By 2020, either superstring theory, membrane theory, or some other unified theory describing all the forces of nature will have won a Nobel Prize.

http://www.longbets.org/bet/12

I believe that we (Or someone) will discover the all encompasing force that dictates all. But I don't know if the world will be able to accept it, they might be looked at as early astronomers were looked at. "The sun orbits the earth". Then in about fifty years, everyone will find out that their ignorance and closed minded thoughts were wrong.

The following is posted with Gordon Kane's permission:

Four centuries ago there was no tested scientific explanation for how any part of our world works. Today we have essentially a complete description of how the world works. We know the history of the universe pretty well back to the big bang and perhaps before that, and we understand phenomena out to the edges of the observable universe. We know the forces that lead to the world we see, with all its beauty and complexity, and that operate throughout that universe and down to the smallest sizes that make sense. We know what matter is, the constituent particles that make up all that we see.

There are still important things we don't yet know or understand, but on the whole the goals have changed to understanding and explaining why what we see is the way it is, why the laws of nature are what they are, and unifying and simplifying the explanations conceptually. While we are not sure there is one underlying unified theory of the forces and particles, developments have continued to point more and more strongly in that direction. String theories are a unifying idea that seems to provide a consistent approach to an underlying theory that includes the basic constituents of matter (quarks and leptons) and the basic forces in a consistent quantum theory (let us not distinguish string theories vs. M-theory, etc.). In my view the framework of string theory incorporates too much of what we have learned in a unified approach to not contain significant truth. But it is only a framework. How theories are accepted is subtle, and has made little sense to those not working on the relevant theories. So how could one decide a bet about the validity of string theories?

A Nobel Prize for string theory is not a reasonable criterion. There are probably already too many people involved in reaching the current stage to pick out three, and more breakthroughs are needed before the theory could be established. For example, it is necessary to learn how to go from eleven to four dimensions. Probably it is crucial to discover super symmetry and study it before we can learn how to relate string theory to the real world. Further, usually Nobel prizes are given for the more concrete models that work, rather than the theoretical framework. For example, the Standard Model Nobel Prizes did not go to Yang and Mills for laying out the non-Abelian gauge theory framework but to Glashow, Salam, and Weinberg for the model. There is still no such recognition of the Yang-Mills theory, yet it necessarily preceded the Standard Model. Experimental discoveries of the predicted particles, the W and Z bosons, quickly led to a Prize. Only thirty years after their work did ët Hooft and Veltman get the Prize for learning how to calculate with the theory. Similarly the string theory Prizes will probably be awarded for concrete realizations and/or for experimental discoveries that are predicted by the theory. While no experimental discovery can confirm a theory, a pattern of several can convince experts of what is right, and some are essential for the theory to be correct.

Consequently, I think the following could be a reasonable decidable bet: By 2020 there will be a Nobel Prize for a concrete realization of string theory, and/or for some new discovery or explanation that is a generic prediction of unified or string theories, such as supersymmetry, or proton decay, or new gauge bosons, or new forms of matter, or some not-yet-predicted effect; and including the possibility that some proposed effect may with better understanding be seen to be a generic prediction of such theories (such as time- or space-varying fundamental constants, or explanation of the cosmological constant problems). With this longer understanding, one could abbreviate it to read: By 2020 there will be a Nobel Prize for a string- or unification- or supersymmetry-based theory or explanation or experimental discovery.

-Gordon Kane

Gordy, you summarize eloquently why the quest for a unified theory is important, and why strings have entranced so many physicists. But the modified bet you propose gives you far too much wiggle room. The problem with string theory and all the current candidates for a unified theory is that they postulate unification occurring at the Planck scale, which is so infinitesimal that it will never be empirically accessible. There are at best necessary but no sufficient pieces of evidence for confirmation of Planck-scale theories. Detection of supersymmetric particles falls into that category. That would confirm the supersymmetry component of strings but not the string themselves. Supersymmetry is consistent with theories other than strings. I wouldn't bet $1,000 that we will never confirm supersymmetry or proton decay, because those are empirically testable phenomena. It's the Planck scale theories, which lie beyond any reasonable hope of verification, that are the focus of my doubts.

John says, "It's the Planck scale theories, which lie beyond any reasonable hope of verification, that are the focus of my doubts."

This is just wrong, as I will explain, by mentioning two present experiments that do probe the Planck scale and by doing so test and differentiate between different quantum theories of gravity. These are

1) the observations of timing of photons arriving from gamma ray bursts. Present and near future experiments can test predictions of some quantum theories of gravity that the speed of light has a small energy dependence, proportional to the ratio of the photon energy and the Planck energy. The reason is this effect accumulates when the photons travel cosmological distances from the gamma ray busts.

2) There is a presently observed experimental anomolie, which is that cosmic rays are seen arriving on the earth with an energy up to ten times (so far) above a cutoff, above which it had been predicted on the basis of simple physics that no protons would be seen. This prediction is based only on special relativity and is based on the idea that at that energy protons will lose energy by scattering with microwave background photons, creating pions. This is a major problem as these protons are the most relativistically boosted objects yet observed. One possible explanation is a change in the relationship between the energy and momentum of a proton of order the ratio of the energy and the planck energy.

If this is the right explanation (and so far the competing ones require pretty unnatural and ad hoc choices of parameters) then contrary to what John asserts, a Planck scale phenomena has already been observed!!!

In fact, both effects are predicted by loop quantum gravity.
The reason is that that theory, which is just the combination of quantum theory with general relativity, predicts that there is an atomic, discrete structure to the geometry of space, and this has consequences for particles traveling through space similar to those that follow from the passage of light through matter, due to matter's atomic structure. This in turn implies either a breakdown or a modification of special relativity, of the order of ratios of energy to Planck energy!

String theory, as presently formulated, assumes exact lorentz invariance and so predicts that there will be no such effects. Hence the next generation of gamma ray observers in space, due in the next few years, will distinguish between the predictions of the two leading theories of quantum gravity. And if Planck scale effects are the right explanation for the high energy cosmic ray anomolie, that will confirm a prediction of loop quantum gravity and contradict string theory.

Thus, whatever the politics and sociology of the Nobel Prize may be, John's basic stance is not only wrong in principle, but contradicted by the present experimental situation.

This is perhaps also the time to mention the apparent observation of a positive cosmological constant, which no theory predicts and which is, so far as is known, inconsistent with string theory. Here too, we are faced presently with a very significant challenge, perhaps fatal, to string theory.

Another experiment which contradicts the standard model is the observation of neutrino masses and mixing, confirmed now in good precision by the Sudbury solar neutrino detector. Not so believable yet, but still very worrying, is the recent observation that alpha changes on cosmological time scales, seen in careful analysis of quasar obsorption lines.

