jane: “Look Clive, one of us must go ‘poof’ now in order to keep this half-life relationship in sync” Clive: That’s okay Jane, I’ll go ‘poof’ – see ya”. Jane: “Thanks a bunch!” Of course the above conversation is hardly one that anyone could take seriously!

So if an unstable nucleus goes ‘poof’ without any cause, then the collective of all such nuclei bound together each participant going individually ‘poof’, each without cause, would be have to end up being collectively a totally random and variable result, not a half-life predictable result. That’s not what we observe.

IMPOSSIBLE PHILOSOPHY

I doubt that there is such a thing as ‘free will’. If, in the beginning, one defines a set of initial conditions, a finite number of particles having deterministic laws and relationships governing them, and hence starts the clock running, then, crunching the numbers by cranking the handle, one can predict an absolute outcome for those particles based on those laws and relationships X number of time units in the future. If that is acceptable, then there is no independent ‘free will’ variable. It’s a clockwork universe. 1 + 1 = 2, the first time, the last time; all times in-between. No variations allowed. 

I also doubt that you have an invisible friend who art in heaven. Sorry, but there’s no evidence supporting the existence of any supernatural creator God or gods.

To be continued….

* Having since looked it up, I’ve confirmed it as the White Queen’s statement from Through the Looking-Glass.

**A point is zero dimensional; a line or curve is one dimensional; a square or circle is two dimensional; a cube or sphere is three dimensional.

Mission Impossible (Or Highly Improbable): Part One

In Alice in Wonderland (or was that Through the Looking-Glass – I can never remember which one of the two it was*) it’s stated that it’s possible to believe many (as in six) impossible things before breakfast. Science and associated philosophies have had to deal with impossibilities and wildly improbable things, some of which are straight forward, and some of which aren’t – perhaps to the point where something possible is in fact impossible and fundamentally wrong. Conversely, something considered impossible might in fact be possible and fundamentally right. 

A cautionary note: when it comes to what’s possible or impossible; plausible or implausible; probable or improbable, majority doesn’t rule. This isn’t a democracy. If a billion people believe nonsense, it’s still nonsense. This however is in contrast to what has been proven beyond a reasonable scientific doubt. If a billion people continue to disbelieve something that has been proved, then it’s those billion people who are nonsense, not the idea.

Time and time again the self correcting nature of scientific investigation has invalidated the norm of the day, resulting in a paradigm shift. Often the seemingly impossible has proved to be possible, even inevitable. Sometimes what’s been believed to be obviously plausible as proved to be anything but plausible. So, if today’s science says something’s impossible – well, maybe. If I say something is impossible – the same caveat applies. I tend to argue from common sense logic, which, as any philosopher or historian of science will tell you is no sure pathway to what is, and isn’t.

FIRSTLY, let’s list just a few once-upon-a-time scientific impossibilities that have proved to be anything but.

It used to be quite obvious that the Sun went around the Earth – any other configuration was considered impossible.

Once upon a time, our Universe could not be anything but static – neither expanding nor contracting. Einstein however knew the Universe should be contracting because of the attractive force of gravity. To counter that, and keep the static Universe he and the science of the times believed in, he invented his ‘cosmological constant’, a repulsive force to exactly counter gravity’s pull. He later called that his greatest blunder. However, that ‘cosmological constant’ has recently resurfaced in the form of ‘dark energy’, so Einstein might have been right after all!

Those Black Holes, while existing on paper in relativity theory, could not actually exist in reality - in practice they were quite the impossible object.

No one in their right mind would believe that it was possible that mankind had any actual evolutionary relationship with ‘lower’ life forms.

That matter actually consisted of indivisible bits called atoms - the atomic theory was nonsense.

That ‘island universes’ were actually independent conglomerations of stars and not nebulous entities part and parcel of our own Milky Way Galaxy was deemed impossible by experts.

Catastrophism in geology was considered a no-no for much of the time since it began as a legit part of earth science. All geology (especially landforms) could be explained as a gradual softly-softly, slowly-slowly, process. Violent events need not apply to explain things. Tell that to the dinosaurs! Of course we know better today. Catastrophism has taken its place and role playing in the geologic scheme of things.

Speaking of geology, the idea of continental drift was once considered preposterous pie-in-the-sky stuff. How dare a meteorologist (Alfred Wegener in 1912) tell geologists what should have been bleeding obvious! Geologists of course countered that there was no physical mechanism that could push continents around. Well, there was as it turned out, only we may no longer call it continental drift but rather plate tectonics. So, the meteorologist could the geologists flatfooted after all. 

Once upon a time, the concept of nuclear energy was pie in the sky – a subject no scientist would take seriously.

Prior to the initial test, there were ‘experts in explosives’ who said that the A-bomb would never work.

Powered flight was once considered impossible – balloons were the only feasible means of air travel.

Rocket travel was utter bilge as there was nothing in space for the rocket’s exhaust to push against.

