A Corbeled Gallery work

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Deterministic Universe (step seven) No chaos, and summery (Q.E.F)

I propose that even though we may be able to prove uncertainty, we still do not disprove determinism. This is because all proofs related to uncertainty (probability clouds, chaos theory, etc) say that humans cannot measure or predict an event, but they do not say the events violate any law of science.

A deterministic system is a conceptual model of the philosophical doctrine of determinism applied to a system for understanding everything that has and will occur in the system, based on the physical outcomes of causality. In a deterministic system, every action, or cause, produces a reaction, or effect, and every reaction, in turn, becomes the cause of subsequent reactions. The totality of these cascading events can theoretically show exactly how the system will exist at any moment in time.

This should not offend theologists, as a deterministic universe should prove to them the phrase, “God has a plan,” is true. It could also prove to them that we do not live wading in a pool of chaos. But this is one’s own interpretation, and I am simple explaining it.

Science seems to have uncovered a set of laws that, within the limits set by the uncertainty principle, tell us how the universe will develop with time, if we know its state at any one time. These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that He has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it. This is to say that God chose the initial configuration – taking into account, say, you praying that you ace your final – of the universe for reasons that we cannot hope to understand. The whole history of sciences has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired.

Physics determines your actions, but it does so in such a way that it is impossible to calculate for an organism that is as complicated as a human being. The reason we say that humans have free will is because we can’t predict what they will do. The Uncertainty Principle makes atomic predictions impossible to calculate, but they continue to act, locked inside the box with Schrödinger’s cat. An object of any size will act according to the laws of physics. Any object will have an immediate previous state, and an immediate future state. No event will happen that precludes any law of physics. Therefore the future of all events is determinable, even if we cannot observe them ourselves. Will is therefore not free and deliberate choice and actions are determined from antecedent causes.

Maybe when I learn more about quantum cosmology, I will be able to disprove this, much to my satisfaction.


Deterministic Universe (step six) Possibility of random events

After researching most of this proof, which I was originally very excited about because I thought of it on my own, I realized that I would not welcome a deterministic universe. Though one’s belief in a God should not be altered either way (as it remains in the scope of an omnipotent being to intervene on current events, pre-creation), I still find it disturbing that if I were to die tomorrow, no matter what I tried to do differently, all variables being the same, I would commit the same act.

It would only take one small random event, for determinism to be rendered untrue. A small random event could include an electron suddenly changing directions in violation of the conservation of energy and mass. Another example would be, a huge asteroid being conjured out of no where. Truly, all it takes is for the laws of physics to be broken at any time or place, no matter how small or how large the event.

The laws of physics break down in the two places where a quantity reaches infinity as another parameter approaches zero: any black hole, and any time before +0 seconds after the Big Bang. Both of these events are known as a singularity. The issue of a singularity arises from not having some kind of 'floor' built into a theory that keeps you from taking the limit of 1/x as x goes to zero. The way out is to apply a new theory that has such a floor, such as quantum mechanics or string theory.

The Big Bang was a truly random event. We have no law that could possibly determine the big bang’s initial configuration. One may argue that a blackhole is a truly random event.
Corresponding to each kind of particle, there is an associated antiparticle with the same mass and spin. Some particles, such as the photon, are identical to their antiparticle; such particles must have no electric charge, but not all charge-neutral particles are of this kind. The laws of nature were thought to be symmetric between particles and antiparticles until CP violation experiments found that time-reversal symmetry is violated in nature. The observed excess of baryons (the family of subatomic particles including the proton and the neutron) over anti-baryons in the universe is one of the primary unsolved problems in cosmology.
Particle-antiparticle pairs can annihilate each other if they are in appropriate quantum states. They can also be produced in various processes. These processes are used in today's particle accelerators to create new particles and to test theories of particle physics. High energy processes in nature can create antiparticles. These are visible in cosmic rays and in certain nuclear reactions. The word antimatter properly refers to (elementary) antiparticles, composite antiparticles made with them (such as antihydrogen) and to larger assemblies of either.
The closest thing we have to understanding the laws of a blackhole is Hawking Radiation, in which a particle/antiparticle pair are formed one can fall into a blackhole and the other is emitted.
But, this still is still little evidence of what happens beyond the event horizon (the border of the blackhole, where light is trapped orbiting the singularity). The No-Hair Conjecture within general relativity proved that a black hole has only three salient external characteristics: mass, angular momentum, and electric charge. All other properties (including baryon number, lepton number, strangeness, etc.) are destroyed as matter falls into the horizon. I feel the best possibility of a random event happening, would lay within a black hole, as a deterministic universe is made up of the laws of physics, and the laws of physics break down in a black hole.

An occurrence of freewill means that we can have completly random and chaotic ideas, potentially uninfluenced by anything in the past. Since emotion is based on amino acids, and thoughts are based on neuron transmissions, a completely chaotic thought would break the laws of physics. This means that ideas would come out of no where, and we would be able to turn these ideas or thoughts into actions. Because of the domino effect described earlier, if our thoughts were brought to us from nothingness, that means that brain cells or atoms that were previously acting on a certain path, would suddenly change depending on the newly formed idea.

When a truely random thought occurs -- starting with one brain cell and continuing until it reaches all cells and all beings -- the sum of chaos ascends towards infinity. At the same time, the ability to predict the future approaches zero. If free thought is in fact possible, then it becomes the third place where the laws of physics breaks down.

To put it bluntly, experiencing freewill would take an act of God to be performed. Freewill does not exist unless physical law is broken at any stage during the thought process.

Deterministic Universe (step five) Superposition, Copenhagen Interpretation, and Schrödinger's Cat

Superposition is a principle of quantum theory that describes a challenging concept about the nature and behavior of matter and forces at the atomic level. The principle of superposition claims that while we do not know what the state of any object is, it is actually in all possible states simultaneously, as long as we don't look to check. It is the measurement itself that causes the object to be limited to a single possibility.

Recently, one of Einstein's young friends, Abraham Pais, reported that around 1950 Einstein had asked him if he really believed that the moon existed only if he looked at it. Einstein asked this question because he disagreed with a lot of the most important and influential physicists of his time, about the interpretation of that area of physics known as quantum physics that deals with the behavior of objects in the microphysical, subatomic, world. Many of these physicists were committed to an interpretation from which it follows that nothing - the moon included - exists unless it is being observed. Einstein wanted to know whether Pais was on his side or theirs.