To these we can also add the spate of new ideas and experimental predictions coming from new higher dimensional unified theories that push the Planck scale way down, to scales accessible to accelerator experiments.

The lesson of all of these new experiments is that the two decade period in which fundamental physics proceded without experimental input has ended, and from now on, grand unification and quantum gravity will be driven by experimental data, because we have now begun to have real experiments at the appropriate scales. John was one of a number of commentators who over-reacted and declared the end of science, rather than just a temporary period of distance between theory and experiment.

I should perhaps admit that I was offered this bet but declined, given that I, along with my friends and colleagues, have already bet our working lives that John is wrong about the future of physics, whether or not he is right about the politics of the Nobel Prize.

Lee Smolin

ps for details about all this, there is some detail in the US paperback revision of my Three Roads to Quantum Gravity; for the papers search at hep-th at xxx.lanl.gov under Giovanni Amelino-Camelia, who proposed both experiments I mentioned.

The discussion, although interesting, has gone just a bit over my realm of understanding. I was wondering if one of you fine individuals can suggest some reading for the topic in question (I've read most of Michio Kaku's book.. Hyperspace, beyond Einstein) They're great, and provide even a young adult (age sixteen) a good vision of superstring theory, and the like. But I'm just wondering.. what are some other good books/web resources that I might be able to tap?

Thanks,
Eric

As a relatively young man myself (22), I would recommend Brian Greene's book "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory" It's fairly easy to understand and very entertaining if you're into the subject. Greene (no relation) talks about many theories being discussed in the scientific community, including his own string and superstring theories.

I should apologise for being too technical.

I had no interest in going over people's heads, I just wanted to mention enough detail to convince John and the readers that the situation has changed and there are already underway real experiments that measure Planck scale effects, of the kind John claimed will never be done. In spite of his claims that quantum gravity theories are beyond experimental test
these experiments test
and distinguish between the different proposed quantum theories of gravity.

All these experiments are new, and they are not yet, to my knowledge, discussed in the popular science press, nor to my knowledge did Brian Greene mention them in his excellent book on string theory. They are very briefly mentioned in my Three Roads, and I recently tried to aleviate this situation by providing more detail in an afterward to the about to be published US paperback.

Interested people may want to hear and see talks recently given on this topic. For a good talk by Giovanni Amelino Camelia (really the founder of the new experimental direction in quantum gravity) see
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/html/seminars/Winter_2002/Seth_Major/Seth_Major_00.htm


For a talk by Seth Major see
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/html/seminars/Winter_2002/Seth_Major/Seth_Major_00.htm

and for a talk by Cliff Burgess see
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/html/seminars/Winter_2002/Cliff_Burgess/Cliff_Burgess_00.htm

These are in part technical, but it may be fun for a young person to hear and see real science in action!


More elementary talks on the new experimental results relevent to the Planck scale by Joao Maguiejo, Lisa Randall, myself and others were recorded at the recent conference in Princeton in honor of John Wheeler, and will we are told shortly be available on cd rom and book form (see http://www.metanexus.net/ultimate_reality/static.htm).

Finally, there will within a month or two be something about this on the public information section of the Pi web page:
www.perimeterinstitute.ca
I hope this helps,

Lee

A couple of responses to Lee, with whom I have enjoyed crossing swords many times over the years. First of all, just because a few physicists insist that conjectures concerning Planck-scale phenomena can be tested does not make it so. There are also those who claim that we can test the many-worlds theory and other models postulating the existence of parallel universes, but the vast majority of physicists—not just obnoxious journalist/skeptics like me—find these arguments unpersuasive. The same is true of the alleged Planck-scale probes mentioned by Lee.

As for Lee’s loop space theory, people should know that it is not a true unified theory, that is, a theory describing all known forces and particles governing physical reality. It is only a theory of gravity. It leaves out electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. It presents what cosmologists sometimes call a "toy model" of the cosmos. In other words, loop space theory has all the cons of string theory (postulating phenomena that can never be empirically verified) without any of the pros (describing all the known forces). That is why loop space theory has not become a serious contender in the quest for a theory of everything. I’m sure Gordon Kane and Michio Kaku agree with me on this.

Finally, if, after checking out "The Elegant Universe" and Lee’s "Three Roads," readers want a less evangelical take on unified theories, they might take a look at "The End of Physics," Chapter 3 of "The End of Science." For a recent critique by a physicist at Columbia of strings, branes, and other Planck-scale stuff (he does not even bother mentioning loops), see "Is String Theory Even Wrong?" by Peter Woit, American Scientist, March/April 2002, pp. 110-112.

I am not a scientist.
I'm a Graphic/Web Designer who writes code and takes pretty cool pictures.
But one thing I have learned, particularly, from writing code is this:
Every single code, or in this case, theory, can be undone. If it is built upon something, such as atoms, etc.,it can also be dismantled by rearranging them. Everything. Cells mutate, gases become solids or liquids.
Every theory I know of has exceptions, and the scientific world is constantly disproving itself.
So much so, that it seems that whenever science discovers a "new" theory, it is actually just discovering the exception to the old theory. As if nothing is "NEW" anymore, just a reaction to the old. I of course, am uneducated in this arena, but this is a layman's observation. It is my personal thought that the one "blanket theory", may simply be that of infinite change and possibility. If we find that we discover how all things work, then there will appear a gazillion different scenarios and exceptions to this. The world will suddenly be round, the Earth will orbit the Sun,etc. I understand that this argument is more philosophical than scientific, but perhaps one day we will discover that the two are one in the same, and that the entire universe really is only dependant upon unlimited possibilities and equations, in which case, we could never completely, with any conviction, prove anything at all. In which case, my own theory has just disproven itself by its own virtue.

I don't know about the Nobel Prize part of this, but the unity problem has already been solved. Here are the basics:
E=gmc^2 is the correct unity equation. All real physical systems are made of energy, some of which is stored in the mass and some of which is stored in the gravitational system. All space is created by the connections of gravity (gravions) which arise from the mass and propagate at the speed of gravity (C^2). Gravions are described by string and superstring equations, except that modern math has made them appear from nothing instantaneously, rather than having them come from mass at a finite speed, as does nature. Every bond between every mass is a gravitational bond. See http://www.micromike.com/deardasgupta.html for a proof that all real events are first and foremost gravitational events. See http://www.micromike.com/gravioncentral/ for a short discusion on gravions. See www.micromike.com for more information in general. I will be glad to answer any and all questions concerning the gravionic model of physical systems (GMOPS)and how it resolves all known conflicts within pregravionic science.
Your friend,
micromike

I'd happily join John in his bet if it could be
restricted to superstring theory and membrane theory,
striking the clause about "or some other unified
theory" (by the way, are side bets allowed? any
string theorists interested in some serious action?).
Hopes for a unified theory before 2020 appear to me
to rest on the following two possibilities:

1. The LHC will save our bacon when it comes on line
in 2007.

This accelerator should be able to produce energetic
enough collisions to start to investigate what is
causing the spontaneous symmetry breaking in the
electroweak theory. Maybe there is an elementary
scalar field doing this ("Higgs phenomenon"), but
perhaps something a lot more interesting will be
found.