It was impossible for the human body to travel faster than the speed of a (fill in the blank) without suffering fatal physiological consequences.

The sound barrier would never be broken. 

It was considered impossible for stones to fall from the sky – witnesses to the contrary are damned. Today, we incorrectly call them ‘shooting stars’; more correctly meteors, and when then hit the ground, meteorites. 

The Titanic was ‘unsinkable’.

The city of Troy was mythology, pure and simple. There was no such place in reality. 

SECONDLY, let’s look at a few really bona fide actual or statistical impossibilities according to today’s scientific thinking.

It’s impossible to divide any number by zero.

It is impossible to travel at the speed of light if you have mass. That’s because at light speed, mass becomes infinite; time stops; your length contracts to zero. However, travel faster than the speed of light seems to be okay (albeit with weird consequences), if only one could figure out how to get from sub-light to faster-than-light without actually crossing the speed of light threshold. It’s like driving your car from zero to sixty km/hour without actually passing through the 30 km/hour region. 

It is considered impossible for a macro object to escape from a Black Hole. To escape from a Black Hole would require passing through that speed of light threshold.

Perpetual motion machines are a big no-no. There’s no such thing as a free lunch! No country’s patent office will even remotely consider proposals for devices that operate on perpetual motion ideals.

It’s apparently impossible to get around the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle part and parcl of quantum physics. Einstein tried for decades to do so and failed each and every time.

It’s impossible to ever reach a temperature of absolute zero (zero on the Kelvin temperature scale) where all molecular, atomic and subatomic activity ceases and all is motionless. It’s impossible because it violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and also because of the vacuum energy, also known as quantum fluctuations. At the extreme micro level, virtual particle pairs pop into and out of existence borrowing from the, and returning energy to, that energy reserve that pervades the cosmos – quantum foam. Finally, energy is spread across the Universe, and can not be created nor destroyed. Although the Universe is expanding, that just means that available energy is being spread thinner and thinner – the energy density of the Universe is therefore decreasing**. But, as long as our Universe retains a finite volume, that density can never reach zero.

No matter what the merits of reincarnation are (and there are none IMHO), it is impossible to recall past lives. The egg and the sperm from which you were conceived had no past memory of your alleged past lives since they came from individuals not so related to your past existences. So, you started out from the get-go with no memory. Any and all memories you now have started from day of conception onwards – full stop***.

On a lighter note, films often give you impossibilities. You know they are impossible, but you accept them anyway, at least while the film is running. Superman’s flying comes to mind, or for that matter the original premise behind the various attributes of all our celluloid superheroes. It’s impossible to have any such of a thing as an invisible person. That person would be functionally blind as light would pass right through their eyeballs. A standard of sci-fi are insects the size of houses – impossible as they would quickly die of suffocation.  A fifty foot human is also impossible because their scaled up legs get scaled up far less than the increase in body mass, and so the individual couldn’t stand up. Similar physiological problems arise if you shrink humans to standard insect size. The standard impossibility is hearing the noise and sounds a spaceship or space battles make while in the vacuum of space. I’m sure any readers could think up dozens of other examples. Most films never get the science right, but of course it’s just entertainment not to be taken as accurate representation of reality.

Lastly, there’s one impossible thing you just can’t think of and believe before breakfast, or any other time. It’s impossible to think that you don’t exist (either as an actual or simulated being) for who’s doing the thinking if not you? Therefore, the famous observation and quote, “I think therefore I am”.

To be continued….

* Having since looked it up, I’ve confirmed it as the White Queen’s statement from Through the Looking-Glass.

**There’s one caveat to that. If ‘dark energy’ is a property of space, and if space is expanding, then the amount of ‘dark energy’ is not thinning, but increasing. More space means more ‘dark energy’.

   

***When I mentioned this observation to a friend, she immediately suggested that the memory of a past life or lives was due to the implantation of your soul. It’s your soul (assuming there is such a thing) that has the memory.

Actually I was under the impression that it was one soul per person, but maybe not. One soul might be passed down from one person to that person’s reincarnation to that person’s reincarnation for however long the process goes on for. Maybe like in Doctor Who you only get so many regenerations (or in this case reincarnations).

Anyway, I was also under the impression that the soul is intangible or nebulous – it has no actual substance, a thing that can be examined in the laboratory and under a microscope.

Memory however has to be something part and parcel of the biochemical’s and biochemistry and energy flows that happens in your brain whenever you remember something. Memory must have some physical substance – it has mass and energy. Memory can be affected by chemicals and energy. A soul doesn’t have mass or energy and presumably can’t be influenced by external influences. So, if your soul contains the memories of your past lives, then no amount of foreign drugs, disease or injury will make you forget past lives because the soul is indestructible. Sorry, but if you have a memory of a past life then I suggest that memory, even though it’s a false or delusional memory, can be affected by physical influences, like drugs, disease or injury.

