The physical world as a virtual reality

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
This is a theory presented by mathematician Brian Whitworth [1]; PDF that suggests we are living in an information system known as a Virtual Reality.


This paper explores the idea that the universe is a virtual reality created by information processing, and relates this strange idea to the findings of modern physics about the physical
world. The virtual reality concept is familiar to us from online worlds, but our world as a virtual reality is usually a subject for science fiction rather than science. Yet the world could be an information simulation running on a multi-dimensional space-time screen. Indeed, if the essence of the universe is information, matter, charge, energy and movement could be aspects of information, and the many conservation laws could reduce to a single law of information conservation. If the universe were a virtual reality, its creation at the big bang would no longer be paradoxical, as every virtual system must be booted up. Ultimately, whether the world is an objective reality or a virtual reality is a matter for science to resolve.


The PDF is a 16 page publication that I introduce first as it's short; to the point theory makes for an easy read to begin the discussion on this theory. The concept that we are existing in a virtual reality is not just Brain Whitworths summation alone, several other physicists; philosophers and scientists have proposed this hypothesis.

Physicist Tom Campbell [2] who worked for the DoD and Nasa published a trilogy of his accumulated knowledge in consciousness exploration stemming from and beyond his work at the Monroe Institute [3] setting up the laboratory and controls to explore a state known as mind awake / body asleep which is associated to being awake in conscious space when your body is asleep. Other terms for this are commonly known as lucid dream; conscious dreaming and out-of-body experiences.

Tom takes the concept of Virtual Reality into a full 820 page trilogy called “My Big Toe” which can be read on Google Books PDF and expands the concept into many Universes including a non-physical reality system which supersedes physical reality exponentially; the concept of “The Big Computer” and several analogies into concepts such as “Process Fractals” which are iterations used by TBC to evolve reality. His view also supports an evolving Universe; rather then one that has already evolved.


A Russian scientist named Sergey Datsyuk [4] has a publication called, “The Theory of Virtuality” which is a patient paste into google translate as it is completely written in Russian; HTML


TV is fundamental and universal metaontology, which makes it possible to propose inside itself a whole series of interdisciplinary theories, approaches, concepts and technologies: the theory of reality as the successor of set theory, the theory of construction through the levels of rate normativation and configuration, the theory of reflection and contraflection, theory of “AV”-models as construct-semiosis, the theory of continuum-apperception, technology of the immanent and conceptual apperceptions of objects and processes, the concept of relevant truth, theory of structural “AV”-model's modality and comodality, the theories of the alternative sequence of events and alternative connection of processes, the concept of six-dimensional world and irregular realities, the theory of linguistic normativation, and also the approaches: to the theory of the work of the brain, to the theory of the artificial intellect, to the theory of networks, to the theory of processes, to the theory of communication.


Another virtual reality theory is known as “Multiverse Theory”. Multiverse Theory' Holds That the Universe is a Virtual Reality Matrix.[5]

"We may be a simulation ... creations of some supreme, or super-being," muses Britain's astronomer royal, Sir Martin Rees, a staunch advocate of the multiverse theory. [6]

This theory is stoutly supported in a publication entitled: “ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?” [5] BY NICK BOSTROM, Department of Philosophy, Oxford University HTML


This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.


Our Virtual Reality Universe Written by Ian O'Neill Universe Today HTML [7] reflects on Brian Whitworths hypothesis;


What if the Universe was in fact a simulation? A product of some information processor, creating space and time, energy and matter? What if the Big Bang was the whole simulation booting up, beginning billions of years of space and time calculations? Can we possibly understand our consciousness as a subroutine in an advanced number crunching machine? A new paper published by the Centre for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, University of Auckland, asks us to keep an open mind and suggests if we look at the complexity of physical laws of our known universe, many paradoxes may be explained if we view our physical reality as a virtual reality.


If we were living in a Virtual Reality; how would we know? If this is in fact some artificial reality created by a technology; who created it; what is the technology composed of and how to we test this theory?