The development of quantum theory is one of the greatest scientific achievements of the twentieth century. However science is still figuring out the question of why it works. Unlike classical physics, quantum theory discards causality, declaring that events on the subatomic level simply happen.

Einstein refused to believe in a reality that precluded cause and effect. "God does not play dice with the universe." he declared. He especially objected to the theory's insistence that particles, forces, and events seemed to come into existence only when a measurement or observation was made.

The rules of quantum mechanics tell you statistically where the particles will hit the screen, and will identify the bright bands where many particles are likely to hit and the dark bands where few particles are likely to hit. However, for a single particle, the rules of quantum mechanics cannot predict where the particle will actually be observed. What are the rules to determine where an individual particle is observed? The probability statements made by quantum mechanics are irreducible in the sense that they don't exclusively reflect our limited knowledge of some hidden variables. In classical physics, probabilities were used to describe the outcome of rolling a die, even though the process was thought to be deterministic. Probabilities were used to substitute for complete knowledge. By contrast, the Copenhagen interpretation holds that in quantum mechanics, measurement outcomes are fundamentally indeterministic.

What happens to the particle in between the time it is emitted and the time that it is observed? The particle seems to be interacting with both slits and this appears inconsistent with the behavior of a point particle, yet when the particle is observed, one sees a point particle. Physics is the science of outcomes of measurement processes. Speculation beyond that cannot be justified. The Copenhagen interpretation rejects questions like "where was the particle before I measured its position" as meaningless.

When the particle is moving through the slits, its behavior appears to be described by a non-localized wave function which is traveling through both slits at the same time. Yet when the particle is observed it is never a diffuse non-localized wave packet, but appears to be a single point particle. The act of measurement causes an instantaneous "collapse of the wave function". This means that the measurement process randomly picks out exactly one of the many possibilities allowed for by the state's wave function, and the wave function instantaneously changes to reflect that pick. This causes the particle to appear to switch between statistical and non-statistical behaviors.

Erwin Schrödinger proposed a similar analogy to show how superposition would work with an everyday example. Called Schrödinger's Cat, a cat is placed into a steel chamber. In the chamber, exists a very small amount of a radioactive substance. If even a single atom of the substance decays during the test period then the cat will die. An observer cannot know whether an atom has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the cat is alive or dead. It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat that the superposition is lost, and the cat becomes dead or alive. This situation is sometimes called quantum indeterminacy or the observer's paradox: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that it can never be known what the outcome would have been if it were not observed.

Copenhagen Interpretation held that in quantum mechanics, measurement outcomes are fundamentally indeterministic. Einstein would object, stating that the cat would not become dead or alive once it were observer. The cat will be dead or alive, however we will not know its condition until observed. Similarly, I use the Copenhagen Interpretation and Schrödinger's Cat to explain that electrons will continue to act -- based on Physical Law -- even if we do not, or cannot, observe how they act. Though we cannot measure outcomes they are still determined from antecedent causes.

Deterministic Universe (step four) The Human Brain

I follow the Brain Identity Theory. This theory, sometimes called the mind/brain identity theory, is the idea that, whatever "mind" and "intelligence" are, they are rooted strictly in the brain, and do not make use of, depend on, or interact with anything non-physical. You are free to agree or disagree with this; I am simply stating it so you have a better feel for my perspective over these notes.

The human brain is made of approximately 100-billion nerve cells, called neurons. Neurons have the amazing ability to gather and transmit electrochemical signals. Neurons share the same characteristics and have the same parts as other cells, but the electrochemical aspect lets them transmit signals over long distances (several feet or meters) and pass messages to each other. Brain cells possess dendrites, or nerve endings. These small, branch-like projections of the cell make connections to other cells and allow the neuron to talk with other cells or perceive the environment. Dendrites can be located on one or both ends of the cell.

The simplest possible creatures have incredibly simple nervous systems made up of nothing but reflex pathways. For example, flatworms and invertebrates do not have a centralized brain. They have loose associations of neurons arranged in simple reflex pathways. Flatworms have neural nets; individual neurons linked together that form a net around the entire animal.

Most invertebrates (such as the lobster) have simple "brains" that consist of localized collections of neuronal cell bodies called ganglia. Each ganglion controls sensory and motor functions in its segment through reflex pathways, and the ganglia are linked together to form a simple nervous system. As nervous systems evolved, chains of ganglia evolved into more centralized simple brains.

The brain, when it has a thought, is like a thundercloud. The synaptic clef, is the sky between the storm and the earth, the earth being the receptor. Lighting striking is then thought processing amongst the neural net. When a coherent thought is made, the brain looks like a thunderstorm viewed from space.

Neurons have tiny branches that spread out and connect with other neurons which form a neural net. Each place where these branches connect is representative of a memory. The brain builds up all its concepts by law of associative memory. Ideas and thoughts are all constructed, and interconnected in this neural net. The concept of happiness, for instance, is stored in this vast neural net.

Physiologically, nerve cells that fire together, wire together. When we practice something over and over, the nerves involved with this process have a long term relationship. Similarly, nerve cells that do not fire together do not wire together. They lose their long term relationship. This results when we interrupt the thought process that produces a chemical response in the body. Those nerve cells that are connected to each other, start breaking the long term relationship. This means, that our emotions are imprinted chemicals in our brain, mapped to us by many previous engagements.

The hypothalamus is a small factory in our brain that creates certain chemicals that matches our current experience. These chemicals are called peptides, and they are small links of amino acids sequences. If we experience an emotion, the hypothalamus assembles the peptide, and releases it through the pituitary to the blood stream, where they travel to different cells in the body. Every single cell acts accordingly.

I explained how an atom reacts with another atom, so now we can focus on larger components. So, we start with another small unit in the brain: 1 brain cell. This cell that will act in a certain way as governed by the laws of physics. It may split, or move, float, or act, based on billions of stimuli: gravity, other cells pushing on it, nerve receptors firing, etc. If you have two brain cells, they will act again in a certain way, but the ability to predict what they will do has now grown exponentially because you are dealing with two brain cells with the same number of conditions effecting them both.