Immortality: Who Wants To Live Forever? Part Two

“Nothing is certain but death and taxes”, so the saying goes, and while much has been written about taxes, death, or the lack of death, the latter is my topic under consideration. The question I pose is, can technology deliver on what religion promises, but probably can’t deliver on - that is to say, the promise of life eternal.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Apart from the immortality question, let’s say you have an intense personal desire to have a career exploring the planet Jupiter – not via telescope, but in person. Today, for various reasons, your prospects are bugger-all. There’s no way to get you there at the moment, and you couldn’t survive the hostile environment even if you did. There’s no part of your organic body that would survive the Jovian (Jupiter’s) environment.  And if you wanted to explore, in person, extra-solar ‘Jupiters’,  in addition to inherent hostile environments, you wouldn’t survive the time frames necessary to get you to them which would require interstellar travel, travel to be measured in tens to hundreds of thousands of years at present, even extrapolated advances in spacecraft velocities in the near to midterm future.

So, even a combination of your organic biology coupled with some machine technology (you becoming a cybernetic bio-mechanical hybrid) wouldn’t ultimately help your goal. What would work would be an entirely technological or mechanical ‘organism’ – a robot with artificial intelligence – one that could survive the lengthy journey times and the hostile environments. But that doesn’t do you (or more to the point your mind that’s within you) any good – unless you became that robot! However, one needs then to get the relevant organic parts of you – your mind or your brain - into an inorganic form.

Just as it’s currently possible for one to transfer or download the contents of one computer into another computer, and just as your brain (which contains your mind) is an advanced type of computer – it’s your mind’s software that controls the rest of you - so too might it be eventually possible for your organic mind-within-your-brain to be downloaded into a nuts-and-bolts computer which could then be merged with an appropriate mechanical body or some other technology specifically designed to achieve a particular goal that’s unachievable by actual  flesh and blood. Examples are exploring Jupiter, space travel to distant stars and solar systems, or undersea exploration. You cannot, unaided, dive to the depths where RMS Titanic rests of the bottom of the Atlantic. If your mind however was somehow contained within a silicon and steel robot, well exploring the oceanographic depths would be easy. Robotic probes have explored the Titanic and the deepest of the deep parts of the ocean.

The upshot is that if your mind, the inner “you”, were part and parcel of residing inside an inorganic body, given that inorganic materials last a hell of a lot longer than organic bodies, then you’ve achieved quasi-immortality!  That’s ditto the case in that when your mind becomes the software in an inorganic computer. That software can later be transferred to another computer and then another and then another – right on down the line. That can also lead to lots of copies of your mind being around. Not only quasi-immortality, but cloning as well!

Using nanotechnology, building from the ground up, atom by atom, tiny but useful machines/things is a

current rapidly emerging technology in our 21^st Century. Fast forward to the far future – if one has, down to the last detail, a blueprint for a living thing, then even that living thing could be created, from the ground up, atom by atom, using nanotechnology techniques, again and again and again – all identical. That living thing could be the physical you combined with the inner you – your mind - a being identical to whatever the pre-existing you was. Immortality! [As an aside, this is the way, atom by atom, that organic bodies are naturally constructed. Our food, air, water, etc. are broken down and recombined into organic compounds, bio-chemicals and so on up the chain through to cells and tissues and organs, etc.]

Of course such complicated nanotechnology may well be many centuries (if ever) away before this version of immortality is even a remote possibility. But, who knows what advancements might be possible that far ahead?

That said, it’s therefore possible that very advanced extraterrestrial intelligences have already achieved, if not immortality, then at least something approaching it. Such a civilization would have no difficulty, if so inclined, in exploring, even colonizing the galaxy in fairly short order – several millions of years at most, even at sub-light speeds. That’s a small fraction of the age of our galaxy. Extraterrestrials can colonize the galaxy akin to how humans have colonized Planet Earth – it doesn’t take that long relative to the age of the object – galaxy or Planet Earth – being colonized.

Quite apart from achieving immortality through silicon and steel, or nanotechnology, you know there is no law of nature that states you must die after so many days; after three score and ten years; after so many heartbeats; after so many cell divisions; after so much calorie intake; after so much whatever. Therefore, perhaps you might be justified in firmly believing that no matter what, you will always wake up the next morning. You are so convinced of that that you have never even remotely contemplated making out a will, or buying a graveyard plot, or making any sorts of arrangements post your death –cause it ain’t gonna happen! That’s the power of positive thinking as it were! Of course that leads to the converse, perhaps if you do acknowledge that there’s no uncertainty when it comes to your death, you’ve sealed your own fate! Once you accept that you will die, you will indeed. Of course it may not matter one bit what you firmly believe or refuse to believe in or acknowledge – like your own croaking. I assume it doesn’t matter since I suspect over time there have been lots of individuals who have denied death’s inevitability, but nevertheless, are now stone cold dead.