Perhaps Craig Hogan's theory that the Universe is a giant Hologram [8] HTML which gained attention when the GEO600 gravitational wave detector detected a fuzziness predicted by Hogan which implicates system found in holograms; helps reveal pixels in this virtual reality.

We have the theories; we have some plausibility in our current technology that may be in fact detecting the pixel by which the virtual reality is rendered. If this theory proves to be true; it will change everything we know about reality and information systems.

YAD.

[References]
[1] The Physical World as a Virtual Reality by Brian Whitworth src
[2] “My Big Toe” by Tom Campbell src
[3] The Monroe Institute src
[4] The Theory of Virtuality by Sergey Datsyuk src
[5] Multiverse Theory' Holds That the Universe is a Virtual Reality Matrix Sydney Morning Herald | July 22 2004 src
[6] “ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?” BY NICK BOSTROM, Department of Philosophy, Oxford University src
[7] Our Virtual Reality Universe Written by Ian O'Neill Universe Today src
[8] Our world may be a giant hologram 15 January 2009 by Marcus Chown src

[edit on 30-1-2010 by YouAreDreaming]




posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Isnt it funny the things we make up to allows us to hold onto our delusions of heaven and controll. Just another way to deny reality. After this hologram thing blows over... the religious and mystics wont have anywhere left to run.

And you already made a whole other thread about this didnt you?



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


I made a thread regarding a Cosmic Video Game Syndrome; this is more direct to a Virtual Reality theory that is being evolved by several scientific groups; physics, math and philosophy all converging on this concept.

This thread is more reference and source orientated with little of my own opinion and beliefs. CVGS is more a fun fantasy thread; an idea not a theory.



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
If we are living in such simulation..imagine the level of intelligence of those who "created" it, dont you think they have a pretty nice security level so we never ever find out about it? Is the mere thaught then a "virus" or a "fault" in that system? Would it be enough just to use our brain to brake throu? Do we need an upgrade?

What if we are just a bad pirate copy of a very bad game with many many maaaany bugs and "they" are evaluating. I hope they shut us down the sooner the better cause we are nasty as hell!
LOL



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
S+F

It has nothing to to with delusions but this is reality.

There's no evidence that an objective, material world exist. All of the evidence points to the contrary. The problem is many scientist believe in materialism so they will say one day we will find a theory that will explain how dead matter became aware of itself. This is wishful thinking.

Nobody has ever touched something called matter. When you touch a table top or lay your head on a soft pillow, it's the electrons from your hand that repel against the electrons from the pillow or table and you perceive a hard table or a soft pillow.

So perception is reality. The problem is, materialist. They want to reduce things like consciousness, life and intelligence to the material brain, so they make the assumption that materialism is correct and when any evidence comes back that contradicts materialism they say,"it just appears that way."

I'm glad you made this thread and more and more scientist are starting to think outiside of the cave of blind materialism and that's a good thing.



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Nich Bostrom, and David Deutsch are among my favorite philosphers and
physicist. Deutsch uses equations to show that Bostroms hypothesis should be understood literally.

They do not mean it as some kind of pseudoscience metaphor. They mean it to be understood and accepted for exactly what they say it is.

The odds of us being in a solid reality are almost nil.



S&F



[edit on 30-1-2010 by constantwonder]



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

The idea that the universe is a giant virtual reality simulation is a well explored theme in science fiction. Films such as The Matrix have used this premise to great effect.

Now a New Zealand scientist is saying that physicists should seriously explore the idea. Brian Whitworth at Massey University says that it is perfectly reasonable to conjecture that "the world is an information simulation running on a three-dimensional space-time screen". Deciding whether or not this is true is a matter for science to resolve.