It's important to remember that pretty much all we
know about the dynamics of gravity is that its low energy effective action is the Einstein-Hilbert action. The size of this is governed by Newton's constant G which is
dimensional and equal to 1 if one uses the Planck
length as one's distance scale. People normally
assume that G comes from Planck scale physics, which
if understood would allow calculation of G as some
number of order one. Another logical possibility is
that G comes from lower (electroweak?) scale physics
but is an exponentially suppressed non-perturbative
effect. An analogy would be the phenomenon of proton
decay. In grand unified theories the rate for this is
small since the GUT distance scale is small, but the
standard model also predicts that this happens at an
(unobservably) low rate due to non-perturbative
instanton effects at the electroweak scale. Another
example of this is the one mentioned by Smolin:
"brane worlds" where the distance scale is also much
lower than the Planck scale.

If the LHC doesn't find anything interesting, we're
in trouble. Even if we can get the money for higher
energy accelerators, the time scale for this is
likely to be getting close to 2020.

2. Leaders of the particle theory community may some
day get some backbone, admit that string theory has failed
and move on to something more promising.

The undeniable fact about the present state of
particle theory is that a large group of the smartest
people on the planet have tried hard for nearly
twenty years now to make many versions of the string
theory idea work, with absolutely no success. Kaku is
disingenuous when he says that the problem is that
"No one on the planet is smart enough to solve the
theory". The problem is that there is no consistent
theory to solve.

Perturbative string theory is rather well understood
by now and while higher loop corrections are very
difficult to compute, the reason smart physicists
don't work on this is that they already know what the
answer will look like. There are an infinite number
of choices of how you compactify from 10 to 4
dimensions and depending on which one you pick you
can get just about any set of particles and forces
that you want. Only problem is that the theory will
be manifestly supersymmetric: your particles will
come in equal mass fermion-boson pairs, something you
definitely don't see in nature.

Non-perturbative string theory or "M-theory" has no
known consistent formulation in an arbitrary
background and no known mechanism for choosing the
background. The reason it can't be solved is that no
one knows what the theory they are supposed to be
finding a solution for actually is. In some special
backgrounds where a definition can be given, you can
calculate things but again find manifest
supersymmetry.

There are several reasons that particle theory has
come to be so heavily dominated by such a seriously
flawed idea as string theory. The fundamental issue
is certainly that the problem of going beyond the
standard model without any significant experimental
clues is an extremely difficult one. While it has
become clear that string theory is an idea that
doesn't work, better ones are very hard to come up
with.

Smolin writes about physicists having already "bet
our working lives" on their approaches to
unification, but nothing that he or his colleagues
have done so far has had any real success and yet he
has enjoyed a rather successful academic career. I
certainly don't mean to criticize him personally.
He's an admirable example of someone who has worked
on less popular ideas and followed his own path. The
point is that no one in the particle physics
community pursuing ideas about unification has had
any success, but some forms of this pursuit are
rewarded and others aren't. A genuine bet of one's
working life on a new idea is likely to end in
professional suicide these days. I have a mailbox
full of e-mail from young graduate students and
post-docs who tell me that they don't believe in
string theory, but don't see a way to make a career
for themselves except by working on it. This is a
depressing and disgraceful situation and I honestly
don't know what to tell these people.

I am happy to hear that there are some experiments that can distinguish between various gravity theories. Also, the poor man's accelerators, or the telescopes, could give some clues.

On the other hand, it is my feeling that string theory is not the answer. There could be some fundamental advances in theory that will be much different and give the required answers. There is the issue of quantum colapse which few pay attention to (Penrose and the old Wheeler are notable exceptions), with most string theorists believing in the many worlds interpretation (which isn't an interpretation strictly speaking). They are all stuck into old formalisms, renormalization and perturbative methods, and it seems that they can't see the wood from the trees. Once you do put a bet on your career and get stuck into past theories and their ugly tehnical details, you are neither motivated nor able too look much beyond it. A few suggestions that have been made, like the 'double relativity' with the absolute cutoff at the level of Planck length, all seem to be artificial and aimed at solving the tehnical problems. Add to this the total lack of evidence for a large number of particles, Higgs ones included, all you can do in this field is pray for something nice to come after 2007 - or you are in deep trouble. Pretty depressing, I would say. And no string theory has offered any explanation for the known masses of particles, or am I perhaps mistaken?

It seems to me that some fresh ideas are what you need to revive your field. True, there isn't a developed mathematics of string theory, but it seems that the mathematics community is increasingly becoming interested in QFT (one of the Millenium prizes is for the mass gap problem). You will be probably surprised to find out how will string theory or QFT look like in 20 years, after they absorb it and hopefully give it a more rigorous and much broader approach.

Above all else, I am just hoping that threre really is a unified theory. The evidence is encouraging and the interest/stubborness of people will keep this debate up for quite some time if we let it, and if it does there will be groundbreaking work until the day I die. I would like to point jajam's post, in which he stated that, "the scientific world is constantly disproving itself" and if this is true what's stopping that from happening with unification? Nothing! Given the chance anyone would gladly turn everything upside down with groundbreaking research and isn't that what this bet is about? I don't have much to stand on my own right now, so I am leaning on other people's research and interests, and thus I can only hope that we one day find a unified theory.

String theory is an answer to a problem that does not exist: quantum gravity.

In short, there is no need for gravity to be quantized, hence any theory which attempts to quantize gravity is going to turn out to be wrong.

Physicists jump on the "quantum gravity" band-wagon because electromagnetism, the weak and strong forces are all quantized. Gravity is not a phenonmenon of force, however, it is a phenomenon of acceleration (gravity curves space, is how Einstein put it).

Trying to quantize gravity is like trying to force a square peg into the round hole. It is not going to work.

It may be possible to unify gravity and the three forces, but not using the current approach of refusing to recognize the difference between gravity (acceleration) and force. Notice that defenders of string theory claim that experiments will be able to distinguish between competing theories of quantum gravity. Who is proposing an experiment to show once-and-for-all that gravity is NOT quantized? Sadly, this is not even considered a possibility, and so it is not very good science.