Of course in one sense we all achieve a form of immortality. Some of our atoms and molecules that made us up will eventually recycle and become incorporated into new life forms - maybe as bacteria, or plants or bugs or maybe a part of another person. The heart may not go on, but the atomic bits and pieces will. Perhaps after billions of years, after our sun and solar system are no more, some of the fundamental particles that make you, you, might find its way across the cosmos to eventually become incorporated into some extraterrestrial life form! The reverse might also be true – molecular bits of you might once, eons ago, have been part of an alien organism.

Immortality: Who Wants To Live Forever? Part One

“Nothing is certain but death and taxes”, so the saying goes, and while much has been written about taxes, death, or the lack of death, the latter is my topic under consideration. The question I pose is, can technology deliver on what religion promises, but probably can’t deliver on - that is to say, the promise of life eternal.

Assuming that there is no actual afterlife, or reincarnation, then perhaps one can try for (near to actual) immortality, or at least as much immortality as the ultimate fate of the Universe allows for, and cheat death. I believe Woody Allen is quoted as saying something along the lines of, ‘I don’t want to achieve immortality through my films; I want to achieve immortality by not dying’! How can immortality by not dying be accomplished, if indeed it can be accomplished?

Some cautionary notes first of all, and that is physical immortality could be as downbeat as any afterlife. While nearly everyone wishes for immortality, whether they realize it or not, this is a case of be wary of what you wish for, least you get it. Immortality (which doesn’t preclude death by accident or design – just natural [aging] death), if achieved, would be a very boring existence as you’d end up spending trillions of years in a dark, intensely cold, lifeless (heat death) Universe. Looking at current observational evidence, our Universe will keep on expanding, and expanding at an ever accelerating rate at that, continues to ever cool as stars and galaxies ultimately die as their energy supply becomes exhausted and what energy there is becomes diluted throughout an ever increasing expanding volume. Such is the predicted fate of our cosmos.

Even if the fate of the Universe is a Big Crunch, that is, our Universe slows down the  expansion rate, halts, and starts contracting again under the collective gravity the Universe’s mass has, that alone would terminate your immortality quick-smart!

I should note that it’s the fate of the Universe that’s important here vis-à-vis becoming, and more importantly, staying immortal. The demise of Planet Earth is of no consequence.  If you achieve immortality, then by the time Earth goes kaput, you will have had ample time to have packed your bags and left. You’ve fled and escaped elsewhere in the Universe to a location that hasn’t yet gone kaput. But when the entire cosmos goes kaput (in either direction – Heat Death or Big Crunch), then it’s ultimately curtains for you too! It’s hard living the comfortable life when the temperature of the Universe is just a tiny fraction above absolute zero; in the Big Crunch, down a Black Hole you go!

Oh, the other cautionary note is that if you achieve, in your organic body, immortality, you had better have achieved eternal youth as well. There’s no point in living to a ripe old age of several million years if your aging process doesn’t stop! Unlike some of the mythological gods, Norse I believe in particular, there is no endless supply of golden apples to keep you eternally youthful. Apart from that, the mythological gods are given as immortal, or as close to immortal as makes no odds, so if you should come across Zeus or equivalent, you can always ask them what the secret is!

Anyway, for starters, there’s no way (currently known) that, assuming you possess an organic multi-cellular body, that you can stop, far less reverse, the aging (and ultimately the death) process. There is, alas, no combination of vitamins; no health club membership; no fountain of youth; no “Picture of Dorian Gray”; no magic witch’s brew that can, or will accomplish that objective. And while you can eat fruit, nuts and vegetables till you’re blue in the face, they alone won’t see you into the 23^rd Century, far less the 123^rd Century!

A unicellular organism (like an amoeba) can (in theory) achieve a sort of immortality via reproduction – dividing in two (mitosis). Where there was one, now there is two, and since there’s been no recombination of genetic material, both are clones. Continued reproductive mitotic division over the days, weeks, years, centuries, millennia, would see an organism in 2000 AD identical to its ancestor from 2000 BC. Well, you, as a complex multi-cellular critter, can’t divide in two like an amoeba, so that fast track to immortality is out.

Cloning is also out because while that might produce an identical physical body, it wouldn’t replicate the inner you (your brain, your grey matter or your mind) that inhabits that body. A cloned you can’t ever duplicate that inner you. A cloned brain would be a virgin brain – a blank slate. It wouldn’t have your memories, personality, and other facets which are largely environmentally imprinted. 

Anyway, casting those above methods aside, how could you (actually that inner you – your mind) achieve if not infinite immortality, at least near quasi-immortality? The first catch is that what actually needs to be preserved is that inner you. That’s the inner you  that’s part of your physical body you – your emotions, memories, personality, awareness, likes, dislikes, habits (good and bad), etc. Survival for all eternity of your big toe or your wisdom teeth is fairly irrelevant in this context. For that matter, so is your blood, muscles, skin and bone, liver, etc. What needs to survive forever and ever (amen) is the seat of the real you – the inner you. That of course is your brain or your mind. Of course your brain, being organic, and subject to the aging process, can’t survive forever and ever (amen). Even if it could, after millions upon millions of years of living, its carrying capacity for memories, knowledge, etc. would have become exhausted – our brains have trouble in the here and now coping with sensory and information overload. Brain volume doesn’t expand to meet needs above and beyond that of our roughly three score and ten lifespan expectancy. It certainly can’t cope with three million score and ten! However, there’s no point in being immortal without having ongoing sensory inputs, at least sight and sound (you could probably do if necessary without the rest), although all input could be direct and electronic, like how a computer receives data.