Assuming Whitworth is serious, what should we make of this idea? He readily admits that this is a weird idea but points out that it is no more strange than many widely held views in physics such as the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, the big bang and Boltzmann brains.


www.newscientist.com...




posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Finally, a break to get back to the forum. I have been busy so had to endure a bit of lurk mode while getting some things done.

reply to post by gusan
 


Originally posted by gusan
If we are living in such simulation..imagine the level of intelligence of those who "created" it, dont you think they have a pretty nice security level so we never ever find out about it? Is the mere thaught then a "virus" or a "fault" in that system? Would it be enough just to use our brain to brake throu? Do we need an upgrade?


I think the security protocol is total blind; closed minded skepticism despite volumes of data both historic and modern that indicate a more living reality then a dead one.

Approaching VR theory may model itself similar to how the human psyche has developed VR MMORPG's like Everquest, Wow, Eve, Aion, Diablo I/II and still waiting on III. Just to cite a few... however this system has evolved in a scope of time that potentially exponentially defies the current age of our universe; That is 13.9 Billion of years x 10^∞ to perfect the processes; sub-routines and algorithms by which this and potentially an unlimited number of VR systems exist.

The intelligence to design and implement this system has to be quite astronomical in scale compared to our own. Tom Campbell suggest all of this did originate from one source of consciousness; and I feel based on my personal experiences with consciousness during sleep that this may prove very true.

I'd like to cite a comment he made on his forum regarding how this “one consciousness” sends each of us a private data-stream by which we render into this VR view we have.


Tom Campbell
Tom: YAD, You are exactly right. And Montana is also correct. Each player in the PMR virtual reality consciousness evolution game is receiving his own private data stream – we are all living in our own personal reality. The larger consciousness can manipulate that personal reality any way it wants – but it meddles only as necessary to help encourage our evolution *e.g., synchronicity. However PMR is a multiplayer game and the rule-set constrains every local (PMR) “physical” interaction between individual players and between players and the game setting (immediate environment and universe). The game must abide by the rule-set (within the limits set by psi uncertainty) and be generally consistent or it would be ineffective as a learning tool.

Source

As you can see; he clearly comes from a VR perspective when dealing with this reality system and encourages the idea that we are playing a consciousness training simulator that affects our learning and growth. The end game is to lower our entropy from a high entropy state.

reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


It is good to see however I believe we have gone down this path in science before with the observer effect and collapsing wave functions. Despite the skepticism; the link between consciousness and the reality it observes is self-apparent regardless of a strange desire by skeptics to want to remove the conscious energies from the system entirely. Seems very odd to argue against consciousness because they simply do not understand it. Consciousness itself may be a totally different system of energy or organization of energy within the Electromangetic Spectrum; quite conceivably outside the limits of this VR system as many people claim to have had experiences in other reality systems.

Consciousness should never be removed or ignored by blind bias skepticism, it is an integral part of this system and cannot be wished away. It's here; in your face and not going away because you disbelieve.

The origins of conscious organization may be linked to quantum coherent photons, used naturally within living organisms as per Stuart Hameroff / Penrose orch Or. [1] or Takaaki Musha regarding the evanescent photon as a a superluminal particle. [2]

Within this photon system we have many of the properties of virtual processing naturally occurring during the rendering of sensory data into the model of reality. All of this comes from an external source in the form of information / data. Regardless if that data is wave functions; atoms; molecules and larger blocks of data in the form of a walk in the park. The end result is an interface to a datastream by which consciousness must render the data into a model of reality.

We are walking talking reality rendering farms by this very definition. That in itself is supernatural and phenomenological in nature. From these systems, we must see self-similar patterns emerging in the data and the observer because everything exists within this superposition within the datastreams.

Brian Whitworth concludes:

In a computer game, the player exists outside the screen interface, but in the case of our world, we are physically the avatar, viewing the world from within. This makes this world a recursive interface, that both sends to and receives from itself. If so, it is like no other information interface that we know.


The recursive interface in my humble opinion is self-evident if you have any experience with the phenomena of Déjà Rêvé which means already dreamed. Or dream something that one day later comes true and feels like Déjà vu but in all actuality is Déjà Rêvé.

