A Simple Model For Integrating Quantum And Relativistic Physics with application to the evolution of consciousness by Theodore St. John

Hello SNP,

Wow! I am amazed at your list of foundational points. Just glancing at them I can see that we are very much in agreement on many points. I just returned home from a trip that had me preoccupied for 2 weeks and have some catching up to do, but I will definitely read and comment on your essay and your post.

Ted

Gene,

I hadn't read about DNA coordination until you mentioned it, so I looked it up and it appears to me that yes, something more fundamental is occurring. If DNA replication and recombination is controlled, as you mentioned by neurotransmitters and hormones, then it must be a very complicated process. But in order to maintain genome stability and thus avoid mutation and disease it has to be extremely precise and accurate. Also, as you said memory is distributed which further complicates coordination. And more complicated usually means more chance for error, so there would have to be controls to monitor the process, and more controls to monitor the controls, etc. That sounds like a poorly run government, not a natural process.

Instead, what my model may be suggesting is that coordination among cells is a not something that is controlled from the outside of the cells themselves; it happens because every DNA molecule contains within it the exact (to the nth degree) same information so it already "knows" what every other cell in the body "knows". You said, "when the image is working correctly each cell knows where it is and what its function is" but I say, it does not require an image; it already knows because it already has the information. Communication among cells, on the other hand, is what you are referring to when you asked "whether the image in the brain is the response of cells that use this [wave] function." I wouldn't refer to an image, but rather to binary communication. For that, your model sounds good to me. I'll explain why.

You state that the equation (in Feynman #9.51 on pg 9-13) is "The wave function for any system that has an internal freedom that varies back and forth between two frequency (f) values". I am not sure that I would word it that way since I understand, from reading the chapter, that Feynman was describing the probability of an ammonia molecule being in one state or the other when subjected to a time-varying electric field, whose frequency is given by f (and f0 is the resonance frequency of ammonia molecule). So let me see if I understand how you have applied this to describe the eye's response to light. Are you saying that an image, projected onto the retina, contains various frequencies of light, which will stimulate the cells of the retina in such a way that is determined by the quantum state of the molecules within the cells? If so, that sounds reasonable to me.

Changing the state of molecules that have two possible states, such as is the case of ammonia, sounds like a great way to generate binary code. Rather than "focus the image," I would say the function of neurotransmitters is to transmit the binary code. So yes, I would agree that, in a sense, what we describe as "the image in the brain" is actually the response of the cells as opposed to an actual image (i.e. you couldn't see an image if you looked at the cell with a good microscope).

You said, "I think it is also correct to use equations where distance has been 'reduced in rank' to one distance as long as we do the same thing for time." I have no problem with that, except that it seems to imply some operation of "reducing" distance or time. I prefer to think of distance as fundamentally being a single unified dimension, like the radius of a circle. Thinking in terms of three dimensions is a good tool for analysis, and in my opinion, it seems natural because of the transformation process that I referred to in my essay: the same process that separates motion (unified) into our perception of movement through space and time (as if motion, space and time were three different concepts). It is a perpetual three-step process of [I] separation-recognition-return [/I] that is created by and creates apparent opposites. Let me explain this.

There are two ways of referring to opposites: 1) negative and 2) inverse. I can choose a distance in any direction. Specifying a negative of this direction creates a conceptual separation (the first part of the process). [I] Recognizing [/I] that the two opposite directions are both part of a single dimension is the second part of the process. We then identify a reference, which we call the origin x=0 (although it is an illusion since there is no such thing as zero space). Reuniting the positive and negative at the origin is the third part of the process. The entire process is thus [I] separation-recognition-return. [/I]

We repeat the process by separating the first (x) dimension into a second (y, using the inverse (y=1/x)), which is also assigned a positive and negative, then recognizing the same origin and reuniting the two dimensions, creating a plane. The inverse creates the illusion of dependent and independent variables, which is also an illusion because there is no y-axis, independent of the x-axis. We think there is because we can move North or South, for example, without changing our East-West coordinate (which are, of course made up for our information).

These two conceptual dimensions (pairs of opposites) are then used to create (or perceive of) the third dimension that is perpendicular to and thus independent of the other two. This third dimension is important because it provides elevation - a higher perspective that transcends both pairs of opposites. It allows us to look down on the opposites, to see the unity and re-cognize reality as a unified field.