And therein we come to the technological fix.

To be continued…

Evidence and the Twelfth Man: How Much Is Enough? Part Three

A phrase has appeared in many popular science books as well as sceptical books about various aspects of the paranormal and pseudoscience, but which has, in classic meme fashion, spread to other subjects as well. That phrase is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. However, I feel that phrase has well outlived its original purpose, is total nonsense, and has passed its ‘use by’ date by several decades at least. 

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is often the mantra when it comes to the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH).

 Many ideas or fads, be they in the sciences or the arts, don’t last long – theories come and theories go and actual fashions and fashion in music change yearly. What’s ‘in’ and what’s ‘out’ is often pretty fickle. A lot of what was popular in 1947 (the birth year of the modern UFO era) has fallen by the wayside now - but, interestingly enough, not the UFO ETH. The UFO ETH is as popular as ever, maybe even more so now than in 1947, not that popularity equates of necessity to something factual. If a billion people believe a stupid idea – like an invisible friend who art in heaven – it’s still a stupid idea. However, over six decades on, despite all the professional and amateur sceptics and the universal naysayer, the government denials, scientists professing ‘no evidence’, the ‘giggle’ factor and the ‘silly season’ publicity, the UFO ETH is alive and well thank you very much. Something must be driving this. Perhaps, at least as far as many of the great unwashed are concerned, there is some signal in the noise – some sort of evidence (albeit not physical enough to be acceptable to many professional scientists) that’s swaying the general public.

It is suggested, with good reason, that the whole issue of the UFO ETH must be judged on the basis of the evidence. And, it is claimed, that the evidence for visitation is so poor that very few scientists find it convincing. And that is true, at least the part that few scientists, publicly at least, find the UFO ETH somewhat lacking in solid evidence. Thus, the UFO ETH has garnered somewhat of an aura of being a ‘silly season’ subject, unworthy of scientific study. [To be honest, I’d often like to survey academics / scientists for their private opinions!]

UFOs vs. evidence for the ETH – there is no absolute smoking gun - yet. I’d be the first to acknowledge that. I’d suggest however that this is a case of where there’s smoke, there’s smoke. The fire has yet to be seen through the smoke. There however has got to be something suggestive about the nature of that smoke to drive lots of people, even some quite intelligent people, to accept the possibility of the UFO ETH. I mean the idea just didn’t pop out of the ether – out of thin air. Something very suggestive is driving it. 

I would ask the question whether by evidence one means a physical artefact that can be put under the microscope, or is human testimony, the sort that would convict someone of a crime and put them on death row enough evidence? I’m 99% convinced scientists would say the former, yet the evidence for the UFO ETH is 99% the latter (plus a few radar returns and films). Actually IMHO it’s ludicrous for UFO ETH sceptics to poo-poo and give the thumbs down to eyewitness testimony. After all, it’s accurate eyewitness testimony that enables the trained investigators to properly identify the vast majority of UFO reports, turning them into identified flying objects. So, when sceptics need eyewitness testimony to be accurate and turn UFO cases into something with ordinary and mundane causes – that’s fine. But when the tables are turned, sceptics turn turncoat as well so as to re-enforce their already-minds-made-up point of view. That is, eyewitness testimony that turns a UFO sighting into an unexplained bona fide UFO case, well then clearly the eyewitness testimony counts for nothing in terms of bona fide evidence.   

Now there are lots of current concepts in science that have absolutely no evidence to support them, yet are taken quite seriously by physical scientists. A partial list would include concepts like the Multiverse, the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics, string theory or its related M-Theory, the possible existence of ten or eleven dimensions, the Ekpyrotic (two branes colliding origin of the) Universe theory, and, shock horror for those interested in SETI, the total lack of any under-the-microscope, hard core evidence whatsoever for any intelligent life forms other than intelligent terrestrial life forms. Yet it is acceptable for scientists to research these areas without being subject to having their sanity questioned. I fail to see why the UFO ETH is an exception to this.

Scientists need more than 20 fingers and toes to list all of the there-is-no-evidence-for- these-way-out-theories in science that ultimately had to wait years, decades, longer even for experimental confirmation. If scientists had put these in the too hard basket, or dismissed them with a ‘I just don’t believe it - it can’t be therefore it isn’t’ attitude, well we’d still all believe that the sun goes around the Earth, black holes would be confined to the pages of science fiction, and as for gravity bending light rays – forget it.