There will be many of you already familiar with this recursive feedback interface although not fully cognizant of why it is happening. VR theory explains why it happens; how it happens and it is just a matter of time before we scientifically realize it.

reply to post by constantwonder
 


Originally posted by constantwonder
Nich Bostrom, and David Deutsch are among my favorite philosphers and physicist. Deutsch uses equations to show that Bostroms hypothesis should be understood literally.


I will have to check out their material as your are now introducing them to me. There is no question that the more we dissect matter; the more we realize that it's information and data. I see no error in coming to that obvious conclusion; the challenge now stands as to how this data is rendered into reality; and how these information systems interact.

I do not believe in “physical reality” rather in a reality organized by self-similar processes and function based on geometry and mathematics. This is why I love sacred geometry so much; where else can you derive a single circle then duplicate it into an arrange it into a pattern where if you connect the centers you now have a geometrical map of nearly all the platonic solids; the first, second, third and fourth dimension... quite conceivably even more dimensionality but unrecognizable due to the distortion effect of moving too far the dimensional chain into a 2D model. From that map; you have the emergence of holographic principle and fractals. Keep transcending outwards in the concentric circles an even more elaborate matrices appear; all self-similar.

Of course I speak of Metatron's Cube [3] as it fits within a natural model of virtual reality and reality theory.



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Yes, I think this is the truth.

I'm currently trying to get my university profs to take it seriously, hard going so far, but I'm doing some independent study that will hopefully get the point across that this is for real.

Doing some comparisons with physics and oriental philosophy/buddhism etc.

It makes too much sense, and the awareness that comes with thinking of the world this way is much needed in these times.




posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I'm wondering is time travel possible in virtual reality? Do you know "You are Dreaming"?



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
As long as we're looking at this philisophicaly allow me to lay this on you



Holism (from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, entire, total) is the idea that all the properties of a given system (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) cannot be determined or explained by its component parts alone. Instead, the system as a whole determines in an important way how the parts behave.


The problem I see with most scientific philosophies are that they try to seperate mind and matter. Materialism I believe is an outdated point of view.

If we're to seek and define ourelves within a theory of everything or a unified feild theory we must believe that mind and matter are both manifestations of a underlying yet to be discovered frame work.

We aren't just in the universe, be it solid reality, or virtual reality. We are also of the universe and as the universe is. Its kind of a hard idea to wrap your mind around.

Even if the universe we live in is virtual, we are still of the universe. The seperation of man from his enviroment in my opinion has rendered years of physical interpratation lacking.

The mind, the universe, matter, thought, are all the same underlying truth. The only difference it seems is the way in which its manifested. Matter and the universe are physical manifistations. The mind and thought are a nonlocal metaphysical operating system allowing conciousness to animate and observe things which are manifested in a local physical way.

Its really a principle of Holism. Where its not just the parts that determine how the whole operates but the whole also influences the way in which the individual parts work. Its the manifestations of mind and matter that make them appear to be different. This however is merely an illusion put in place to allow animate interactivity between the two.

Its not a very clear explanation in my opinion but then again im not the most philisophical person around here.

Here is a short video that is along these lines. . . . again before im berated for being non-scientific please keep in mind that I said originally that i was speaking philisophicaly








[edit on 30-1-2010 by constantwonder]



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
I'm wondering is time travel possible in virtual reality? Do you know "You are Dreaming"?


If the system is a VR one can assume that past/present/future are merely data access constraints to an observing player. To go back in time suggests a rule-set within the VR that allows for this to take place.

We would have to solve the problem of time travel; and I stress again that it occurs naturally for consciousness. Since consciousness can traverse datastreams into a probability matrix where all this data is stored; one has to wonder how we do the same with technology.

I believe it is; because consciousness already demonstrates this potential. Which is why I encourage being conscious during sleep to make this more self-realized then my pointing at the elephant in the closet so to speak.

The question is in what manner will we be able to traverse time in this VR? It depends on the rule-set.



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


Always got to have rules don't we?



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Gentill Abdulla
 





Its been suggested Gentill that manipulating the brainwaves can help induce astral projection which can in theory be done both as a general OBE or as ATT or (astral time travel).