Bottom line: since gravity is almost certainly not quantized, string theory is almost certainly wrong.

You're not really making an argument. I see no clear reason why gravity couldn't be quantized. Because it's acceleration? First, that's just an idea. Second, even accepting that, there's no reason to say that acceleration isn't quantized.

I was trying to be brief. Obviously, an unheard of idea requires more explanation.

Start with general concept that stationary objects remain stationary unless acted upon, and moving objects remain moving unless acted upon. What is of interest, of course, is change in motion, that is, acceleration. Gravity does that. Gravity accelerates physical entities. In Newtonian terms, this can be expressed in the following relation:

A(g) = G*m/d^2 (1)

Here, A(g) is the acceleration due to a physical entity of mass m, located at a distance of d. G is the gravitational constant. For example, if you know the mass of the sun, and the distance Mercury is from the sun (and the value of the constant, G), equation (1) gives the acceleration that the planet Mercury experiences as a result of the sun. (Usually this equation is written in terms of force. Multiply both sides of this equation by the 2nd mass, the mass of Mercury in the example, and the lhs becomes mass times acceleration, that is, force, and the rhs becomes the more familiar, G*m1*m2/d^2.)

Note in equation (1) that there are two variables, d and m, and one constant, G. If we want to include relativity, then we must include the velocity of the entity under consideration. While the relativistic equation is very complex, it can be expressed in terms of “is a function of,” that is:

A(g_rel) = f(G, m, d, v, c) (2)

That is, the relativistic acceleration due to gravity is a function of 3 variables (mass, distance, velocity) and two constants (G, the gravitational constant and c, the speed of light). By going relativistic, we have added one variable (velocity), and one constant (the speed of light). You may recall from algebra that as you add more variables to an equation, you must add an equal number of constants. This is a key concept.

There is a huge difference between electromagnetism and gravity in terms of complexity, that is, variables. The behavior (acceleration) of a physical entity in a gravitational field (ignoring relativity) depends only on the entity’s position in space. It does not depend on any property of the entity itself. Whether an entity is charged or neutral, magnetic or non-magnetic, light or heavy, baryon or lepton, red or blue, republican or democrat, made of cheese or diamonds…it does not matter. Every physical entity, at a particular location in space, will be accelerated at a particular rate, without regard to any property of the entity itself.

The influence, of electromagnetism (EM), on the other hand, includes 4 “self-dependent” variables. Specifically, the behavior of an entity in an electromagnetic field depends on 4 properties of the entity under consideration: mass, charge, velocity and magnetic moment. Two particles with identical charge, velocity and magnetic moments, but differing mass, will behave differently in an EM field. Likewise, if they have identical mass, charge and magnetic moments, but differing velocity, they will behave differently. And so on and so forth. Electromagnetism introduces 4 variables that (non-relativistic) gravity lacks.

These additional variables in the equations describing electromagnetism require additional constants. Two of these constants, the magnitude of electric charge and the magnitude of “action,” we refer to as “quanta” instead of constants.

charge = constant size (q, the quantum of electric charge)

action = constant size (h, the quantum of action)

These quantities, q, the quantum of electric charge, and h, the quantum of action (Planck’s constant), are as fundamental as the speed of light or the electric permeability of free space. If charge and action were allowed to vary, then the equations of EM would have no solution, just as a set of two equations with four variables has no solution. In other words, the introduction of additional variables in EM demands the introduction of additional constants...and two of these constants we call quanta.

(“Action,” by the way, has units of angular momentum. All photons carry 1 unit of angular momentum; all charged particles carry 1 unit of electric charge.)

In short, electromagnetism is a phenomenon with more variables than gravity, therefore, it comes with more constants. Two of these “constants” we refer to as quanta instead of constants: the quantum of electric charge, and the quantum of action (the photon).

Since it is obvious, upon reflection, that electromagnetism should have more constants that gravity, there is no clear justification for extra constants (quantization) in the case of gravity. Usually, the justification is along the lines of, “Gosh! Electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces are all quantized, so gravity must be quantized, too!”

This is not a reason for quantum gravity. It is simply an expression of the lack of understanding why electromagnetism, the weak and strong nuclear forces MUST BE quantized. Again, electromagnetisms, the weak and strong nuclear forces all have more variables than gravity, and so they all must come with more constants than gravity.

In a trivial sense, gravity is quantized. Consider a ball of gas that is in the process of gravitational collapse to form a star. A gas molecule emits a photon. That photon carries away angular momentum and energy, allowing the molecule to fall a little closer to the center of the gas. The molecule has made a quantum jump from a high gravitational energy level to a lower one. The entire collapse of the cloud of gas can be traced in this manner: gravitational energy of the gas cloud is lost one electromagnetic quantum at a time.

This is not “quantum gravity” in the usual sense, however. When physicists speak of quantum gravity, they generally are referring to gravitational radiation. For example, the earth radiates away gravitational energy as it orbits the sun. Is this gravitational radiation quantized? That is the question. Again, there is no real reason to suppose it is. General Relativity predicts such gravitational radiation. GR does not, however, predict that this radiation should come in discrete units (i.e. quanta).

And so far, no one has given a good reason why gravitational radiation should be quantized. And every attempt to do so generates a lot more “problems” than it solves: extra dimensions that we never see (as many as 26 in some models); quantization of space and time; strings; loops; you name it. Every quantum theory of gravity introduces some new phenomenon that has never been observed in nature. Peter Woit expresses similar pessimism in his post.

Perhaps the reason theorists are having so much trouble with quantum gravity is because gravity is not quantized.

This is a real possibility.

Whether an entity is charged or neutral, magnetic or non-magnetic, light or heavy, baryon or lepton, red or blue, republican or democrat, made of cheese or diamonds…it does not matter. Every physical entity, at a particular location in space, will be accelerated at a particular rate, without regard to any property of the entity itself.

My understanding was that current theory allowed that heavier objects might actually experience proportionally very slightly lesser gravitational acceleration, at least under some conditions. Whether this is a feature of gravitation or the result of an unknown additional force is up in the air, last I heard.

Moreover, although I'm certainly not an expert, I was also under the impression that a lot of experts are currently playing with the notion that spatial dimensions are, themselves, quantized -- that is, discontinuous, on a very small scale (Planck length). If so, it seems inescapable, at least to me, that gravity is also quantized in some fashion or another.

The wrong question is being asked here.
The Nobel prize is about politics and class, not science.
It is sad that many fine minds are awed by these intellectual Oscars(c).

Einstein's Nobel prize was hardly noticed early in the last century. In two hundred years no one will have heard of Alfred Nobel. That's a bet and not a very long one at that.