There are other ‘the nature of the evidence’ parallels with UFOs – physical phenomena that don’t stand still; you can’t poke and prod, put under the microscope, examine at your leisure and which are unpredictable in space and in time. Ball lightning comes to mind; ditto Transient Lunar Phenomena (TLP); and you can’t rewind the clock and prepare for (instruments at the ready) and witness the one-off Tunguska event. There seems to be a double standard for evidence here. UFOs have a ‘giggle factor’; ball lightning does not, yet both have theoretical underpinnings that make their existence plausible. In the case of UFOs, it’s the Fermi Paradox – if advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist, they’ve had enough time to colonize the galaxy, so where is everybody?

So, that ultra overused phrase “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is nonsense. Claims of course require evidence, but again the word ‘extraordinary’ is in the mind of the beholder. What’s extraordinary to one is routine, boring, commonplace and downright bloody obvious to another. And speaking of the common phrase, another one that can be applied to the UFO ETH is “absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence”.

Conclusion: If you make a claim, extraordinary or otherwise, you’ve got to be prepared to back it up with your evidence, your whole evidence, and nothing but your evidence. The 12^th man would require no more, and no less.

Evidence and the Twelfth Man: How Much Is Enough? Part Two

A phrase has appeared in many popular science books as well as sceptical books about various aspects of the paranormal and pseudoscience, but which has, in classic meme fashion, spread to other subjects as well. That phrase is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. However, I feel that phrase has well outlived its original purpose, is total nonsense, and has passed its ‘use by’ date by several decades at least. 

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Okay, we have to come to terms with the fact that lots of extraordinary claims have in fact come to pass, with rather ordinary evidence. Let’s list just a few once-upon-a-time scientific impossibilities (extraordinary claims) that have proved (via ordinary evidence) to be anything but.

It used to be quite obvious that the Sun went around the Earth – any other extraordinary claim of another configuration was considered impossible.

Once upon a time, our Universe could not be anything but static – neither expanding nor contracting. Einstein however knew the Universe should be contracting because of the attractive force of gravity. To counter that, and keep the static Universe he and the science of the times believed in, he invented his ‘cosmological constant’, a repulsive force to exactly counter gravity’s pull. That was his extraordinary claim. He later called that his greatest blunder. However, that ‘cosmological constant’ has recently resurfaced in the form of ‘dark energy’, so Einstein might have been right after all!

Those extraordinary Black Holes, while existing on paper in relativity theory, could not actually exist in reality - in practice they were quite the impossible object. There’s massive evidence now that they do indeed exist.

No one in their right Biblical mind would believe that it was extraordinarily possible that mankind had any actual evolutionary relationship with ‘lower’ life forms. Evolutionary biologists can give you lots of ordinary evidence to the contrary.

That matter actually consisted of rather extraordinary indivisible bits called atoms - the atomic theory was nonsense. The atomic theory was an extraordinary claim. Particle physicists can give you ordinary evidence to the contrary.

That ‘island universes’ were actually independent conglomerations of stars and not nebulous entities part and parcel of our own Milky Way Galaxy was deemed extraordinarily impossible by experts. Ordinary observational evidence eventually proved otherwise.  

Catastrophism in geology was considered an extraordinary no-no for much of the time since it began as a legit part of earth science. All geology (especially landforms) could be explained as a gradual softly-softly, slowly-slowly, process. Violent events need not apply to explain things. Tell that to the dinosaurs! Of course we know better today. Ordinary evidence shows that Catastrophism has taken its place and role playing in the geologic scheme of things.

Speaking of geology, the idea of continental drift was once considered extraordinarily preposterous pie-in-the-sky stuff. How dare a meteorologist (Alfred Wegener in 1912) tell geologists what should have been bleeding obvious! Geologists of course countered that there was no physical mechanism that could push continents around. Well, there was as it turned out, only we may no longer call it continental drift but rather plate tectonics. The ordinary evidence is in; geologists accept it.

Once upon a time, the concept of nuclear energy was extraordinary pie in the sky – a subject no scientist would take seriously. Does anyone dispute the evidence for it today?

Prior to the initial test, there were ‘experts in explosives’ who said that the A-bomb would never work. That it would would have been an extraordinary claim to the contrary. The evidence that it did work is evident now. 

Powered flight was once considered extraordinarily impossible – balloons were the only feasible means of air travel. Today, the verdict is in.

Rocket travel was utter extraordinary bilge as there was nothing in space for the rocket’s exhaust to push against. Yet the moon landings became so ordinary that the public quickly got bored with them.

It was impossible for the human body to travel faster than the speed of a (fill in the blank) without suffering fatal physiological consequences. Any person suggesting the contrary would have been forced to provide extraordinary proof.  Of course quite ordinary proof proved most satisfactory to counter the claim.

The sound barrier would never be broken; to suggest otherwise was an extraordinary claim. Again, it’s now quite ordinary to break the sound barrier; no extraordinary evidence was required, just the sound of a sonic boom.    

