Atomic by Chris Lisle

Chris

While your proposition seems unlikely to be recognised from a mainstream standpoint I have to say I agree entirely and indeed can even go a little further.

You say; "For all practical purposes, all atoms that exist have been around since the beginning of the universe."

If we assume the cyclic universe model, on the same basis as the quite well studied recycling of the matter in galaxies via Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN) accretion and ejection (Quasar jets), then the 'memory' encoded in the 'ion spin' may go back through any number of universes.

Cyclic models are not uncommon, and explain CMB anisotropy, although the Big Bang is still the ruling paradigm. Professor Robert Dicke formulated a sound one, as did others including the 'big bounce' and Penrose. I have one resolving issues with those and more consistent with recent findings here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 The old is also mixed with fresh condensed matter to give the best new growth.

But of course most mainstream may consider such views warrant a visit by the men in white coats. I shall give yours a top 'community' score to help get it back up where it belongs for it's originality and honesty. In short supply in science. Please do also read and score my essay here, which gives very logical solutions to the problems of physics today, but again probably not recognizable to those with other embedded assumptions.

Perhaps most are better off not knowing anyway. What do you think?

Best wishes

Peter

Peter, thanks for taking the time to read my essay. It is short and I'm sure controversial (but the contest was to question the fundamentals). I have always been perplexed as to why atoms form DNA chains. It has always surprised me that there is no scientific answer to the question. In fact, a few years ago I met with a local quantum physics professor to discuss the idea, and he honestly admitted "we don't know." The "theory" behind its formation (chemical reaction) isn't really theory, just scientific speculation. To me, the origination of DNA is an extremely important question that we must find an answer to. Thus, this is my attempt to answer the question - basically, they aren't empty vessels, they do carry information and act accordingly. I can't ascribe what encoded them or where that code comes from, but it is obvious they are acting according to a code and in fact we call it a code. I will read your essay and look forward to it.

Peter, I meant to add that your cyclical view of the universe is more along my lines of thinking. I was a history major in college. In the past, humans had a cyclical view of history and thus the world they lived in (including the universe around them). The Greeks are but one example of a culture with a cyclical view of history. The linear view of the universe came later. Current culture has a linear view of history, and this cultural bias affects our view of religion and as you point out, since (big bang which begins at one point and goes on forever in opposite direction). Thus, I agree with your proposition that cultural bias affects fundamental beliefs about everything we "see" today, including science. Maybe there isn't a point of beginning? Tao thinkers didn't think so. And, if Einstein is correct, that time can be manipulated by speed of travel, then that supports the proposition that things aren't linear, but cyclical, as in a cyclical view any point in the circle can be reached from any other, but in a linear view, one cannot reach that which doesn't exist.

Chris:

Nice focus on the "real" problem. I have proposed a scheme where conjoined mass and energy contain properties of emergentism and panpsychism as a probability, made permanent by repetitive cycling.

Perhaps you would review, and rate high?

Point of essay (vote high!, thanks) is based on

(1) Light "energy" seeks surface area of mass that mediates charge motions while

(2) Gravity is a content of mass phenomena that seeks time to exist by growth.

To Seek Unknown Shores

聽聽 http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

You obviously did not hold to FQXi guidelines, but your message is clear!

Hi Ted, I will be glad to read your essay and thanks for taking the time to read and comment on mine. I hope to read all the essays, as they are all very fascinating to me. I certainly didn't intend to break any rules here.

Chris

I posted a while ago but it seems it was wafted away into cyberspace! I enjoyed your essay and agree there is a lot of sense in your thoughts, but particularly found parallells with my own work, which agrees some 'information' remains in re-ionized matter (we know all matter has been re-ionized within the last 10bn years).

I also here http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016 end up finding that the whole universe is re-ionised in a helical form!! which may be at ALL scales (i.e. the universe itself according to the evidence. It may be a more fun read that my essay, but I also added some theatre to that.

My essay deals with the fundamental implications in terms of unifying SR and QM. I hope you read it and can glean the, quite new view of the, kinetic mechanisms involved (I need some more community points!). Do please comment or ask questions, but just a 'skim' will miss all the value.

Best wishes

Peter

Chris

A moving cycle forms a helix, a dipole a double helix. At rest it's a torus (see also Rick Kingsley Nixey's essay and last Fig. Views? Really bizarre my earlier posts above disappeared and have now returned. There are some spooky actions at a distance going on here!

Best wishes

Peter

Hello Chris,

Your essay was interesting and fun, and it does have an intriguing core notion, but it also contains some problematic points or factual errors. A single atom simply cannot store the full works of humanity, though the real minimum number is probably smaller than most people imagine. And yes; there is a lot of beauty coded in individual atoms and small molecules like water, so that every molecule encodes numberless snowflakes.

As Peter suggests; there can be carry-overs from another cycle - given that one assumes a cyclical universe scenario is reasonable or plausible. The idea certainly has a long history. But if there was a hot era or epoch, in the early cosmological history of the current cycle, that means atoms could only exist after decoupling, just as in the accepted picture. In fact; the term adopted by the mainstream 'recombination' seems to imply that atoms once existed.