G L Stuart

It is sad that many fine minds are awed by these intellectual Oscars(c).

Well . . . it is generally seen as prestigious, especially by folks in the fields that are considered for the award. And there's a lot of money involved.

It may not be the best thing for scientists (et al) to focus on, but I can't entirely blame them for it. And it's hardly the worst class of awards out there.

Mark said:
"Moreover, although I'm certainly not an expert, I was also under the impression that a lot of experts are currently playing with the notion that spatial dimensions are, themselves, quantized -- that is, discontinuous, on a very small scale (Planck length). If so, it seems inescapable, at least to me, that gravity is also quantized in some fashion or another."

Not an expert, either, but what little physics I had drummed into my head in college inclines me to agree with you, Mark.

Just the behavior of electrons moving from one shell to another (which requires a fixed, quantized amount of energy for each transition between shell to shell - what's known as the "work function" for a transition between one level of excitation and another in a given atom) suggests to me that both space and charge are quantum measurements.

Also, the recent work by Dr. Ning Li (formerly of NASA - their Huntsville, AL facility) on the gravity modulating effects of charge passed through a superconducting crystal lattice in which the space between the atoms is smaller than their de Broglie wavelengths may be another proof of the quantum nature of space and gravity. Certainly if it can be proven that in addition to the electromagnetic spectrum, there is also a gravitomagnetic and/or an electrogravitic spectrum of energy and interactions with matter, intuitively it makes sense for the energy units in both to be measurable as quanta.

I recently read John Horgan's article in the Oct. 2006 issue of Discover magazine ("The Final Frontier"). Even though the end of science feels impossible to me, I have to agree that "... there are nagging hints that most of what lies ahead involves filling in the blanks of today's big scientific concepts, not uncovering totally new ones."

Because the rebel in me can't stand these nagging hints that "... science will never again yield revelations as monumental as evolution or quantum mechanics", I've devoted the last 2 decades or so to uncovering new scientific concepts which include solving the problem of war. Whether these thoughts are successful or not, they're interesting because they're based on what today's science tells us, and they seem to form a consistent picture (unfortunately for present-day science, I found that development of new concepts sometimes necessitates modification of today's concepts). I've copied and pasted these thoughts from the website of a little book I wrote, but there's little point in buying the book. The 1st edition (available now) does not contain these summaries. They're in the 2nd edition (released in December 2006), but they're freely available in this email as well as on the book's website. Also, there's more emphasis on science in part 2 - "Author Display".

----------------------------------

This book is made up of short articles, poems and stories that speculate on the future and seek to combine science with medicine and ideas which have always been regarded as belonging to religion or science fiction. It developed from a website set up for me about 7 years ago by my brother Darryl (an expert in all things electrical or electronic). Not only can it be bought from the publisher Xlibris, but also from dozens of other online bookstores like Amazon or Barnes and Noble. I suppose "Rod´s Room - A New Earth And A New Universe" (how did I ever think of such a long title?) could be viewed as part of the world-wide literature on Intelligent Design, but it is definitely not trying to roll back the advances of science. If anything, I´ve tried to use the long-sought unification of all space and time to think about science in the extremely distant future (in a unified universe, this must be possible). Necessarily, this disregards to some extent both scientific and fundamentalist ideologies of the present, but at the same time I´ve based my thoughts on what science tells us today.

----------------------------------

PART OF MY FAVOURITE PRESS RELEASE ABOUT MY BOOK

New Book is Fresh Exploration and Explanation of the Mind-Boggling Universe; Author Speculates on Humans´ Future, Existence and Purpose.

/24-7PressRelease/ - STANTHORPE, QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA, June 30, 2006 - Though its primary concern is science, the following book is relevant to world peace because it concludes that everyone´s life is scientifically unified with all other life beyond the range of our senses and experiences (but within the range of our understanding). It will take time, but when people accept this, world and domestic peace will be inevitable since no-one will be able to attack anyone in any manner without realizing that they´re actually attacking themselves. Rod´s Room is a fine collection of short articles, poems and stories that speculate on the future and seek to combine science with medicine and ideas which have always been regarded as belonging to religion or science fiction. They seem to help explain points in each other and at the same time they easily connect with current events and civilization itself. Interestingly, this book features a thoroughly explained look at time travel as the author demonstrates its scientific validity and uses it to unite the Big Bang and Steady State theories, quantum mechanics, and General Relativity.

Determining mankind´s future and the essence of the universe has always been one of the most daunting tasks known to man. With the release of his compelling new book "Rod´s Room - A New Earth And A New Universe" (www.xlibris.com/RodsRoom.html), author Rodney Bartlett shares to readers his detailed research on science, time, and life itself. The quest for purpose begins here.

The four short articles at the start ("Gates to STARGATE", "How to Create Universes", "Building Doctor Who´s TARDIS", and "Darwin´s Evolution Unifies Universe") give the reader a condensed view of the conclusions the author´s reading and thinking led him to. With its in-depth look at religion, humanity, and society, Rod´s Room will undoubtedly attract a wide audience of readers, including researchers, philosophers, and scientists. Eventually it will make every reader realize that every person´s life is scientifically and physically unified beyond range of our bodily senses and experiences.

To purchase copies of the book for resale, please fax Xlibris at (610) 915-0294 or call (888) 795-4274 x.876. Xlibris books can be purchased in any major bookstore, or online at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Borders or Xlibris. For more information, contact Xlibris at (888) 795-4274 or on the web at www.Xlibris.com

----------------------------------

Please see my Author Display where I´ve summarized some important parts of my book (if I keep this up, you´ll never need to actually buy my book - it´ll all be on this website :-)

The four short articles at the start (Gates to STARGATE, How to Create Universes, Building Doctor Who´s TARDIS and Darwin´s Evolution Unifies Universe) give the reader a condensed view of the conclusions my reading and thinking led me to. They seem to help explain points in each other. After these four are written the steps taken to arrive at my conclusions. One deduction is - Everything always exists in the Universal Programmed Hologram, so every one and thing is even more intimately and eternally linked than we can imagine. (For this reason, I ask myself if I really wrote the book, or if I was merely looking for words to express ideas buried deep in the unconscious mind of everyone.) No-one and nothing is different and separate from anyone else or anything else. So when terrorists attack Western civilization, they´re really attacking themselves. And when Western civilization attacks terrorists, it´s really attacking itself. And Arabs and Israelis never take revenge on each other for wrongful acts - they´re also attacking themselves. For this reason, great religious books are correct to teach "Thou shalt not kill." whatever alphabet and exact words are used (note the period [full stop] after the word "kill").