It was considered impossible for stones to fall from the sky – witnesses to the contrary be damned. Today, we incorrectly call them ‘shooting stars’; more correctly meteors, and when then hit the ground, meteorites. Picking up a meteorite is ordinary; although claiming it fell from the sky was once upon a time an extraordinary claim.  

The RMS Titanic was ‘unsinkable’. To suggest otherwise would have been extraordinary. The very ordinary evidence now rests at the bottom of the North Atlantic Ocean.

The city of Troy was ordinary mythology, pure and simple. There was no such place in reality. To suggest the contrary was an extraordinary claim. Today, nobody doubts the ordinary evidence backing up the city’s reality.  

To be continued…

Evidence and the Twelfth Man: How Much Is Enough? Part One

A phrase has appeared in many popular science books as well as sceptical books about various aspects of the paranormal and pseudoscience, but which has, in classic meme fashion, spread to other subjects as well. That phrase is “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. However, I feel that phrase has well outlived its original purpose, is total nonsense, and has passed its ‘use by’ date by several decades at least. 

How much evidence does it take to convince someone of something like a jury; a scientist; a ‘professional’ sceptic; the great unwashed? The answer is obviously “Enough”. Any more than that is overkill. Of course what’s enough for any particular scenario will vary depending on the person. So, as per the film “12 Angry Men”, what’s enough evidence to convince 11 men wasn’t enough to convince the 12^th. Still, in theory there would come a point where additional evidence would be enough to sway that 12^th man. But that’s no more than just enough additional amount of evidence that he would require to join the other 11. The 12^th man requires some additional evidence, not extraordinarily more evidence; not overkill.

So why do scientists demand evidence overkill as per the way overused and illogical phrase “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE). No, claims of any kind require sufficient evidence to convince that 12^th man – no more and no less. ECREE needs to be consigned to the rubbish bin. I can understand the intent behind the phrase, but not the logic.

Sometimes you hear a song once too often and it loses its appeal. Sometimes it never had any appeal in the first place. In this case, it’s somewhere in-between. I didn’t object to the ECREE phrase at first, but after the 1000^th time, and especially upon more sober reflection, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s a nonsense phrase.

I gather an original purpose of ECREE was to separate the scientists making scientific claims, backed by independent verification and peer review, from the non-scientists making pseudo-scientific (i.e. – extraordinary) claims. This was all with the view on the grounds scientists don’t have the time and inclination to investigate every pseudo-scientific claim, so if they are to take the great unwashed seriously, a truckload of evidence had better be presented to them – far more than would be required initially from one of their peers. While that makes a bit of sense, it perpetuates an us vs. them dichotomy and makes scientists more elite than they really are, and/or makes the great unwashed even more unwashed than they really are. Anyway, this you’d better dump on me an extraordinary amount of evidence in my lap before I take you seriously (and even then I’ll probably take you with a grain of salt because I doubt I’ll have the right time of day for you because my mind is made up so don’t confuse me with facts or evidence) has become enshrined in the ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ mantra. 

Now at the onset, let me state that claims require evidence. That is not in dispute. That philosophy is an absolutely central concept part and parcel of our modern civilization. The entire foundation of our legal system answers to that principle. The scientific community, peer review, has adopted that principle. Even in everyday personal life, we insist on the viability of that principle. I mean if you claim you have a red dress, some doubting Thomas is perfectly within his rights to make you prove it – provide the evidence. And so you go to your closet, bring out the red dress, and so prove your claim. Now if you claim to have 1000 red dresses, which may seem like an extraordinary claim, but the nature of the evidence is exactly the same. You go to your closet, drag out 1000 red dresses, and dispatch Mr. Doubting Thomas quick-smart.

Oh, there is one great exception to the ‘claims require evidence’ principle – religion. When it comes to religious claims, however outrageous and illogical then may seem, you don’t have to provide any evidence, extraordinary or otherwise. It’s all about blind faith – faith is the be-all-and-end-all when it comes to believing in – to be honest – unsubstantiated claims.

Now the problem is that the work ‘extraordinary’ is in the mind of the beholder. What’s extraordinary to one individual isn’t even remotely extraordinary to another. It’s an emotive, personally judgmental word.

If I claim there’s a blue sedan parked in my driveway, that’s an ordinary claim.

If I claim there’s a ‘flying saucer’ parked in my driveway, you’d say that’s an extraordinary claim. However, both claims, ordinary or extraordinary, require the exact same amount of evidence. 

In the no-nonsense legal world, there’s no need for extraordinary evidence. You don’t require twice or thrice the number of witnesses to convict in the case of murder vis-à-vis shoplifting, even though murder is a far rarer and more extraordinary crime than shoplifting.

You go to the bank. Whether you withdraw an ordinary $1 or an extraordinary $10,000, you will be required to produce evidence that you are who you say you are – your signature, and perhaps photographic identification. But, in either case, it’s the same evidence.