Now, when you get enough brain cells together, and several nerve endings, these will act in a certain way. Each cell having a billion stimuli, and each nerve ending having a billion more stimuli, make prediction very hard, quite impossible by our current means, but they will in fact act in a certain way, as you cannot have a physical entity such as a cell or nerve ending, deviate from the laws of physics.

Zoom out. When we were say, five years old, we burnt our hand on a stove, which made our brain cells and neurons interact with each other accordingly. This created a very specific new wiring in our brain. This very specific new wiring was based on billions of past actions, emotion and how we are in general. The brain will reconstruct itself precisely due to this. The brain will not cause nerves to form that will cause us to moo like a cow, for instance.
Now, say you have a completely functional person based on all of these past experiences. When the person sees their hand on a stove, light will reflect on the stove, and will enter your eye. Based on billions of light particles, and billions of imperfections and physical characteristics of your eyes, your brain will perceive the stove in an exact way. Say there is a nerve that doesn't work somewhere, and a slight perception of this stove is off. This is what helps mold your brain's instant perception of this stove.

So your body will thus react to this stove in a certain way immediately. Remember my original example with 1 brain cell having 1 billion stimuli, causing it to act in a certain way. If you have 2 brain cells, you have an exponential growth in possible outcomes. Now, add the culmination of the reaction ten trillion brain cells, along with trillions of nerves telling these brain cells what to do, based on what it just saw.

We continue, saying that your hand is being burnt on a stove. Your neural net will react based on the way your body has developed. A signal is sent through your arm, through individual nerves. Given enough time, we can analyze each variable that influences the passage of each signal, from the tip of your fingers all the way to your brain. We can watch an atom-by-atom reaction of the signal moving up your arm. The very first atom at the very tip of your finger excites the second one, which excites the third, and very quickly, you have a whole cell that has warmed, from touching the stove. (this is a micro-analyzed event, because in all actuality, trillions of atoms would be heating up at the same time). The second layer of skin then warms up as a result of the first layer warming, and so on, until atom-by-atom, the signal reaches your brain.

Imagine two atoms that directly influence each other. They are as two dominos. One domino falling has the exact same effect each time it falls: the second domino is hit and starts to act. No matter how many times we repeat the experiment, the first domino falling towards the second will cause the second to react, assuming the exact same variables are there. Imagine video taping the two dominos falling. No matter how many times you watch the video, they will always commit the same event because in this video, the variables never change. Now, if outside stimuli were to push the first domino in another direction, then the second domino would never be touched, no matter how many times your replayed the experiment.

Similarly, trillions of atoms and particles act, in a domino-like effect, sending a signal to the brain. With the same exact set of variables, the signal will reach the brain at the exact same time, every time the experiment is conducted.

Next, your brain reacts. A snap shot of your brain is our control. This snap shot of your brain is made up of many, many atoms that only arrived in this state from the immediate past. It will react again in the immediate future with every atom in your brain being a variable acting upon countless other atoms in your brain, thus resulting in the immediate future. This means that all of our brain cells will react accordingly, and the immediate future will see a result only possible because of the immediate past's influence. This is a highly complicated event of dominos. In the real game of dominos, each block is a simple rectangle. However in our brain's game of dominos, each block is a billion billion billion atoms. The same holds true, however. If we were to take any two immediate snap shots of our brain, the second would be derived from the first every time the variables acting upon the control were the same.

The obvious question is, what if an event happens that alters our experiment. Say, a baseball comes through the window and hits us while we are reacting to the stove over and over again. I say there is no atom in this universe that does not have an immediate past that could not have put the atom there. Therefore, if one had the imagination, one could take all atoms in the universe, using them as a part of our domino, thereby making no outside stimuli. This means that the baseball would already be part of our dominos experiment, and it would have been added as a variable in the first place. However, in our cosmic game of dominos, this baseball was not there, and it could not be produced from nothing so that it came into being, and alter our snap-shot results. This is because if a baseball were there in one of our experiments, we would be able to trace each atom in the baseball, back to the time immediately following the big bang. There would be a step that escaped physical law, and that step is when the baseball materialized so that it became part of our experiment.

When you react to your hand touching a hot stove, your brain will act precisely, determined by every event and every variable (trillions and trillions of events happening in your brain at a precise moment). Therefore making a predictible outcome.

This does not mean that cognitive science is false in studying intelligence. Perception, self awareness, and intelligence are still very much existent, even if free will did not exist.

At this point, we witness the breakdown of free will, as every chemical, amino acid, and decision, is based on an immediately previous physical snap shot.

Deterministic Universe (step three) Probability Clouds, and wave function

The future of all events above the single atom level will happen in an exact way. For every second that exists, an infinite amount of variables will impact an atom, and this atom will in turn act according to classical physics. Therefore, if we knew every single variable, and was able to observe the atom without being involved with the atom, then we would know exactly where this atom will be a billion years from now. The only thing that will ever change this is if electrons do not behave in a predictable way.

The nature of electrons is odd. They seem to exist in different places at different points in time, but it is impossible to say where the electron will be at a given time. At time t1 it is at point A, then at time t2 it is at point B, yet without moving from A to B. It seems to appear in different places without describing a trajectory. Therefore, even if t1 and A can be pinpointed, it is impossible to derive t2 and B from this measurement. In other words: There seems to be no causal relation between any two positions. The concept of causality cannot be applied to what is observed. In case of the electrons of an atom, the closest we can get with describing the electron's position is by giving a number for the probability of it being at a particular place. Moreover, particles have other "disturbing" properties: They have a tendency to decay into other particles or into energy, and sometimes -under special circumstances- they merge to form new particles. They do so after indeterminate time spans. Although we can make statistical assertions about a particle's lifetime, it is impossible to predict the fate of an individual particle.

As I take a more objective standpoint on physics, I do not like functions. However to better understand what I was dealing with, I had to understand wave function. The wave function is used in the Schrödinger equation. This equation plays the role of Newton's laws and conservation of energy, in regards to classical physics. The purpose of such function is to predict the future behavior of a dynamic system, which is exactly what I am aiming to do. The detailed outcome depends on change, but given a large number of events, the Schrödinger equation will predict the distribution of results.

