Searching for the Voice of God ~ Gluons

An interesting interaction between words and concepts: Gluons (that which keeps things together) are the exchange particles for the color force (chromodynamics) between quarks (elementary particle matter - having gluons that which keeps them together), which is analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles.
Hence, the gluon can be considered to be the fundamental exchange particle underlying the strong interaction between protons and neutrons in a nucleus - that which keeps things together. That short-range interaction can be considered to be a residual color force extending outside the boundary of the proton or neutron. Gluon interactions generate a color change for the quarks.
The gluons are in fact considered to be bi-colored, carrying a unit of color and a unit of anti-color (talking about light change). More incredible than that is that the range of the strong force is limited by the gluons interact with each other as well as with quarks, in the context of quark confinement. These properties contrast with photons which are massless and of infinite range. The photon does not carry electric charge with it, while the gluons do carry the 'color charge'.
As fascinating and compelling as the evidence is for the existence and purpose of such exchange particles (gluons), the discussion today is whether or not a gluon as a 'fundamental exchange particle' is a 'virtual particle'. Why is there such discussion? Some argue that it is difficult to say if there are such a thing as gluons since there is no sharp dividing line between a virtual particle and a real particle (a real particle is that which is agreed upon as being observed); yet, it's not true that every particle is clearly one or the other. Confusing isn't it?
In the realm of quantum physics we are told that most of what we observe and discuss as real matter concerns a lot of what is unknown. Since, observations take place at the atomic level (the fundamental level of matter which is light) it would be difficult to say whether or not a super computer is making the correct observation, as it is humanly programmed and humanly understood. Therefore, we may not ever be able to tell if virtual particles exist but saying that they don't exist can't be proven either. Worse, if they don't exist that means normal particles (aka field quanta) don't exist either.
Firstly, because we as mere humans may be mistaking what is real and what isn't as it is with anything virtual, it is not easy or possible to tell what is virtual and what is not virtual... as they are the same. Gluons are short lived. These short-lived high mass force-carrier particles (virtual particles) seem to violate the laws of conservation of energy and mass; hence, their mass just can't come out of nowhere!
Considering the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, these high-mass particles may come into being if they are incredibly short-lived. In a sense, they escape reality's notice. Such particles are called virtual particles. These so called virtual particles 'gluons' do not violate the conservation of energy. The kinetic energy plus mass of the initial decaying particle and the final decay products is equal. The virtual particles exist for such a short time that they can never be observed.
Most particle processes are mediated by virtual carrier particles or gluons. Again, remember that the gluon is the so-called messenger particle of the strong nuclear force which binds subatomic particles known as quarks within the protons and neutrons of stable matter as well as with heavier, short-lived particles created at high energies. Quarks interact by emitting and absorbing gluons, just as electrically charged particles interact through the emission and absorption of photons. In quantum chromodynamics, the theory of the strong force, the interactions of quarks are described in terms of eight types of massless gluon which, like the photon, all carry one unit of intrinsic angular momentum, or spin. Like quarks, the gluons carry a 'strong charge' known as 'color'.  This means that gluons can interact between themselves through the strong force.

Fascinating, isn't it? How could that really be 'real' and what would be its purpose? Searching for the voice of God... as it was in the beginning, He said "Let there be Light" ~ Genesis 1:3. Perhaps, the 'strong charge' is His command! In visualizing the interaction of particles, we can imagine what amazing application it has for our social well being. It could only be the Creator's will that in every aspect of His creation, there we are. 

*sources used:

http://www.britannica.com/science/gluon

http://www.particleadventure.org/virtual.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/expar.html

 

The Creator's Potential ~ Quanta State

"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" ~ Isaiah 55:9.  "For the world is mine, and everything in it" ~ Psalm 50:12. "He stretches out the heavens like a tent ~ Psalm 104:2 and Zechariah 12:1. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word" ~ Hebrews 1:3. 

He stretches out the heavens like a tent... 



We have come to know that at the quantum level, there is a lack of reality and specific location disappears.







One can read that in physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) which is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized," referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization.  This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete values. It’s because a photon as a single quantum of (visible) light as well as all other forms of electromagnetic radiation and can be referred to as a "light quantum". The energy of an electron bound to an atom is quantized, which results in the stability of atoms, and hence of matter in general.

The first to use "quanta" to mean "quanta of matter and electricity", gas and heat was Max Planck.  In 1900, Planck discovered the concept of quantization of radiation and later supported by Albert Einstein’s work which suggested that radiation existed in spatially localized packets which he called “quanta of light”.