Nevertheless, we must always remember the bravery and sacrifices of those who struggled in this world before the present year. Different actions are appropriate at different times in our personal history e.g. going to school when a child, having children when an adult. In the same way, different things are appropriate at different times in world history. The past was a time for wars, the future is a time to refrain from war.

Sure, we appear different and separate, but our minds can overcome that illusion presented by our senses and experiences. Each of us lives in two worlds ... that of our everyday senses and that of the mysterious universal hologram. So our minds have a lot to do - we need to explore the wonders and miracles of the new holographic world, and also reconcile that with this old world, so it too will come to be full of wonders and miracles. And it´s a good thing that we live in 2 worlds. If we were restricted to the holographic world, we would pervade all existence. Nothing from what we think of as "out there" could stimulate our brain cells and make us conscious.* But like characters in a cosmic SIMS or SECOND LIFE game, we have individuality in our second world and brains that can become conscious of the first (holographic) world.

* If there´s a cosmic artificial intelligence, as I´ve suggested elsewhere, there would be calculations occurring eg the subroutines involved in the orbits of planets around stars. I´m sure these calculations would equal the firing and interconnecting of brains´ nerve cells - since this a cosmic AI, it must infinitely exceed the consciousness and intelligence of any individual brain! But we´re being anthropocentric at the moment, and discussing the biological brains of individual organisms. Therefore, exploring all the space and time (and hyperspace) in existence appears to require either 1) transportation of the physical brain - along with its body - in a vehicle resembling a TARDIS, 2) teleportation through space and time of the brain - and body - as nonphysical duplicates or backups of their physical counterparts, or 3) in a mental context, using the Unified Field to comprehend at least a few of the scientific discoveries of the distant future (thus letting our brains teleport our minds through space and time). (See "Building Doctor Who´s TARDIS", "Many Lives or One?" and "Super Evolving Creation" in my book.) These methods may seem like science fiction, but exploring the entirety of space-time appears impossible enough without being restricted to the total impossibility of using the physicality and technology we possess now, or will possess in the foreseeable future (eg our brains and bodies are vulnerable to radiation/muscle and bone loss/abnormal psychology/etc when travelling in space, and simply reaching nearby stars would take years).

Who wouldn’t love to believe the things we see in the “Star Trek” movies and TV programs are real? We could have warp speed, time travel, matter transporters, alien intelligences, a world without the worries of money, the creation of new planets, and so on. We’d have to move further ahead than the Star Trek years to find worldwide and universal peace, but I think all Trekkies would agree that Mr. Spock and his friends are slowly groping towards peace.

Well, people tell me it’s the 21st century. That’s what my calendar says - but everywhere I look, people are behaving as if it’s still the 20th century. Maybe they’ll catch up to the calendar in 20 or 30 years. In the meantime, we’ll pretend a new age has dawned - and we’ll explore how the science of the early 1900s (represented by the theories of Albert Einstein) can be united with the entertainment of the late 1900s (represented by the phenomenon of Star Trek).

Amazingly; I read in a magazine about 10 years ago that Gene Roddenberry (Star Trek’s creator) received information from an extraterrestrial civilization about the fantastic possibilities in the show. He then took these and created his inspiring, futuristic program. At the time, I thought this was nothing more than an interesting magazine article. It sounded like science fiction then, and it still sounds like sci-fi. But at the same time, I’m willing to believe he really did experience some kind of vision - something that suggests Star Trek deserves serious thought, and is more than the product of a wonderfully creative imagination.

Do you remember the episode of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” where a woman from a comparatively primitive planet was transported aboard the spaceship Enterprise, and was overwhelmed by the sight of her world shining among the stars? Captain Picard explained that he and his crew don’t regard the woman and her kind as children. They are respected for who they are - people whose civilization just happens to be very young compared to that of Picard and his crew. In time, the woman’s civilization will learn, and be able to do all the things that presently cause her to think of Picard as a god.

The concept of God intrigues me because I believe it´s related to the nature of the universe. I believe everything in space and time is connected by infinitesimal pulses of energy that are many millions of times smaller than anything that even the most powerful microscopes can reveal (this is similar to the way everything on a computer screen is connected by pulses of electricity, and spacetime’s energy pulses are the basic units constituting the motions or currents within what physicists call “heterotic superstring theory”). Maybe the "sea of energy" in the universe causes those qualities which churchgoers say are God´s. These are qualities like being everywhere in space-time, having unlimited power and knowing everything (the universe would be filled with something similar to advanced computers´ Artificial Intelligence). This is one explanation of God (it´s my favourite, because it agrees with the Islamic (Moslem) Koran, and the Bible, that there is only one God). A second one is that I´m certain humans will eventually be capable of creating universes, using presently-incomprehensible mental abilities, and genetically engineering themselves/travelling anywhere in space or time to establish colonies on other planets in the present, past and future. Possibly, many people cannot accept that humans will oneday do these things, so they use the word God to describe the manufacturers of universes (who would also program universes so certain things would happen at particular places at particular times).

But possibly, it doesn’t matter which explanation you favour, for as I say in “How to Create Universes”: `Both time travel by us and creation by so-called "supernatural" others could account for the origin of the universe we live in. Speaking of "us" and "others" is simply a matter of convenience coz in reality, everyone springs from the one source - the software behind the universal and megauniversal hologram.`

Mutations/randomness in the code behind the megauniversal Programmed Hologram permit a degree of free will. Since we can control our movements, this means we have influence over mutations and programming. It is not the muscles in our arms/legs which influence the Hologram Program, but the signals in our brains. So why can´t we ordinarily and effortlessly move external objects with our thoughts, disregarding distances in space or time? This could be answered by my belief that we all live in 2 worlds. The universe would actually be a unified field at the deepest level of reality ie from the perspective of the holographic world. But superficially (from the viewpoint of the world of space-time we know through our everyday thoughts and senses and experiences), it is a virtual unity coz the universe is like a subatomic particle and ´electronic´ connections travelling at or near light-speed over such tiny distances arrive in practically no time (speaking of their speed or motion is also a matter of convenience). In other words, we would indeed live in a unified field if the megauniverse was simply a hologram. But in practical terms, we live in a virtual unified field coz the megauniverse is a programmed hologram (this explains why quantum theory is essential to our understanding of the relativistic universe). "Rod´s Room: A New Earth and a New Universe" seeks to merely modify both Darwin´s theory of evolution and the concept of Intelligent Design, and show that these modifications enable the concepts to coexist. It is true that I don´t believe humans and apes share a common ancestor or that we came from one-celled organisms in a ´primordial soup´ existing billions of years ago. Instead; I believe all life (you, me, everyone) and everything shares the "common ancestor" of the intelligently-designed megauniversal hologram and mutations/randomness are essential for our development.