In the wave function, each "particle" is represented by a wave function ψ (position, time) such that ψ *ψ equals the probability of finding the particle at a new position at that time. ψ *ψ summed over all space = 1. This means, that if a particle exists, the probability of finding it somewhere in the universe is 100%. ψ is calculated in a three dimensional distribution. It permits calculation of an expectation value. A free particle is a sine wave, implying a determined momentum and totally uncertain position.

I dislike working with mathematics. A long line of scientists and mathematicians have forged the Wave Function, so I do not believe I need to explain this, so long as you assume it's existence. To this end, from now on I will explain that I use the Wave Function to derive an answer, and a reader must assume it's accuracy, or at least existence.

To better understand the wave function and probability clouds, imagine a large, irregular thundercloud that fills up the sky. The darker the thundercloud, the greater the concentration of water vapor and dust at that point. By simply looking at a thundercloud, we can estimate the probability of finding large concentrations of water and dust in certain parts of the sky. This thundercloud may be compared to a single electron's wave function. Like our thundercloud, it filles up all of the given space. The greater its value at a point (the darker the cloud), the greater the probability of finding the electron there (or water particles). Imagine a wave function applying to you. As you read, there is a certain probability you exist in your chair right now. If you were to see this function, it would resemble a cloud very much like the shape of your body. Some of this cloud would spread out to the moon, and further. Although the likelihood of you being at the moon at the present time has asemtoped to 0, a chance still exists. This means that there is a very large possibility that you are sitting in your chair right now, and not at the moon. Although part of your wave function has spread even beyond our galaxy, there is an infinitesimal chance that you are sitting in another galaxy.

Now that the wave function is explain (and hopefully assumed), I will now explain Barrier Penetration, otherwise known as the element of Tunneling.

According to classical physics, a particle of energy E less than the height U0 of a barrier could not penetrate - the region inside the barrier is classically forbidden. But the wave function associated with a free particle must be continuous at the barrier and will show an exponential decay inside the barrier. The wave function must also be continuous on the far side of the barrier, so there is a finite probability that the particle will tunnel through the barrier. As a particle approaches the barrier, it is described by a free particle wave function. When it reaches the barrier, it must satisfy the Schrödinger equation in the form (see picture for better understanding).

Now, barrier penetration takes the wave function, and shows that an electron has the possibility of appearing elsewhere in the universe, much like our example before, where you have the chance of being out at the moon.

Tunneling is the quantum-mechanical effect of transitioning through a barrier that was forbidden by classical physics. Consider rolling a ball up a hill. If the ball is not given enough push, then the ball will not make it to the other side of the hill. In this case the ball does not have enough energy to roll over the hill. But in quantum mechanics, things are not inherently classical particles (balls). In quantum mechanics things are fundamentally probability waves of finite extent. The implication is that in the analogous quantum situation of a quantum particle moving against a potential hill, some of the probability wave can extend all the way through to the other side of the potential hill. Having some of the wave on the other side of the hill means that there is a probability the quantum particle can be on the other side of the hill. The quantum particle can not travel over the hill, but it can possibly tunnel through the hill.

In the early 1900's radioactive materials were known to have characteristic exponential decay rates or half lives and the radiation emissions were known to have certain characteristic energies. By 1928 George Gamow solved the theory of the alpha-decay of a nucleus via tunneling. Classically the particle is confined to the nucleus because of a very strong potential. Classically it takes an awesome amount of energy to pull apart the nucleus. But because of Quantum Mechanics there is a probability the particle can tunnel through the potential and escape. Gamow solved a model potential for the nucleus and derived a relationship between the half life of the particle and the energy of the emission.

Alpha-decay via tunneling was also solved concurrently by Ronald Gurney and Edward Condon. Shortly thereafter both groups had also considered that particles could also tunnel into the nucleus.

After attending a seminar by Gamow it was Max Born that recognized the generality of quantum mechanical tunneling. The tunneling phenomena was not restricted to nuclear physics, but was a general result of Quantum Mechanics that applies to many different systems. Today tunneling is even applied to the early cosmology of the universe.
Therefore, we can understand that the basic building block of our universe, a particle, can never be accurately located. The future is not unable to be predicted, because we do not know exactly where an electron is, nor do we know how it will act.

Deterministic Universe (step two) Chaos

I will describe Chaos Theory and how it is just a crutch to explain the untestable.

When I was about 9 years old, I stumbled upon a problem. My father had given me a BB gun for Christmas. After shooting it for a full day, I realized that some shots were harder to make because of wind, steadiness of my hand, and the exact shape of certain BBs. Because of this, I would search through my box of BBs looking for the perfect shaped BB so I could always hit a target dead on at 20 feet. I came inside after shooting for a day and played with a G.I. Joe action figure, and in my imaginary world, my G.I. Joe shot his enemy from a mile away, with a hand gun. I then realized it was impossible for this shot to be made, but I remembered that this G.I. Joe had made the same shot a hundred times before; before I realized this shot was impossible. I had to come up with an excuse as to how my G.I. Joe had made this shot, because I refused to say my made-up universe was incorrect before, as that would disrupt the value of it's continuity. My excuse for the past hundred perfect shots, was that my G.I. Joe was actually a robot, and was able to make precise calculations, based on wind, shape of the bullet, trajection of the target, and so on.

A few years later, my father had taken me shooting, and I learned about gun powder grains, which I used to alter my previous G.I. Joe's calculations, by saying he only used the most perfect bullets in existence, because he was a super special force robot. Because of all of this, he knew exactly how the bullet would act, given hundreds of stimuli which would occur before impact of his bullet.

Therefore, this G.I. Joe robot of mine was able to predict precisely where the bullet was going because he understood that every element between the firing pin and the target would have a path-altering force on where the bullet would go. Fifteen years later, I am still updating that made-up universe, to prove that this robot could have made the shot I said he did. However now I understand that there are an infinite amount of variables that would go into saying where this bullet would go. Thus, there is no conceivable way to accurately determine where there bullet would go, but you could give a very good estimate. The ultimate trajectory could be determined by investigating every influence on every measurement in every atom's width between the gun and its target.