That is why, at the quantum level, there is a kind of electromagnetic fuzz and what has been referred to as fuzzy logic - an idea largely grounded in Einstein’s theory of relativity and Werner Heisenberg’s theory of uncertainty. Physicists in the science world and including Albert Einstein were essentially looking at something not fully real. Quanta the plural of quantum thus is whatever it needs to be, actualized into something.

I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics (Albert Einstein, 1954).

Albert Einstein's suspicions were well justified, for he had spent a lifetime trying (and failing) to create a unified field theory of matter that explained both Quantum Theory / Light and Relativity / Gravity. In fact Matter, as a Spherical Standing Wave which causes the 'Field' effect, interacts with other matter in discrete standing wave patterns, not with continuous force fields as he had imagined, thus his task was ultimately impossible, as he sadly came to realize towards the end of his life.




However, his work on the photoelectric effect confirmed that light energy was only emitted and absorbed by electrons in discrete amounts or quanta. This quanta of light energy soon became known as the 'photon' (i.e. discrete like a particle) and led to the paradox that light behaved both as a continuous e-m wave (Maxwell, Albert Einstein) as well as a discrete particle/photon (Planck, Albert Einstein). So we see that Albert Einstein was partly responsible for the discovery of the particle (photon) concept of light, though he completely rejected the notion of discrete particles.

Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion (Albert Einstein).

Albert Einstein is correct that there are no discrete particles, and that the particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. But it is the high Wave-Amplitude of the Wave-Center of a Spherical Standing Wave in Space (not of a continuous spherical force field) that causes the particle effect. Thus of three concepts, particles, force fields, and motion, it finally turns out that Motion, as the spherical wave motion of space, is the correct concept, as it then explains both particles and fields.

I wished to show that space time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe to a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept empty space loses its meaning (Albert Einstein ).

He stretches out the heavens like a tent...

~ Sources - various online and including http://www.spaceandmotion.com/quantum-theory-albert-einstein-quotes.htm

*What is science? Man's way of trying to understand his creator.

Chuck Missler ~ Our Digital Reality

Listening to Chuck Missler, it became imperative to share with you what this exceptional mind has to offer.


The universe is expanding but within a finite cosmos. This is the called the macrocosm. The universe is thus finite and at the smallest level it is a 'microcosm' which is called a Plank length. Hence, the universe must exist inside something larger than itself. Some call it the bulk or metacosm. We know this through experimentation that proves when things 'composition of particles' get to a point of indivisible length, they lose locality - they are everywhere at once. 

Dr. Missler was discussing the nature of reality. He reminds scientists/people, that the volume of an atom is mostly nothing. What is more fantastic as he points is that constants are changing, the speed of light is changing. The laws of physics are changing and are not a 'constant'. How is this possible? Well, the universe is expanding in a finite cosmos and in this state of expansion in a finite cosmos the universe which is everything is in a state of decay 'entropy'. Why, because as it expands it decays and become less than what it was. Thus, scientists are beginning to think that we 'exist' in a shadow of what really is, suggesting a digital reality. Its real but not as real as the greater reality around it. In view of a digital simulation, a 'virtual' reality, we are more able to grasp that idea as information expanding 'goes out' it decays, it changes from its original form its original created and projected reality.

"For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and God head; so that they are without excuse. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" ~ Romans 1:20-22.

"As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" ~ Isaiah 55:9.  "For the world is mine, and everything in it" ~ Psalm 50:12. "He stretches out the heavens like a tent ~ Psalm 104:2 and Zechariah 12:1. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word" ~ Hebrews 1:3. "My Kingdom is not of this world" ~ John 18:36. "For though we live in this world, we are not of it" ~ 2COR 10:3.















*Chuck Missler is a Christian and he strictly contends that the science of man should not intermingle with God's word.

Imagining the Multiverse ~ A Mandelbrot Set???

The multiverse is still a popular alternative for explaining the origins of the universe and the strangeness of its many aspects: time, space and direction or movement in them. Changing direction in the vastness of the universe is not just moving forward and backward. It can mean moving higher or lower, inward and outward. Such movement or direction can be illustrated by the Russian doll ... one inside another. Or, simply that when you take a bird's eye view you are changed by that position not just physically but cognitively and emotionally.