My hypothesis needs a lot of work, but that is how I relate it to the expansion of awareness and DNA replication. Awareness grows as we gain information and we experience mini-revelations when the pieces come together. (Ah ha!) Even if we fail to recognize the unity, the process continues, creating more separations and increasing complexity until there is enough information to cause the reunion. DNA replication happens as a reunion but only after the strands separate and each base recognizes its "opposite" and reunites with it. Information only requires two binary bits, but since there are two types of opposites (negative and inverse) there are four bits available (just as there are four bases in the DNA molecule).

Christophe,

Thank you very much for reading and commenting on my essay. The dictionary defines consciousness as "1) the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings and 2) the awareness or perception of something by a person." I think people tend to use the word "consciousness" and "awareness" interchangeably, but for my purposes, I'd say that the word "consciousness" is the information that has been acquired and stored in our DNA whereas "awareness" is the emergent ability to access, recognize and process the information. Information in the form of raw data is pouring into us with every event, but it is meaningless until enough of it is collected to form a recognizable image and we experience a mini-revelation when the pieces come together. (Ah ha!) Sometimes, even with all of the necessary information, a new perspective is required in order for the metamorphosis to occur.

Imagine looking through a microscope at the interior of an individual cell of a leaf (without knowing it is a leaf). You might see the nucleolus inside the nucleus, clusters of protein, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum and other organelles, but if you didn't know what you were looking at you might not recognize it as a cell. As you gained information and backed out to a higher perspective, even if you didn't know the names or functions of the organelles, you could see them all together and suddenly recognize the cell. Ah ha! If not, you could continue to zoom out until a bunch of cells were seen to form a vein-like structure branching out from the stem and then more cells and more branches until you recognized the leaf. More information, new perspective and Ah ha! Recognition. At this point you would see the leaf as a whole.

Who cares about the microscopic details now? You were aware of them, but at some magical moment when everything fell into place, you recognized and therefore became aware of the leaf. The information seemed to process itself when you reached the higher perspective. Perhaps you weren't sure it was a leaf until you were able to see other leaves and branches of the tree or even the whole tree.

This example is trivial, but the moment of transformation can be quite thrilling, even epiphanous. Helen Keller, who could not hear or see since birth, expressed it as follows: (taken from "Dragons of Eden" by Carl Sagan)

"We walked down the path to the well-house, attracted by the fragrance of the honeysuckle with which it was covered. Someone was drawing water and my teacher placed my hand under the spout. As the cool stream gushed over my hand, she spelled into the water, first slowly, then rapidly. Suddenly I felt a misty consciousness as of something forgotten - a thrill of returning thought; and somehow the mystery of language was revealed to me. I knew then that W-A-T-E-R meant that wonderful cool something that was flowing over my hand. That living word awakened my soul, gave it light, hope, joy, set it free! There were barriers still, it is true, but barriers that in time could be swept away."

I think that we all have different levels of awareness simply because we (and our ancestors) have had different experiences. I include our ancestors because our DNA contains all of the information that had poured into them up to the moment of our birth. That, I think, is where we get innate knowledge and instinct.

This is why I touched on the importance of holding truth in the highest esteem. Truth - the information that comes from events that actually happen in the world around us - forms our consciousness and transforms itself into awareness and even wisdom and health. Even if we can't explain it, we gain insight and intuition if we honor truth above all else. Conversely, if we hide truth, deny truth, or allow ourselves to believe what others tell us without any real basis in truth, we become disconnected from our consciousness and are less able to trust the feelings that come from awareness and transcendence. We are less perceptive, less intuitive and we fear anything that doesn't fit the authorized models or dogma.

Eckard,

Does common sense fit well to my idea of ""past" time displayed as the inverse of future time"? Good question and thank you for asking. My short answer of course is yes, (if by "common sense" you mean "good sense" and not "common opinion") for the purpose of the STM (space-time-motion) model.

What does not make good sense is the idea of negative time. From reading your essay, you seem to know a lot more than me about the history of math, but as I see it, the use of numbers to represent time is the same as the use of numbers to represent objects. Objects are numbered for the purpose of counting them. The number we assign does not represent the object. It actually represents a quantity. Negative numbers don't even represent a quantity. They represent a deficit or removal. In fact, there is no such thing as a negative number because negative is not part of the number, it is a mathematical operation.