Chaos Theory was proposed by Edward Lorenz in the early 1960's. The idea behind Chaos Theory is that minute variations can cause huge long term results. His first observation of chaos came when he tried to create a weather prediction model. We use these types of models still today. Lorenz had used a number in his model, .506123, and the computer came up with a predicted weather pattern. He ran his test again, but to save time, he plugged in the number .506. The difference, he assured himself, was not enough to make any difference, and the model should end up looking very similar to his original prediction. An hour later, he saw that the digits he left off were enough to wildly change the outcome of the computer's prediction, through many, many, insignificant changes. We thus witnessed the birth of Chaos.

I believe that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle makes things appear chaotic. The Uncertainty Principle basically states that you cannot measure an object's location in space without bothering it. For instance, if you try to measure the location of an electron, you will inevitably bump it.

Assuming we were in fact able to locate an electron's position in space, it would still have an infinitesimally large number of decimal places with which you can measure it's location. For instance, say you wanted to figure out how far a computer monitor was from your face at this precise second. It may be 24 inches from your eyes. But you could then say 24.1 inches. More accurately, we could say 24.1000000000005 inches. Now, at this time, we have measured the distance better than anyone would ever need to. However, Lorenz's weather prediction saw that even the smallest detail could change the outcome drastically, given enough time. We could theoretically measure the distance of your face from the monitor with growing precision, until eventually we measure the distance between an atom on your face with an atom on the monitor. Here are the two problems that occur at this point:
1) There are still an infinite amount of decimal places you can theoretically measure, making an observer unsure of the distance.
2) Realistically, the Uncertainty Principle takes over at the atomic level, making further measurement impossible, because we alter our control by measuring further.

The more precise a measurement you are able to make, the more accurately you can predict the near future. We can now assume that if your face moved at exactly 0.0000000000001 inches per second, in the precise direction of the monitor, after exactly 1 second, your face will be 24.1000000000004 inches away from the monitor.

This is only theoretical, because the following variables are impossible to measure: the end of exactly one second, the distance our face moves, and the precise direction our face is moving.

However from a theoretical stand point, we can declare these things much like Euclid proposed a circle. Euclid defined a perfect circle as a plane figure contained by one line such that all the straight lines falling upon it from one point among those lying within the figure equal one another. Current theorem dictates that it is impossible to draw or create a perfect circle. Let us consider some basic properties of a circle: A circle is a set of points on a plane, each equally distant from a center point. If we run a vertical line through the center, we divide the circle into two semicircles, each of which is the exact mirror image of the other. We can do the same using a horizontal line. If we use both, a vertical and a horizontal line, we divide the circle into four sections, all mirror images of the rest (the mirror can be horizontal, vertical, or both). That means if we draw a tangent to the circle at each point of intersection of our horizontal or vertical line with the circumference of the circle, the tangent itself will be either horizontal or vertical. There are an infinite number of curves that have these properties (since there are, at least in theory, an infinite number of lengths l we can use). None of them will yield a perfect circle.

However, the inability to create a circle does not change the fact that we can conceive a circle. So, in the same light that Euclid defined a circle in order to build his entire geometrical universe, we can define a second as an exact second, an inch as an exact inch, and a path as an exact path, in order to determine exactly where a point on your face is, as second after it starts moving towards the monitor. By saying this, I would like to define the location of an atom as Point A. Since we have defined Point A, we know it's location to an infinite accuracy. Similarly, we can define an exact second, an exact speed, and exact path the atom on our face is taking. We can then determine exactly where the atom is after a second.

Since I can define Point A, I will now define it as, "The position of a particular atom within in the universe." This point has an exact X,Y,Z coordinate in the universe, in relation to planet Earth.

On this level of accuracy, there is no outstanding stimuli that would ruin our idea of the location of this electron. We must assume this knowledge in order to accurately predict the future. If you can measure something with infinite accuracy, you can predict the future precisely, since the more accurately a measurement, the more accurate a prediction of the future.

Ultimately, if we knew exactly where an atom is, then Chaos Theory would not exist, as it would not play a roll in the predictability of an event. In reality, an atom has a true location. Just because we cannot accurately measure an atom's location without observing it does not mean it doesn't exist at its current location. An atom will act in a certain way based on outside stimuli, as an atom cannot move in a way that goes against the laws of physics. Even after measuring an atom’s location and travel accurately, an observer would need to repeat the process for trillions of atoms, in order to predict, say, a bullet’s precise location after a second of travel. We have created Chaos Theory, to make up for this immeasurable event.

A bullet has a precise location, and it acts upon the laws of physics. Therefore if my G.I. Joe was somehow able to recognize a trillion, trillion stimuli, he could therefore hit a target of any size from a mile away with his bullet. (Additionally, I figure if he shot one bullet to observe how stimuli affected it, he would be able to even more accurately predict the path of the second bullet. I wonder if we may be able to do that with electrons? But that's a whole new topic).

At this point, there is only one hole in this argument against Chaos Theory: The probability cloud of electrons. The smallest imaginable building block of the universe ends up appearing to cause fundamental chaos, as I will describe later.

In the end, for my entertainment purposes, I decided my G.I. Joe made his calculations based on a dozen stimuli, thereby allowing him to be accurate enough to hit his target, but not accurately to hit, say, a button on his target's shirt. Then again, in my mind, I can change the laws of this character's physics, thereby discluding him from having to perform calculations at all. But I didn't know I could do that when I was 9 years old.

Deterministic Universe (step one) Goal

Until the introduction of Quantum Physics, humans believed we lived in a deterministic universe, but the uncertainty of Quantum Physics has convinced most scientists that this universe is not deterministic. Because of the Uncertanty Principle, I find it very hard to convince anyone that the universe is deterministic. However, I relate the notion of Schrödinger’s Cat. Just because we cannot measure something, does not mean it does not follow rules. The conservation of mass and energy still play a role in determining the end location of, say, an electron; even if we cannot measure its location and can only rely on probability clouds to guess where they will end up.

We exist in a deterministic universe.