----------------------------------

Author Display

According to the article "Let There Be Light" (Time magazine - Sep. 4, 2006 - by Michael D. Lemonick), "... the Dark Ages of the universe (is) the 200 million year period (more or less) after the last flash of light from the Big Bang faded and the first blush of sun-like stars began to appear. What happened during the Dark Ages set the stage for the cosmos we see today, with its billions of magnificent galaxies and everything that they contain ..." Here, I´ll write down my thoughts arising from this article - they refer mainly to the universe´s dark ages, dark matter and dark energy.

There is an alternative explanation of the universe´s dark ages. This begins with the mini black holes proposed by physicist Stephen Hawking in 1974 - and the 3 "subuniverses" which could exist in our cosmos according to mathematical equations developed by Albert Einstein in 1917.

According to the 1973 book ALBERT EINSTEIN: CREATOR AND REBEL by physicist Banesh Hoffman and Einstein´s secretary Helen Dukas, mathematical equations developed by Einstein in 1917 say a maximum of 3 “subuniverses” could exist in our cosmos: here, I´ll refer to them as SPACE (embracing the 3 dimensions of length, width and height), TIME (the 4th dimension) and HYPERSPACE (the 5th dimension). Transmission holograms are made on a photographic plate or film by interference between the 2 parts of a split laser beam - by analogy, one part of a split laser beam could, in the far future, compress a tiny quantity of matter in the 5th spatial dimension to the required temperature and pressure of a big bang (this portion would be the reference beam and would produce one of Hawking´s mini black holes).

To seemingly change the subject for a moment: Quantum mechanics, Einstein´s Relativity, theories of universal holograms and cosmic computers, plus the idea in eastern religions that reality is illusion together convince me there are actually no solid or separate objects or events in space or time. In particular, I´m convinced by Relativity´s E=mc2 (E=mc squared) and quantum theory´s Wave-Particle Duality, as well as what quantum mechanics says about subatomic particles communicating instantaneously across the universe or experiencing the whole universe in their existence.

The last two phenomena could be understood by stating that any particle has the same properties as the universe as a whole (if this seems to contradict established knowledge, it´s explained in more detail by the next paragraph). It´s easy to imagine all parts of the universe being in contact (and thus forming a unification) when that universe was the size of a subatomic particle, nearly 14 billion years ago. Since the universe still has the same properties as a particle, it is still a unification.

Another way of viewing this fact is to think of particles (and the universe, or the megauniverse of universes within universes) as closed loops of electromagnetic energy. These could be called strings or superstrings - I prefer to call them Mobius loops, however (a Mobius loop can be vizualised as a strip of paper which is a given a half-twist of 180 degrees before its ends are joined). The 3 familiar dimensions of length, width and height would have a 4th dimension (time) perpendicular to them (on the side of the twisted paper ... or electromagnetic loop). And there would also exist a 5th dimension, at right angles to the 4th and 180 degrees from the length or width or height, on the bottom (not the top or side) of the paper strip ... or EM loop. The previous parts of this paragraph can be likened to astronomy´s picture of the 3+1 dimensions of space-time existing on the surface of a balloon which is expanding from an inner hyperspatial point (not in space-time) where the Big Bang occurred. So I didn´t really change the subject much a minute ago, but am still discussing mini black holes. Electromagnetic pulses would continuously circulate from each of the 3 familiar dimensions through the 4th and 5th, and back to the 3; producing a unification. This circulation means any particle interferes with itself. The circulating pulses unite the 3 dimensions of space with the 4th dimension of time ie today´s vastly expanded universe is united with the highly compressed, subatomic-sized universe of the past; as well as with the 5th dimension of our universe´s space-time generating Big Bang.

A 3rd way to understand the unity of the universe (How do I unite thee? Let me count the ways...) is by reading Bob Berman´s "Sky Lights" in the July 2006 edition of "Discover" science magazine -

"... physicists predict that the singularity at the heart of a black hole has (zero volume)." "... since locations in (space) are relative", the position of the singularity is not absolute in reality. This contradicts experiment and observation, which maintain that position of objects is certain. Therefore, observation and experiment would be less dependable guides to how the universe works than the power of the mind using those methods (by building on the discoveries of observations and experiments, the mind´s power reveals the long-sought unified universe). Relative location in space also means the atoms making up the heart of a person do not occupy definite positions but can coexist with the singularity and have zero volume.

"... since locations in (time) are relative", a person´s heart does not possess zero volume at just time A or time B, but always. We can adapt the quantum mechanical thought experiment known as Schrodinger´s Cat in which the cat exists and does not exist at the same time. In general, quantum mechanics does not predict a single, definite result for an observation. Instead, it assigns a probability to each outcome as in, for example, the quantum mechanical thought experiment known as Schrodinger´s Cat in which the cat exists and does not exist at the same time (a hammer which might or might not be triggered by a source of radioactivity to break a bottle of poisonous gas both kills and doesn´t kill the cat - and all these things are placed in an airtight box). This adaptation says Schrodinger´s Heart beats and does not beat at the same time. Since black holes and people share this zero-volume property (as would everything in space-time), we can think of the universe as a unification, or as an integration of relativistic space-time and quantum physics.

Now to return to lasers. I previously spoke of the reference beam - the other part (the object beam) would scan or read all the data in a universe … perhaps by first being transmitted through the 4th spatial dimension so it could focus on that entire universe when it was only the size of a subatomic particle. The reference and object beams then come to a focus - forming an interference pattern which creates a universe that obeys Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) and rebounds/expands from the compression caused by the futuristic reference laser (the compressed matter corresponding to the material plate/film in conventional holography). In an earthly hologram, the interference pattern does not look like a photograph until light hits it in the correct position. In a cosmic hologram, the interference pattern would merely be a dark cosmos evolving from a big bang until it was illuminated by another laser beam (from the generation of another big bang - please see the next paragraph). Then it would become a number of "images" including every possible frequency of electromagnetism, and thanks to wave/particle duality, matter waves and gravitational waves.

Expansion must initially be of an exponential, inflationary velocity because this reaction is in response to the action of light´s velocity (the greatest in the universe). Then matter formed and gravity slowed expansion of the universe. If our civilization oneday becomes advanced (and wise) enough to create the big bang that produces our universe, it is inevitable that we would continue to use this talent for making cosmic fireworks, and that other civilizations would also produce big bangs. Admittedly, this is an assessment of human nature as well as a reflection on the nature of civilizations. I cannot provide direct proof that I´m correct. I can only point out that universal expansion would once more accelerate after gravity slowed it if more big-bang-generating laser energy is introduced to the infinite (in time as well as space) spectrum of universes.* The latest research shows that our universe is indeed undergoing accelerating expansion, and attributes this to unknown "dark energy" instead of successive Big Bangs. Each and every universe in our megauniverse must possess the same laws of nature since production of each one depends on compressing a quantity of matter already in existence, and universes would receive an entropy-defeating influx of energy which would prevent their thermodynamic deaths.

