It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bohms Theory.

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Conventional science fails because it only concerns itself with "dimensional" existence, and denies that there is a more fundamental domain underlying it: the dimensionless domain. This domain is denied by science even though all the hardest problems of science point to it. Science can make no further advances until it embraces dimensionless existence. It has explained dimensional reality to the fullest extent possible, but this has not been enough to account for all of reality. Science, if it is ever to achieve a Grand Unified Theory of everything, needs a new ingredient that takes it beyond its current limitations.

That said, a number of courageous scientists have tried to extend the current conceptual model of science, and their reputations have suffered accordingly. The most interesting thinker in this context was David Bohm who arrived at a scheme that is the closest any scientist has ever come to the r >= 0 paradigm. He couldn't quite take his ideas to their logical conclusion and see that they necessitated a dimensionless aspect of existence. Instead he arrived at a model based on what he called "undivided wholeness" in which phenomena have two potential states: "enfolded" and "unfolded". Bohm preferred the terms "implicate" and "explicate". The word "implicate" has a Latin root meaning to enfold or to fold inward.

Bohm said, "In terms of the implicate order one may say that everything is enfolded into everything. This contrasts with the explicate order now dominant in physics in which things are unfolded in the sense that each thing lies only in its own particular region of space (and time) and outside the regions belonging to other things."

Bohm's explicate, unfolded order is exactly what we refer to as the r > 0 dimensional domain. His implicate, enfolded order is analogous to the r = 0 dimensionless domain, although Bohm failed to realize that "enfolding" is really a process that takes dimensions and compacts them so much that they leave dimensionality altogether and become dimensionless. Had he taken the extra step of making the implicate order dimensionless then he would have independently arrived at the r >= 0 paradigm. While r >= 0 is a precise formulation, Bohm's explicate and implicate order remains somewhat vague.




posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Interesting stuff. ~&F



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Very interesting! You've now got me curious in spatial dimensions and dimensionless existence!



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
is there a chance that the OP or someone can break this down into lamens terms for all of us that are unsure about what is being described? I think this is something i would like to get to know better, sounds interesting



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Great post... I'm by no means an expert but this sounds an awful lot like the stuff I’ve read on holographic theory, a relatively new theory, to help describe reality:
Holographic principle
A good way I had it described to me once is if you view the universe as a hologram then depending on what angle you view the hologram/universe from will define what reality you are looking at. So each different “view” of reality would be a different dimension, but all part of a singular whole. Humans are just viewing the universe/reality from one particular perspective/dimension, or what is known as our perceptual reality.

An interesting property of the hologram is when you break a whole holographic prism in two pieces each piece will contain the whole hologram, and you can keep breaking the pieces for more , but smaller complete holograms. If that's applied to the universe then each individual element of the universe contains all the information of the entire universe within it, and how we view reality is merely a projection of ourselves onto the boundary condition of the universe/hologram.

~&F
edit on 20-8-2011 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
I think the op is about dimensionless existence. We all need dimension/reality to exist. There could be realities which doesn't come under a dimensional or material existence which science ignores altogether citing matter as the ultimate existence in all terms.

I read a book on 'Krishna consciousness' in which there are descriptions of places that doesn't have any celestial bodies, matter and so forth. Those realities cannot be considered as a material place of existence.

Its really hard to think of such dimensionless realities.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
I'm no expert in physics, but I already thought many theories within quantum physics already rely on smaller 'sub-dimensions' such as string theory for example.

Also what does the 'r' in r = 0 stand for?



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by OldRepublic22
 


Conventional science fails because it only concerns itself with "dimensional" existence, and denies that there is a more fundamental domain underlying it: the dimensionless domain.

‘Conventional’ science does not fail. It is the most successful means of making sense of the world around us that we have ever discovered or invented.


This domain is denied by science even though all the hardest problems of science point to it.

On the contrary, science has nothing to say about what you call ‘the dimensionless domain’. I suppose you mean a domain outside the four dimensions of spacetime, that is, some nonphysical domain. Science does not deny the existence of a nonphysical domain, it merely regards itself as incompetent to investigate any such domain. Science is concerned only with the physical.


Science... has explained dimensional reality to the fullest extent possible.

Says who? Why should we take their word for it?


Science, if it is ever to achieve a Grand Unified Theory of everything, needs a new ingredient that takes it beyond its current limitations.

Says who? Why should we take their word for it?


David Bohm who arrived at a scheme that is the closest any scientist has ever come to the r >= 0 paradigm.

Like Littlewolf, I am eager to know what variable is represented by r in that relationship. And is it zero or greater than zero? Do you mean it is greater than or equal to zero? Then the symbol to use is ≥.


Bohm's explicate, unfolded order is exactly what we refer to as the r > 0 dimensional domain. His implicate, enfolded order is analogous to the r = 0 dimensionless domain, although Bohm failed to realize that "enfolding" is really a process that takes dimensions and compacts them so much that they leave dimensionality altogether and become dimensionless. Had he taken the extra step of making the implicate order dimensionless then he would have independently arrived at the r >= 0 paradigm. While r >= 0 is a precise formulation, Bohm's explicate and implicate order remains somewhat vague.

Very impressive-sounding, I’m sure, but what does it all mean?


While you contemplate your reply, I shall ask the moderators to move this thread to the Philosophy forum, where it belongs.


edit on 22/8/11 by Astyanax because: of more




posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
the post about different perspectives was spot on...i believe each of our individual consciousness's is its own dimension in itself



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldRepublic22
It has explained dimensional reality to the fullest extent possible, but this has not been enough to account for all of reality.


If this were true, humanity would be creating wormholes and traveling faster than light. There is still much to learn. I do not believe we have even scratched the tip of the iceberg.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Just a heads-up for those waiting for a reply from the OP: the OP has been banned.



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join