You will find somewhat of a 'fit' to your concept or thesis in the theory of process advanced by Arthur Young in "The Reflexive Universe." His notions also suggest that individual atoms - once formed - are reaching to link up with others in more and more complex ways, with DNA being a logical goal of molecular evolution. But as Peter suggests; your idea is a bit far from the mainstream view - and the presentation would need to be cleaned up a bit to satisfy scholars or scientists.

all the best,

Jonathan

Hello again, Chris;

Pulling Young's book off my shelf, and reading from the chart in the middle of the book, for the Molecular kingdom; he suggests seven stages. They are:

Metals - metallic bond; Salts - ionic bond; Non-functional compounds - covalent bond; Functional compounds; Non-functional polymers; Functional polymers (e.g. proteins); DNA & viruses.

Is that something like what you are talking about?

Regards,

Jonathan

Jonathan,

I recognize that my ideas as not mainstream, but that's what this process is all about right? Challenging the fundamentals. The heart of the problem is there is a lack of "fundamentals" regarding the formation of DNA, which is interesting to me, because until we understand how DNA is formed, then I would argue we really don't understand anything else, including our concept of "time." Often, "theories" are bantered about for the formation of DNA, but these aren't really scientific theories, for they cannot be tested, they are just speculation.

So, with the hole left by a lack of fundamentals, it opens the door for speculation like mine. We know enough about atoms to make some basic logical assumptions: they are not empty vessels and they are not binding together in DNA chains to "survive" in the classic view of biologic evolution, for atoms have no practical lifespan. Although an individual atom may not be able to store everything written by man, according to the latest research at IBM, they believe that single atoms could store over a trillion bits of information, or in layman's terms, everything posted on youtube. That's a lot of information.

So, my basic argument is that atoms seek each other out and form DNA chains because they are already coded to do so, not because they are the product of some unknown chemical reaction, the product of many cycles. For based on what we can see and observe, they appear to be operating analagously to a computer program, acting as bits and bites, a program which evolves with its physical environment - that explains why the largest percentage of DNA appears to be inert, unused, like a human appendix. It appears akin to old software code, written over, not needed now. It appears to me that atoms carry the fundamental laws of physics which existed at the moment of the big bang, not a reaction afterwards, that atoms carry that code and react accordingly. If light can carry information, its reasonable to assume that the energy which created the universe and preceded the formation of the atoms, contained the fundamental laws upon which atoms and everything we see operate. The atoms are not empty vessels is the sum of my theory, that they carry the source code to the beginning, that like a human "virus" the fundamental laws of physics is carried in them. The problem is, when you try to split them and look inside, it ends in a big bang.

Chris

The DNA structure emerges directly from a translating toroid, also considered as a twin dipole moving along it's axis. But then it also emerges direct from the astrophysical jets of toroid AGN's as a helix, as the jets have precession around each other as they're both trying to emit on the axis. Google the HST photo's 'Centaurus A' (our nearest recycling galaxy) and the pattern is evident. (Or it's in the paper in the link I gave you above). Have you read that or my essay yet?

The re-ionized matter (when at full power) in the jets propagates fresh stuff from the dark energy field (Unruh effect and photo-ionization) but the basic oscillation of the particles remain as that motion is what they are made of! (twin vortex spin, forming a torus in fact). How's that for 'scale invariance'.

I hope it may give some answers as well as questions. But remember, by definition it's not and can't be mainstream because it all seems to fit too consistently! Thoughts?

Best wishes

Peter

Hi Peter, I did read your essay/paper and liked it. As you point out, there are reoccurring patterns in all things, and of course the question is why? I think I was taking a stab at the why question to show a basic lack of knowledge in why basic elements like atoms do anything? I agree that when trying to answer those questions, it doesn't appear to be random reactions, that things, as you point out, form patterns, which imply to me that "conscious" behind these pattersn is real and not a by-product of matter. I don't mean conscious in a way that implies "god" but to imply that there is something there, inside these most basic elements, that elements in the universe are operating like a binary computer system.

Dear Chris,

I found your essay to be making a very novel suggestion. I am not sure it is saying which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong but it is an enjoyable idea. I still think that given particular geological and meteorological conditions, some stirring to bring the atoms into the ideal binding positions, the necessary inputs -might- be thrown together and bound by chance. From then on the development of complexity is a matter of survival in the environment to perform replication or being disassembled, natural selection. A higher level of control than the atomic level.

I don't think an atom is sufficiently large to have memory but I am amazed by the miniaturization of objects and magnifications that are now possible. If it carries on who knows? We might be writing on individual atoms, rather than using them to write with or building 'snowmen' out of them.I think you may find Sara Walker's essay interesting as she is talking about the informational content of living organisms. (Consideration of my own essay would also be appreciated.)

Kind regards, Georgina Parry

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Chris,

This is an interesting idea. I have not thought about this specific possibility before, but I have thought about the possibility that atoms may be much more complicated and include many more layers of structure than currently acknowledged.

Based on my own study of quantum gravity (see my essay here), I believe that so-called "elementary" particles may actually involve vast numbers of causal relations (Avogadro's number or more!) This would certainly provide enough storage capacity for containing information about DNA.

Thanks for the interesting read. Take care,

Ben Dribus