The concept of "dark matter" would be used today to explain the increased gravitational effects caused by undetectable matter. But that undetectable matter would not be a new, unknown form of matter - it would be known particles travelling through the 4th and 5th dimensions (and therefore nonexistent in the 3 dimensions of ordinary space). While in these other dimensions, the particles known as dark matter are invisible ... but would of course still exert gravitational influence. (Physics´ string theory states this by saying "Gravity may not be confined to 3 dimensions.") If particles circulated within the universe in a simple circle, they would spend almost as much time being visible as invisible. But the circulation of electromagnetic pulses following a Mobius-shaped path in a particle would be an example of fractals (phenomena repeated on ever-decreasing scales). So particles follow a Mobius-shaped path in universes (the Universe is Mobius-shaped), and they could easily spend between 10 and 25 times longer being invisible than visible. In this case, only 4% to 10% of the universe´s content could be ordinary, non-dark matter (as NASA´s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe revealed a few years ago).

* The holographic "creation" of universes might not involve extraordinarily high temperatures, in which case it could be called the Cold Fusion approach to cosmogenesis (the production of universes). Each universe arises from a big bang, but the megauniverse they belong to has no beginning (thanks to time-travelling cosmogenicists) and no end (thanks to energy influxes from later big bangs which "create" other regions of space-time). And it maintains its average density through continuous "creation" (actually, recycling) of matter via the small amount from a preceding universe which is used to initiate expansion of its successor. This steady-state, or static, megauniverse would have its tendency to collapse (from, according to the viewpoint that only one time exists at any instant, ever-increasing gravitational attraction) always exactly balanced by, again from the viewpoint that all times cannot exist at once, the ever-increasing expansion of the universes it contains. The notion that contained universes that are forever expanding would somehow "burst" a static, steady-state megauniverse mistakenly assumes the megauniverse possesses a finite size; and it also reverts to our everyday experience that only one time exists at any instant (forgetting that all times exist and the megauniverse therefore accommodates not just some, but all, extents of expansion). Also: the megauniverse can be static even though it´s composed of expanding universes because of its literally infinite size which results from cosmogenicists being able to access unlimited points in both space and time. People can be resurrected long after death then use time travel to be alive long before birth - similarly, universe producers can journey to points existing before origin of the particular universe they live in (see the end of "Darwin´s Evolution Unifies Universe" in my book). Since the megauniverse is infinite, there´s always a place and time for them to go to - we need to abandon our purely linear or serial concept of time which says universe B can only come into existence after universe A´s origin, and embrace a holistic or whole-istic concept where universes B and A (and all others) coexist. The quantum mechanical thought experiment known as Schrodinger´s Cat in which the cat exists and does not exist at the same time helps us understand "life before birth" and "later universes preceding earlier ones". To look ahead a few paragraphs, we can regard the cosmic hologram and the megauniverse as examples of invariance (the quality of not changing) and the hologram´s relativistic property of appearing different from differing vantage points as represented by the expanding universes with their big bangs.

Since lasers can be used to create other universes, the above is occurring inside a cosmic hologram, which is a single frame. All forms of motion can therefore be compared to successive frames, or many images, existing on a single holographic plate or film. This applies to orbits of stars and planets, electromagnetic currents within subatomic particles, instant communication between particles that are light-years apart ... and so on.

But what about the movements people and animals make? What about free will? Answering these questions seems to require thinking of the universe as not only a cosmic hologram, but also as a cosmic computer. We must also remember that this cosmic computer does not merely mean programming, but it means programming that includes randomness (we might also refer to “randomness” as “mutations”). [Randomness is introduced into the chain of repetitive calculations producing the image of a mountain range so a convincingly rugged image will result.]

Using this model, we can regard orbits, currents and instant communication as subroutines in the cosmic programming. Every little voluntary movement, however, is not an unalterable thing pre-programmed into our lives. Randomness means we have a degree of free will (since we can control our movements, we can influence mutations and programming). To extend Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, mutations do not mean we possess a common ancestor with apes - mutations or randomness would be essential for every form of life, matter and energy to come into existence.

Something which concerns me is the use of the clause “… to the medium in which a wave travels …” on p. 11 of my book ("Rod´s Room - A New Earth And A New Universe" : http://www.xlibris.com/RodsRoom.html ). I am not going back to a time before the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 which showed light waves do not travel through space in something called the ether. My use of “medium” does not refer to any known or unknown substance, but to space as the means or agency by which a wave gets from point A to point B (as we saw before, referring to the travelling - or speed - of light is nothing more than a convenient way of speaking: its apparent speed is actually a matter of subroutines or successive frames in a unified hologram which appears different from differing viewpoints).

Dennis Gabor proposed the theory of holography in 1947, but it only became practicable with the invention of the laser in 1960. So if your name was Albert Einstein and you were thinking about these things about 100 years ago, you´d be tempted to call your theory the Theory of Invariance (after light´s [the cosmic hologram´s] unchanging properties [referring to its constant velocity in a vacuum], and the quality of holograms appearing different from differing viewpoints would become known as Relativity. Einstein did, in fact, originally favour the term "invariance". If the things I’ve written are correct, Relativity and quantum mechanics would have done the right thing in convincing me there are actually no solid or separate objects or events in space or time.

To conclude tonight’s writing, let’s go to TV Land - specifically, the American soap “The Bold and the Beautiful” :

When Taylor and Stephanie were arguing about the 2% share in Forrester Creations which the former received, Taylor said to Stephanie "You are me, I am you". This reminded me that the universe is a unification. Quantum mechanics, Einstein´s Relativity, theories of universal holograms and cosmic computers, plus the idea in eastern religions that reality is illusion together convince me this is so, and that there are actually no solid or separate objects or events in space or time. In particular, I´m convinced by Relativity´s E=mc2 (E=mc squared) and quantum theory´s Wave-Particle Duality, as well as what quantum mechanics says about subatomic particles communicating instantaneously across the universe or experiencing the whole universe in their existence.

This must mean I am in Australia and America at the same time - and that you are in America and Australia at the same time (quantum mechanics speaks of the probability of particles being in two places at once). It must also mean I am you, and you are me.

World peace is inevitable if anyone in the world is actually themself + anyone else (despite what we see, hear and experience).

Our trip to TV Land has not been a trip to Fantasy Land - it’s another example of what unification can, and will, do (despite humanity´s best efforts to stop it)!

----------------------------------