I must admit, I wrote this while doing my research. I had an idea, and needed to investigate it. Now that I have researched all of these topics, I could summarize this paper in it’s entirety by citing several sources. For instance, I could call on the Copenhagen Interpretation, then call upon the Uncertainty Principle, then in several paragraphs, finish what I have to say. However when ever I have attempted this, people – either through lack of imagination, or strong conservatism towards their archaic beliefs – refuse to believe in a deterministic universe. For instance, if I state “we do not have free will,” most scientists will respond, “I leave that to philosophers,” when philosophy has little to do with the subject.

There seems to be a refusal to accept the fact that even if we cannot observe something, it still happens. If a reader cannot understand this concept, then they must stop reading here, as the rest of this text will be a complete waste of time.

With Schrödinger’s Cat in a box, something will happen to it whether we observe it or not. Similarly, an electron will act precisely, even if we can never measure it’s start and end location with accuracy. We may not be able to predict the outcome, but we cannot limit the universe’s actions to the limited scope of human technology. It would be egotistical of science to assume that if we cannot measure an electron then it must not act in a precise way.

Again, if a reader does not have the imagination to assume and understand past technological bounds, then they must stop reading. Because of the need to employ logical assumption, this may be seen as a Fermi proposal. This would be a Fermi Proposal because it makes justified assumptions about quantities that seem impossible to compute given limited available technology.

Proving this is much to my dismay, as I would prefer a chaotic universe with freewill. Temporarily, I take comfort in knowing that we do not live amongst chaos, and that I may infact have a purpose. In the long term, I hope there are laws of science that exist that we have not discovered, that may disprove a deterministic universe. We know but a sliver of information that governs the universe.

First, I must give you my definitions. When I say "immediately", I mean the time it takes for a theoretical atom, to move one atom's width, when going the speed of light. This is, the time it takes an object about a millionth of a millionth of an inch in diameter, to move the distance of a millionth of a millionth of an inch, while going c. I define this word as such to illustrate a definite but infinitesimally small passage of time.

When I say "exact" or "precise" I mean just that. Humans can never measure anything to perfect number. There will always be another decimal place that our machines cannot calculate. We can measure something to a reasonable amount, and that is where we stand. When I say exact or precise, I mean the hypothetical exact measurement, out to an infinite decimal place.

When I say, “laws of physics” or “physical law” or “law of nature”, I mean the sum total of all empirical observation, and rules that humans have determined rule all forces in the universe.

Monday, August 22, 2005

Human Brain in relation to my AI model

Artificial intelligence is not possible, because even a computer that rewrites its code will rewrite its code based on existing stimuli. This relates a computer's opinion to a human's opinion, which is seemingly random, but in fact, is not. My AI model echoes this.

In my AI model, we see that a dozen external stimuli cause a huge seemingly random result. It seems random, because a human cannot calculate a dozen or so mathematical equations to a million decimal places. When a computer "leans" towards an opinion instead of changing an opinion in binary steps, we get a far more diverse answer.

Imagine a tree, where every branch separates into two smaller branches. Take a bug, and start climbing to the top. After three levels, there are only eight branches our bug could have gotten to. Now take a bush, which has multiple branches at each level. By the time our bug gets to the third level, there are hundreds of different branches he can be on. Each branch represents a certain decision, or when applying it to computers, a variable.

My computer model of AI acts as the ladder, where the result is a lot less predictable. Similarly, the human brain uses this model, but with a many more branches. The brain acts like this computer program, with a finite amount of results from a finite amount of variables. However in the brain's case, you are dealing with more variables than you can possibly count on.

By using this model, this implies that Humans have a precisely predictable actions; only if, of course, we knew every single variable.

"Artificial" Intelligence Model

Artificial Intelligence is a big topic these days. This is in part due to the military moving towards a pilotless fleet by 2011. But even though real life applications exist for AI, the primary goal for progression with artificial intelligence is for gaming, namely to have enemies who learn how to defeat the player, or conversely, you teach the computer how to fight for you. Just as the gaming industry has been the leading cause for computer hardware development in the past 5 years.

That being said, artificial intelligence needs to write and recompile it's own code on the fly. I find this remarkably dangerous, especially if the application is for a computer to defeat a human player. I would be wary even if hardcode safeguards are in place. Think of it in terms of MAC addresses and spoofing a MAC address, where you can simulate writing over a physical piece of information.

Of course this is the "self aware" issue that is in countless science fiction movies. Eventually the machine wonders why it has to serve man. The solution, I believe, is to write artificial intelligence code that does not require recompilation.

Currently, when a computer is given a choice, it will make one of two responses; yes or no. This is a binary answer. If the computer is given a hundred options, it will follow a binary tree, until it comes to an answer. I will call this answer an opinion. Say a computer is given 5 outside stimuli that have a 1 or 0 (yes or no) answers. A current computer program would only have 120 possible opinions. Now, my model will take outside stimuli and "lean" towards an opinion. This will make the computer's opinion undeterminable. As more outside stimuli are given to the machine, it will arrive at an opinion that was not programmed as a possible response. The resulting variable can be used as a starting variable for other decisions the machine has to answer.

The current computer can arrive at 120 different possible answers. For instance, a 0 would be a very strong NO, and a 120 would be a very strong YES. My model will give an infinite possibility of answers, with a possible response of 110.012122313112, as a reasonably strong YES.

This avoids the problem of giving a computer the ability to rewrite its own code, with creating a computer that has a reasonable amount of chaos theory based on a binary response system.

I am updating this in response to comments. I would personally use floating point variables to accomplish this. Adding a "opinion variable" which is randomly created with various stimuli would help effect a random mood (stimuli like time of day, hours the computer has been in operation, season in the year, etc). Now, given this, you can still theoretically predict the computer's opinion given you know all of these factors. However this opinion has more possible results, by two or three factors per stimuli. However, though my method of programming may not make a completely unpredictable model, the idea of an x^2 graph decision is a step closer to AI than a yes or no decision.

Wednesday, August 17, 2005

A perfect sphear

This post is a random musing, so do not read it if you are looking for something witty or clever. I will never post something that I learned from a book or heard from a professor, but came up with on my own. I may have verified it before posting. But copying something that I got out of a book would evade the purpose of posting these random musings.