I have been tinkering with meditation for a while now. In the beginning I couldn't hardly achieve the no mind state so nothing much ever happened. Then I was introduced to Binaural Beats and that all changed.

I ike to start with Alpha waves and work my way down to Theta waves. I can't really say it's astral projection because I'm not even sure if such a thing can happen. I will tell you though that if its not astral projections then it can induce some seriously vivid hallucinations. It's alot like lucid dreaming if your familiar with that.

It lowers the intense focus level needed to liberate your crown chakra and activate your pineal gland (third eye and source of '___' in the brain). It has been believed for thousands of years that trancendance, astral projection, divination, and a palethora of other metaphysical states of mind are a result of activity in the pineal gland related to the chemicle '___'.

There is alot of information out there on this subject including the ever popular '___' Spirit Molecule by Dr. Rick Strassman.

Perhaps this thread should have been in the philosophy board. . .




[edit on 30-1-2010 by constantwonder]



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


In Buddhism it is called Pratityasamutpada, or 'dependent origination'... basically that everything in existence exists by contrast, not by independence.

I can never see my own eye, only the reflection of it. The act of observing has an effect/is an effect on the observation itself.




The Universe would be the U, and we of course the eye. Observer Effect

I love this subject, and the info in this thread.

One of my professors states that the etymology of 'science' comes from 'to cut things up; separate'

While the etymology of 'religion' is 'to bind things together'

This seems to me to be reflected in the two sides of the brain... One side is rooted in spirituality/holism/'religion'... the other in the logos/empirical senses/'science'

Which brings you full circle to mythology, and the most recent view that they are stories depicting the timeless archetypes that are hardwired into our psyche(clearly tying darwinist/reductionist/biological principles to the explanation of the myths, aka biology as ideology).

But what they are banking on in this explanation of myths, is the old paradigm. The paradigm of materialism and reductionism. New physics is clearly anomalous to that paradigm, and thus raises the new question: If our reality is intertwined with our experience of it, are myths merely stories?

If they are just archetypes of our mind, then the new physics raises the possibility that they are archetypes of our REALITY - because our minds are what we depend upon to discern what is real, and therefore our only means of knowing. And what do we see in the structure of the brain? Polarization. Religion vs. Science, + vs -, etc.

Sorry, got a little bit carried away. I am a philosophy major, so this is essentially THE task of my field so...




posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


I think it could be in the philosophy board, but it is only a matter of time before it is considered science. Keep it here, we might as well.

It is a consequence of physics that I believe in the view of a more virtual reality world, so I say it is just as good here.



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by constantwonder
 


I think it could be in the philosophy board, but it is only a matter of time before it is considered science. Keep it here, we might as well.

It is a consequence of physics that I believe in the view of a more virtual reality world, so I say it is just as good here.


Yes the buddha said it very well



The Buddha explained,


When this is, that is. This arising, that arises. When this is not, that is not. This ceasing, that ceases.



There is in fact some evidence that the universe is not what we have always thought it to be (a purely physical system as described by materialism). It comes from the hunt for gravitational waves as a matter of fact. Is it odd or to be expected that research into the enigma that is gravity is lending validation to some of these theories?

I do not believe it is odd at all. Physics up until now have been lacking when describing what gravity is. We understand very what it does but not at all what it actually is. Further developements in gravitational research in my opinion will entirely rewrite the physics landscape.


For many months, the GEO600 team-members had been scratching their heads over inexplicable noise that is plaguing their giant detector. Then, out of the blue, a researcher approached them with an explanation. In fact, he had even predicted the noise before he knew they were detecting it. According to Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia, Illinois, GEO600 has stumbled upon the fundamental limit of space-time - the point where space-time stops behaving like the smooth continuum Einstein described and instead dissolves into "grains", just as a newspaper photograph dissolves into dots as you zoom in. "It looks like GEO600 is being buffeted by the microscopic quantum convulsions of space-time," says Hogan.