For the social quantum analysis to have any application here, one must consider too that the universe is 'socially' experienced and that is through the exchange of information. Is it then that the multiverse can be viewed as copies of information; after all, the Russian doll illustration is exactly that one copy inside another copy. Does that mean there was/is an original? Yes, I assume it does but the troubling thought is whether asking if its necessary to find it since the copies are exactly the same. And, are the copies the same? The Russian doll shows us 'sameness' but there is difference. Yes, as one is smaller than the other and fits inside another and one is always further from one and or another one.

If we were the doll, then we would have a slightly different experience of that same information. This can be better grasped by appealing to fractal design ~ The Mandelbrot Set. 

The term Mandelbrot set is used to refer both to a general class of fractal sets and to a particular instance of such a set. In general, a Mandelbrot set marks the set of points in the complex plane such that the corresponding Julia set is connected and not computable. The Mandelbrot set is the set obtained from the quadratic recurrence equation. 
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MandelbrotSet.html

What does that mean exactly? Well, think of it as the set of all complex numbers z for which the sequence defined by the iteration remains bounded.

z(0) = z,    z(n+1) = z(n)*z(n) + z,    n=0,1,2, ...    (1)

This means that there is a number B such that the absolute value of all iterates z(n) never gets larger than B. A bounded sequence may or not have a limit. For example, if z=0 then z(n) = 0 for all n, so that the limit of the (1) is zero. On the other hand, if z=i ( i being the imaginary unit), then the sequence oscillates between i and i-1, so remains bounded but it does not converge to a limit.

You may ask, what's so special about the particular iteration (1), and why do we use complex numbers instead of real ones. In a sense, the formula (1) is the simplest other than a linear formula which would give rise to a much simpler and quite uninteresting picture. (The analog of the Mandelbrot set would be empty or the entire plane.) If we restricted the iteration (1) to the real instead of complex numbers then again we would get an uninteresting picture: the interval from -2 to 0. Much of the fascination of the Mandelbrot set stems from the fact that an extremely simple formula like (1) gives rise to an object of such great complexity. 

http://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/mandelbrot/mandelbrot.html

You see, the experience of the Mandelbrot is 1 and the same yet different at the same time. Essentially, at any one time, an original and a copy. A multiverse of one!

Is anything then in the multiverse without flaw/corruption? What happens if we imagine that any one aspect of the Russian doll is flawed, though that one flaw maybe hidden one inside another. The flaw may not be seen but it is there just the same. Thus, we can greatly imagine the same about a Mandelbrot set, whatever flaw there is imagined in it will be in every view, every representation.

Applying the structure of repeated pattern, we can realize that if a pattern has a flaw in it, that flaw can and will be repeated if it is not 'atoned for' or deleted/erased. The Creator sent His Son to atone for that flaw so that all are made righteous by faith in Jesus Christ for in Him there is no sin ~ 1 John 3:5.

"Sin so easily entangles" ~ Hebrews 12:1 (NIV). And, thus, "there is no one who does not have sin" ~ 1 Kings 8:46 " "Everyone who sins is a slave to sin" ~ John 8:34. Yet, "Sin is not taken into account when there is no law" ~ Romans 5:13. We might ask then who realized the law which would point out the flaw/sin - corruption? When Adam broke the command given by the Creator, sin entered in ~ Romans 5:12. And yet he was the pattern of the one to come ~ Romans 5:14. And, he was created without sin to atone for it ~ 2 COR 5:21.


*With God all things are possible ~ Matthew 19:26 God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made things we can see and the things we can't see...Everything was created through him and for him. He existed before anything else,and he holds all creation together ~ COL 1: 16-17

The State of Entropy and Carbon Dating

Just recently, we were discussing the condition of the universe which is in a state of entropy beginning since the Big Bang. That means everything in the universe is going to collapse as it expands. How will that  happen?  The expansion of the universe means an ever extending a plane; thinner and thinner. That is exactly the point. The universe will expand to a thin plane, a line and then into a point - a singularity. 

How can any experiments be done to test the age of the universe let alone anything we dig up on this planet? Good question. Everything being in a state of entropy 'expansion' causes everything to be in a state of decay. Whatever we use to determine the age of something is too in a state of decay. The most common used form of measuring the age of something is called carbon dating. What is that? 

Carbon dating itself as a means to measure or date is actually a combination of a variety of radioactive dating which is applicable only to matter which was once living and presumed to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere, taking in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis. Before we delve into the process let's take a look at the first problem we incur. Everything which was once living is in an even faster state of entropy. We have a lot of that going on, matter (information) that becomes 'no longer alive'. However, some argue that we have just as much new matter (information) coming in - being born. All hosts of information and including mothers are subjected to the state of entropy so their own bodies do not contain any 'real' new information. What about cells themselves? Good Question.  All cells too exist in this state and that state is sped up as soon as they start to divide.