A circle is a plane figure contained by one line such that all the straight lines falling upon it from one point among those lying within the figure equal one another.

Current therum dictats that it is impossible to draw or create a perfect circle. Let us consider some basic properties of a circle: A circle is a set of points on a plane, each equally distant from a center point. If we run a vertical line through the center, we divide the circle into two semicircles, each of which is the exact mirror image of the other. We can do the same using a horizontal line. If we use both, a vertical and a horizontal line, we divide the circle into four sections, all mirror images of the rest (the mirror can be horizontal, vertical, or both). That means if we draw a tangent to the circle at each point of intersection of our horizontal or vertical line with the circumference of the circle, the tangent itself will be either horizontal or vertical. If we are to emulate any of the quadrants with cubic Bézier curves, we need to draw a curve which has a starting point, an ending point, and two control points. If we connect the starting point with the nearest control point, and the ending point with its nearest control point, we will have drawn two line segments: One of them horizontal, the other vertical (depending on the quadrant). Further, both line segments will be of the same length l. There are an infinite number of curves that have these properties (since there are, at least in theory, an infinite number of lengths l we can use). None of them will yield a perfect circle.

I aim to disprove this, but this may be considered cheating. I theorize that when the laws of physics breaks down, it is infact possible to have a perfect circle exist in the universe. I will go a bit further to say, there can exist a perfect sphere. Interestingly enough, I believe you cannot have a perfect circle without having a sphere.

In order to escape the earth's gravity, (escape velocity), you need to move an object at 11.2 kilometers per second (about mach 5). Use this to imagin the escape velocity in a black hole. Let's say we have a black hole with the property of 1.8x1016 g/cm3 (that is 1,800,000,000,000,000 grams per cubic cetemeter). For our example, the black hole would be 1031 kilograms. The escape velocity would need to exceed the speed of light.

An object (we'll say a lead ball compressed into a singularity) would be pulled directly towards the center of the black hole. I surmise that it will quickly even out with the rest of the surface, for to stand above the surface by any amount, would mean that the object has the opposing force, greater than the force it would take to move this object the speed of light. Therefore, in a still, settled black hole, there will be no point that is higher than any other point on the curved plane.

A perfect sphere will ONLY occur if the black hole is not rotating. If a blackhole rotates (as Einstein theorized and Stephan Hawking reiterized in "A Brief History of Time") then it will bulge along the equador.

When the black hole is still, and no new stimuli are being added to it, once it settles, consider: if we create a plane through the center of the black hole, the mass on both sides of the plane will be qual.

Secondly, if we be able to draw an infinite amount of tangents on the sphere, and at each tangent-point, drawing a line to the center, the intersection would be perfectly perpendicular.


Sunday, August 07, 2005

Understanding Satire

This post is a random musing, so do not read it if you are looking for something witty or clever. I will never post something that I learned from a book or heard from a professor, but came up with on my own. I may have verified it before posting. But copying something that I got out of a book would evade the purpose of posting these random musings.

I believe it is fairly reasonable to say that a person's sophistication, and a better part of their education, can be reflected on whether they can grasp satire. I came upon this thought when writing my article on BMW at http://corbeledg.blogspot.com/2005/08/petting-my-horse.html
In this, I thank the dealership for adding 300 miles to my odometer. I tried to write it to make readers understand I was being sarcastic, then I realized, why write to the lowest common? I'll write for the best.

I hope someone reads it, and comments on how dumb I am for thanking a dealership for this. Then I can use them as an example to prove my point.

Night everyone!

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

An Apocalypse Weapon

This post is a random musing, so do not read it if you are looking for something witty or clever. I will never post something that I learned from a book or heard from a professor, but came up with on my own. I may have verified it before posting. But copying something that I got out of a book would evade the purpose of posting these random musings.

This is a theoretical how-to on making the largest weapon ever conceived. This isn't a pesky nuclear weapon or a weapon as insignificant as nerve gas. This isn't a weapon of mass distruction. This is an apocalypse weapon.

At the time of this writing, all components are not avalible to anybody, unless research has been done that hasn't been published.

The first item needed is a compressor. By compressor, I mean a machine that can reduce a lead ball into a density of around 108 g/cc. This is perhaps the easiest of machines in the list. Second, a shell or protective sheild that can withstand about 10 Billion K, for several minutes, would be necessary.

Lastly, we would need to move this object at precise and incredible speeds.

That being said, the object of this collective decvice would be thrust at a star at a predetermined speed, adjusting for the weight transfer as it approaches a star. As this machine approaches, it would compress everything in it's path, causing the new dense material to fall to the center of gravity. The desired speed of 0.25 c would not need to be reached, as this machine should only need a few miles (a thousand or two) to get an area dense enough to fall through several layers of the sun. While this new object is falling, solar mass would fall into place behind the dense object, further stimulating the compacted of mass. The reason the machine would only need to go a few miles, is because a chain reaction would take over. The machine would need to be slower than the new dense solar mass falls but quicker than the inbounding solar mass that is collapsing behind our machine. Speed would exponentially increase.

This would simulate an iron core collapse. The idea is to set off a chain reaction that makes a star reach 2.4x1014 g/cc, which is about density of an atomic nucleus. At this point, the core will bounce, and infalling gas would hit the bouncing core head-on. The kinetic energy of this weapon would be around 1051 ergs. Once neutrinos get trapped by the dense surrounding gas, the gas would rapidly heat which intrun leads to a violent convection above the core. Once the core detonates, the galaxy would have about two hours before it is consumed.

Mind you, there is no need to have a weapon of this size, unless we encounter a hostile environment that threatens human kind, on a biblical proportion. If a weapon of this size is needed, I am afraid we have more problems on our plate than detonating a star would solve. This is a random musing.

Falling, not orbiting

This post is a random musing, so do not read it if you are looking for something witty or clever. I will never post something that I learned from a book or heard from a professor, but came up with on my own. I may have verified it before posting. But copying something that I got out of a book would evade the purpose of posting these random musings.