If this doesn't blow your socks off, then Hogan, who has just been appointed director of Fermilab's Center for Particle Astrophysics, has an even bigger shock in store: "If the GEO600 result is what I suspect it is, then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram."

The idea that we live in a hologram probably sounds absurd, but it is a natural extension of our best understanding of black holes, and something with a pretty firm theoretical footing. It has also been surprisingly helpful for physicists wrestling with theories of how the universe works at its most fundamental level.

The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image. In the 1990s physicists Leonard Susskind and Nobel prizewinner Gerard 't Hooft suggested that the same principle might apply to the universe as a whole. Our everyday experience might itself be a holographic projection of physical processes that take place on a distant, 2D surface.

The "holographic principle" challenges our sensibilities. It seems hard to believe that you woke up, brushed your teeth and are reading this article because of something happening on the boundary of the universe. No one knows what it would mean for us if we really do live in a hologram, yet theorists have good reasons to believe that many aspects of the holographic principle are true.


www.newscientist.com...

[edit on 30-1-2010 by constantwonder]



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


I agree. I have stated elsewhere on ATS, and I like referring to a question I asked to a guest lecture by a physicist here on campus. He was talking about gravitational waves(which the mainstream is behind) and I(being the philosophy student in the physics classroom
) asked the man: What is the medium through which these 'gravitational waves' are supposed to be propagating?

He threw up his hands, half shrugging, broadly smiled and said 'Aether'.

edit to add: This description by the scientist in that article: 'microscopic quantum convulsions of space-time' sounds just like zero point energy, quantum vacuum density fluctuations, and various other terminology of the same.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by beebs]



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by constantwonder
 


I agree. I have stated elsewhere on ATS, and I like referring to a question I asked to a guest lecture by a physicist here on campus. He was talking about gravitational waves(which the mainstream is behind) and I(being the philosophy student in the physics classroom
) asked the man: What is the medium through which these 'gravitational waves' are supposed to be propagating?

He threw up his hands, half shrugging, broadly smiled and said 'Aether'.

edit to add: This description by the scientist in that article: 'microscopic quantum convulsions of space-time' sounds just like zero point energy, quantum vacuum density fluctuations, and various other terminology of the same.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by beebs]


He was suggesting that gravity propogates in the same way as light? I find this improbable due to the fact that there has never been an accurate description of this "aether" or "quantum foam".

Would the underlying uncertainty or randomness that is the trademark of the "aether" or "quanum foam" cause interference in the propagation of a wave? Wouldn't an Aether lacking continuity and smoothness (a grainy aether) which is suggested by its randomness cause obvious perturbation in the propagation of a wave. . . .

It is my opinion that there is something seriously lacking in the description of the spatial volume we find ourselves in. Is it smooth or grainy and what implications do each imply. . .



posted on Jan, 30 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Well, it is supposed in the previous paradigm(as opposed to the new one the current generation will be reigning in
) that electromagnetic waves(light) can travel in a 'vacuum'.

However, this is not consistent with our observation of 'empty space', which is why we have something called zero point energy, to explain why our hypothesized vacuum of 0, nil, nothing - is not observable because there is no vacuum in the literal sense of the word.

So, I could have asked the same question about EM waves, but then he would have probably stated that light waves can travel through a vacuum. It is my opinion, and theory, that light cannot travel through a vacuum, nothing can. Because there is no 'vacuum', only a density approaching infinitely less dense(never quite reaching 'vacuum' criteria).

Since gravitational waves are hypothetical, we have no precedent for believing that gravity could travel through a vacuum(the characteristic of EM waves being a possible misinterpretation of observations). Although, it must be assumed by the previous paradigm.

I have a couple papers written on this subject if you or anyone is interested, let me know.

Check out this physics paper(not mine, much more technical) titled A Model of the Quantum-Classical and Mind-Brain Connections, and of the Role of The Quantum Zeno Effect in the Physical Implementation of Conscious Intent.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix is on-air in 24 minutes.
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP6

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def