Time is not an object and it is not something that passes. It is the scale invented to compare one motion to another standard motion (a clock). So it makes sense to quantify time. But how can you have a deficit of time? You could say that one motion takes less time than another, but that does not mean "past" time. As you said in your essay, "Elapsed time is always positive". The concept of "the past" identifies the elapsed time after which an event happens. That is POSITIVE time following the event reference point. So for general discussion, there is nothing wrong with considering the past to be a quantity of positive time as compared to that event. But the negative operator doesn't apply. I think that your discussion about the problem with mirror symmetries is a good one. A mirror image looks like it has depth, just like the space it reflects, but building a model based on that would be a fundamental mistake.

The inverse is also an operation and I think it is more appropriate for the STM model for the following reasons. Imagine a pulse of light from a star traveling directly toward a quantum particle. Let's say it is 1 light-year away. Using our standard clock we say it will take 1 year to reach a point at which we stop the clock to define the interaction (event reference) with the particle. It makes perfect sense to use positive time and say that it is going to take 1 year (future tense) to travel the distance, but once it did, we now say that it travelled 1 light-year within that year. "Within that year" means per year and "per year" means inverse year, so it makes perfect sense to use the inverse when referring to the past. You might argue that this also applies when speaking of the future, by saying the next pulse is going to travel 1 light-year per year, but now you are referring to velocity - something that can happen in the future. Once it has happened, there in no more velocity, no more change as such. Now there is energy that can be quantified by frequency. As you said, "only the past is absolutely closed in the sense it cannot be changed".

Remember, the purpose of the STM model is to relate the quantum model with the relativistic model. They are just two models that use the same variables but they differ in that one uses motion through space (requiring time as a variable for velocity = dx/dt) and the other does not (it requires frequency for energy = hf). Superimposing the two coordinate systems just allowed me to show how the equations (kinetic energy and a particle's internal energy) from the two models are related.

In terms of consciousness, interaction means that one bit of information has been transferred from outside to inside of the particle. This is just another model. It considers physical matter to be a holographic pattern that takes on physical form by interacting with its surroundings. Since I want to use the same variables, time (T) and frequency (1/T), to describe the transfer of information to a particle then 1 unitless bit of information can be written as the product T x (1/T). I'm still working on that.

I like the ideas you brought out in your essay regarding cosine transformations used in audio technology. I am more familiar with Fourier transforms (which seems appropriate since my axis uses both time domain and frequency domain) and LaPlace transforms (which are used for image sharpening in medical imaging).

I have started considering how the STM may be a convolution of the two coordinate systems but I'm not sure where that will take me. One of my goals is to see if the information can be de-convolved and back-projected in order to determine if information is actually recorded and retrievable.

Ted

Avtar,

Thank you for your reply and comments. But I think you missed an important point in my essay. You said: "S=Ct and not S=C*C*t as his will distort all measured data." But as I tried to explain, upper case S is what I used to represent spherical 3-D space so

[math]S = s^2 = x^2 y^2 z^2[/math].

And upper case T represents time, which is simply a scale of motion, so it must be treated the same as space, i.e. with a component corresponding to motion in each spatial dimension. So

[math]T = t^2 = (tx)^2 (ty)^2 (tz)^2[/math]

where tx means time as measured in the x direction, etc. Thus

[math]s = c*t => s^2 = c^2* t^2[/math]

=> [math]S=Tc^2[/math]

The important point is that In this form, the equation [math]S=Tc^2[/math] means that space and time are equivalent, in exactly the same way that [math]E = mc^2[/math] means that mass and energy are equivalent. They are equivalent because they are two different ways of representing the same phenomenon. They are simply different scales for the same process. My equation suggests that time T, is transformed into units of space (actual physical quantities) just as mass is converted into energy. The term [math]c^2[/math] is simply the factor that relates the units of measurement.

About your book, I had already found it on amazon and read what the front matter and part of first chapter. I just wanted to ask about how I could get a signed copy from you.

Thanks,

Ted

Thank you very much. I hope you gave me a good rating :)