So, what to do. Retreat... well, let's look at how carbon dating actually works or is supposed to work. Carbon dating is a variety of radioactive dating. The application is thus... dead as in decaying matter is supposed to continue in its path by coming into a state of equilibrium with the atmosphere where it takes in carbon dioxide from the air for photosynthesis. There cosmic ray protons blast nuclei in the upper atmosphere, producing neutrons which in turn bombard nitrogen, the major constituent of the atmosphere. This neutron bombardment produces the radioactive isotope carbon-14. The radioactive carbon-14 combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and is incorporated into the cycle of living things.

The carbon-14 forms at a rate which appears to be constant, so that by measuring the radioactive emissions from once-living matter and comparing its activity with the equilibrium level of living things, a measurement of the time elapsed can be made. Ahh, sounds plausible but we have to acknowledge that so called 'living things' are in a state of entropy = decay. So, what is thought to be 'living' is an earlier form of 'death'. Yes. 

We can agree such is the case. Does this mean we cannot detect the age of that decay and determine a date? We can. But, this kind of data is only telling us about the state of entropy and not about when things actually appeared for the first time ever.... because even carbon 14 is in a state of decay. 

*But, I am only a sociologist...

Entropy ~ A State of Decay!

Scientists conduct experiments in a state of decay. The universe is expanding and as it does, causes the universe and everything in it to be in a state of decay; again, caused by its own expansion which began at the Big Bang.

Therefore, in a state of decay, how could any truly new particle be discovered? Is it really new and if it is wouldn't the newness wear off so fast we might not even be able to see it in its 'new' form?

What we must also consider is: who is observing them? Scientists, who themselves exist in a state of decay. So, how could they actually see any new particle? What about computers, as they can "see" and analyze information/things much faster.  The problem with that is that computers pass on the data to scientists who in their state of decay try to make sense of that data. Of course, experiments at CERN are being done that speed up particles so that computers witness what might be called new particles and they tell scientists "yes" there are new particles.

Even if scientists in their state of decay are able to recognize this computer data and agree that those particles are new, how could those scientists apply that data in a state of decay?

It has even been suggested that scientific observations, observing dark energy in order to discover new particles using equipment (Large Hadron Collider) and super computers to detect what scientists with their 'naked' eye cannot observe, have in fact shortened the life span of the universe.  Back in 2007, featured in the latest edition of "New Scientist" magazine, the subscriber-only story, questioned ... "Has observing the universe hastened its end?"

Why or how would that be possible? It would be possible if we consider the possibility that observations of the state of decay actually cause the process of decay to speed up. We have to imagine that means whatever that we look at in the blink of an eye (particle collapse due to observation) is gone in the next. If we try to suspend that blink in a single observation, do we actually move forward in time? Maybe, as once we stop that suspended view and set it free, we may actually have moved in time in the realization that we have made a dangerous quantum leap forward simply via observation of the universe. However, perhaps we can play catch up as we utilize past observations to counter that leap forward which then allows a kind of slow motion; which does not lend to anything new, only that we have come round again so that ... there is nothing new under sun! (Ecclesiastes 1: (). Escaping danger or prolonging it may depend on how you look at it.

My social quantum analysis takes that into consideration and goes even further. The social imagination too exists in a state of decay. We exist in it or have been enabled to exist in this state via what can be called reoccurring collective memory. Is that a problem as it is in the observing of dark energy? Perhaps, if we imagine that without collective memory, we would not have a purpose to observe it. What is the purpose? The purpose is to better understand the state of decay and our imagination of it and in it, right? In our social imagination's state of decay, subject to decay as we experience it around us, we have to ask if we are actually living in a state of decay? If we are, brought on by observing what is while trying to process what is not, then wouldn't we be subject to losing what was imagined prior to that moment of observation?

We would have to ask if there is any 'real' sense of reality. If we lose sight of our 'past' collective memory, an essential aspect of the social imagination, we would run the risk of never having had any real experiences of social imagination in our social imagination.

I think that this is the problem for us today, resulting in more and more of historical revisions of the past and past theories encouraged by those who think that we can create a new future without an embedded collective memory as in an absolute 'past - particle'. And, I am only a sociologist!