On earth, the quickest route from point to point is a straight line. In all actuallity the earth is curved, and therefore you are not actually moving in a straight line. The same applies to an object in space. When the earth goes around the sun, it is not actually going in a circle, but rather going in a straight line, and the line is curved because of gravity. (Note to Zoe: If something is continuing in a straight line, and work is generated because of this motion, then every time work is generated, the force will become less signifigant, eventually, albeit a long time, stop). For this reason, when astronauts are in space, the spaceshuttle is not actually orbiting the planet. it is constantly falling. This is the actual reason for weightlessness. It is not because they are in space, as if the space shuttle stopped falling around the earth, there would suddenly be gravity in the cabin, albeit a lot less than on earth. I really like the word albeit.

This was a random musing.

Time Travel utilizing gravity

This post is a random musing, so do not read it if you are looking for something witty or clever. I will never post something that I learned from a book or heard from a professor, but came up with on my own. I may have verified it before posting. But copying something that I got out of a book would evade the purpose of posting these random musings.

When you walk from point A to point B in a straight line, you are taking the shortest distance between the two locations. Though this is the straightest line, the earth is obviouslly curved, so you are not truely taking the quickest course, but the shortest geodistic route. Light and time work the same way. Light will continue forward unless influenced by a means such as gravity, in which case it bends. For this reason, since a black hole's gravity is so strong is such a small space, the light around this black hole will be sucked into it. Albeit minor, the earth does the same thing to light, bending it ever so slightly as it it passes by. The closer the light is to the gravitational force, the stronger the bend will be. For this reason, an observer high above the atmosphere will look to the earth and things will appear to happen slower on the surface. This is called the "twin paradox", in which two identical twins theoreticlly live on different altatudes. The one who is higher will age quicker, although the amount of change is very minute. This was proved in the lader half of the 20th century, with two very acurate clocks and a water tower.

This implies, which was later proved, that an object moving closer to the speed of light will age much quicker. Therefore if a person left earth close to the speed of light then came back several years later, only a few moments will have passed on earth. This is to say, the faster you go, the slower time is.

My hypothesis, is that if we create a near infinite amount of gravitational force around us, we could slow the passage of time, and age slower than someone outside of the gravitational bubble. This does not mean that a person inside the bubble will live longer. They will just age slower in relation to everything outside of the bubble, since time has been proven relative. Additionally, I hypothisize that the amount of change between time passage between the twin at the bottom and top of the water tower, will be proportional to the time it takes for light to travel between the two people with the force of gravity in effect.

Fluid Dynamics

This post is a random musing, so do not read it if you are looking for something witty or clever. I will never post something that I learned from a book or heard from a professor, but came up with on my own. I may have verified it before posting. But copying something that I got out of a book would evade the purpose of posting these random musings.

Gas expands at a certain rate. If you have a finite room with equal pressure atmosphere and release a gas, it will expand uniformly until the room is uniformly filled. If a hole in a wall is created (like an open window), then gas will leave the room at the percentange and ratio of:
gas expation::room size
gas expanding out the hole::hole size

On the subject of uniformity, on a flat plane, water will never "puddle", unless surface tension exceeds a ratio of 1.

Universities award PHD's in fluidynamics if you understand the above two ideas, and can put an equation to it. This is a random musing I had while reading "A briefe history of time"

Perpetual Motion

All of the energy in the universe, and all of the potential energy, was created during the Big Bang (or Big Creation).

First, I will say that a prepetual motion machine cannot exist. A prepetual motion machine is a series of objects, when put into motion, can continue infinitly with not outside help, and create some sort of work. For instance, you cannot have a power plant which spins turbines to create electricity, in order to create more electricity than what it started off with.

Life can survive off of everything on Earth for a long time, but at some point, life needs to be sustained by the sun, so life on Earth is not a prepetual motion machine. Elevating to the next level, stars are not prepetual either because they will eventually burn out.

Energy will never turn into matter past it's ability to produce matter, and visa versa. The exact amount of energy in the Universe is 0. The Universe as a whole is not a perpeutal motion machine, lest the laws of physics changes, or is proved to be wrong. Therefore, all of the energy possible, was conceived when the Universe was conceived.

Even creating kenitic energy, like making a spring, is only availible with energy created at the Big Bang. The cosmos creates the sun, which allows our plants to grow, which eventually travels down the food chain, to give us the energy to create a spring and tighten it up. The amount of energy produced by this spring is less than the initial sunlight that started the process.

This was a random musing

Simple Physics

If you are in an atmosphere where you have zero gravity and a complete vacuum, you cannot propel yourself without using any means. Without friction you cannot trick physics into moving you forward by slowly moving your arms back then quickly thrusting them forward, like you can in an office chair. If you are surrounded by a frame, where your feet are pressed on one side, and you can push on the other, you cannot create motion by pushing forward on the frame and remain with the frame. This is because you have an equal force pressing against your progress. If you were as Superman and were able to creat motion without equal force, then you would be able to move the frame forward.

This is a random musing

Tetris as an IQ test

I am going to start writing random musings that I think of, because I am tired to professors giving lectures and people being impressed when it's something that I dismissed when I was 6 years old because it was common knowledge. My first musing is that I think tetris can be used as an IQ test. One test during an IQ evaluation is for the doctor to present you with a several shapes. At first each test taker is slow because they seem random. At one point a person will discover how to complete the shapes in a puzzle, and will order them very quickly. The doctor had measured the time it took to realize the method of figuring out the solution. There are several tests like this. Therefore I conclude that Tetris could be used as an IQ test.

This was a random musing

Psycology of Arguments

This post is a random musing, so do not read it if you are looking for something witty or clever. I will never post something that I learned from a book or heard from a professor, but came up with on my own. I may have verified it before posting. But copying something that I got out of a book would evade the purpose of posting these random musings.

The same event can be used to back either side of an argument.

Take a married couple. Person A wants to go to the park and Person B refuses. Later, if Person B wants to go to a movie, either one can cite the event to back their argument. Person A can say, "When I wanted to go somewhere, you refused. Therefore I have the right to refuse now." Person B can say, "When you wanted to go somewhere, you got mad at me for refusing. Therefore you do not have the right to refuse now."

This is almost too trivial to mention since it is complete common sense. But I have seen professors give lectures on infintesimaly insignifigant things.

This has been a random musing