To be continued…

The Holographic Universe and You: Part Three

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

QUESTIONS (AND ANSWERS): If the Universe is a hologram, then presumably our Moon, the planets Mars and Venus, as well as Titan (moon of Saturn) are holograms too. So, how can one land space probes, as we’ve done, on a hologram? The answer, I suspect, is that our space probes too were holograms, so it wasn’t as if you had a solid 3-D object land on an illusionary 3-D planet or moon. Both the probes and the planets were illusionary 3-D objects; or conversely, both were (or are) solid albeit 2-D objects.

How can you have a solid 2-D surface when anything that’s solid must have a third dimension to it? The answer seems to be that the operative word here is ‘surface’ and the surface, itself, is 2-D even if there is structure beneath it.

EVIDENCE: You’d be aware that if you examine an image at an every closer and closer detail, the image will become fuzzier and fuzzier or grainier and grainer. The newspaper picture breaks up into little individual black and white dots – granulation, or noise in the signal; the TV picture is just a series of pixels at high magnification. So too, if our Universe is a hologram image, that image should get ever fuzzier and start to break up when resolving it to an every greater and greater level of magnification.  Unfortunately, ordinary astronomical instruments aren’t powerful enough to see the required level of magnified detail that would suggest whether the Universe’s alleged hologram imagery begins to break down and become granulated. But, one type of instrument just might have (the required resolution), and just might have (found evidence that the Universe is a hologram).

The technique in question is instrumentation designed to detect gravitational waves, something predicted by Einstein’s excursions into relativity theory. One such instrument or research project is called GEO 600, located in Hanover, Germany.  Gravitational wave detectors like GEO 600 are essentially fantastically sensitive rulers that can probe the smallest unit of space-time which brings the microscopic quantum structure of the Universe within reach of current experiments.

Now GEO 600 has detected unexplained noise in the signal it’s actually designed to detect. This noise matches the loss of resolution prediction of what one would be expected to detect if the Universe were but a holographic image viewed at extreme resolution, resolution GEO 600 is capable of. Interestingly, the prediction of this ‘holographic noise’ was made by Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia, Illinois, and director of the Fermilab's Center for Particle Astrophysics. When Hogan first realized this, he wondered if any experiment might be able to detect the holographic blurriness of space-time. That's where the GEO 600 comes in. GEO 600 has come across the fundamental limit of space-time - the point where space-time ceases behaving like the smooth continuum Einstein described and instead dissolves into ‘grains’, just as a newspaper photograph dissolves into dots as you zoom in.

According to Hogan, "If the GEO600 result is what I suspect it is, then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram." "If you lived inside a hologram, you could tell by measuring the blurring," Hogan says.

The initial match between what holographic theory suggests, and actual observation, while interesting, is still tentative enough that no one is yet claiming absolutely that GEO600 has found 100% proof positive evidence that we live in a holographic universe. It is still way too far too soon to say absolutely. A mundane source of the noise is still a very real possibility. However, further investigations are planned, so stay tuned!

CONCLUSION: I can take neither credit nor blame for such an idea as that given above. You’ll find it in many relatively recent physics, astrophysics and cosmology books and articles, often as a subject in its own right – see the further readings section. The concept of our Universe as a hologram is certainly one of those ‘far out, star scout’ ideas, but all it takes is a bit of thinking outside of the box – not that that makes the idea right. But, it’s a concept worth playing around with, just for fun if nothing else.

Further readings:

Amoroso, Richard L. & Rauscher, Elizabeth A.; The Holographic Anthropic Multiverse: Formalizing the Complex Geometry of Reality; World Scientific Publishing Company, Hackensack, New Jersey; 2009:

Bekenstein, Jacob D.; ‘Information in the holographic universe: theoretical results about black holes suggest that the universe could be like a gigantic hologram’; Scientific American, August 2003; page 59:

Cardiff University; ‘Holographic Universe: discovery could herald new era in fundamental physics’; Science Daily, 4 February 2009: [GEO 600 observations]

Chown, Marcus; ‘Our world may be a giant hologram’; New Scientist, January 15, 2009: [GEO 600 observations]

Grote, H. (for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration); ‘The status of GEO 600’; Classical and Quantum Gravity; Volume 25, Number 11, 7 June 2008; page 114043:

Hogan, Craig J.; ‘Measurement of quantum fluctuations in geometry’; Physical Review D; Volume 77, Number 10, 2008; page 104031: 

Lindesay, James & Susskind, Leonard; An Introduction to Black Holes, Information and the String Theory Revolution: The Holographic Universe; World Scientific Publishing Company; Hackensack, New Jersey; 2004:

Talbot, Michael; The Holographic Universe; Harper Perennial, New York; 1992:

Vienna University of Technology; ‘How many dimensions in the holographic universe’; Science Daily, 9 February 2009:

Vitini, Leonardo; ‘Reality: a mere illusion (part 1); The Epoch Times; 13 December 2009:

Vitini, Leonardo; ‘Reality: a mere illusion (part 2)’; The Epoch Times; 20 December 2009:

Wilber, Ken (Editor); The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes;

Shambhala Publications, Boston, Mass.; 1982: