Brain and Cosmos – Volume 1 Issue 1 June 2011
Table of Contents
Article Title Page number
1. From the Publisher 2 David Alan Kaiser
2. Cosmologist’s search for self 2 Moninder Singh Modgil
3. Boltzmann brains ‐ I’d rather be one than see one 3 Richard GottIII
4. Stairway to heaven 22 – why physicists want a Theory of Everything? Moninder Singh Modgil
5. Introduction to di Biase ‐ 31 R. Adam Crane
6. A Holoinformational Model of Consciousness 37 Francisco di Biase
1
From the Publisher Are we surrounded by infinite imaginary selves, a continuum of perspectives and commentaries on all that ever is? Mathematics does well with only two dimensions to represent most relationships of quantity, a real and an imaginary axis, but physics and biology require time and space, and psychology posits further dimensions hidden from senses but reliably measured. Diversity of understanding is the core of Brain and Cosmos, a forum to discuss concepts across disciplines such as dimensionality and the imaginary, mind and its relationship to matter. The first issue addresses a question of cosmology and intelligence: Is the brain more complex than the universe is infinite?
From the Editor Can consciousness constrain cosmology? The anthropic principle, that our cosmos is structured to enable consciousness, has been reformulated into an intriguing thesis between consciousness and cosmology, one of necessity and inevitability, called the Boltzmann Brain Hypothesis1. Named after the pioneer of statistical physics and thermodynamics2, a Boltzmann brain is a conscious system produced by random fluctuations of elementary particles, freak observers as they are called. But I ask, can statistical fluctuation create anything? Why do we not observe spontaneous manifestations of Mercedes Benz in space then? 3,4 If fluctuation can create something of complexity, with enough time can a person be created? And am I this person? Another way to ask this question is “What am I?” The answer to this question is the goal of philosophy, and the Boltzmann brain contributes to this debate. Physicists believe consciousness is a matter generated phenomenon, one that may arise by random fluctuations of matter‐energy ‐‐but it not considered a closed issue. Physicist Richard Gott’s paper starts the task of addressing the properties associated with consciousness such as using a Turing test on a Boltzmann brain5. Astronomers have detected “amino acids,” the building blocks of life in deep space.6 Might a Boltzmann brain be far behind? And how will we recognize it when we see it? Could our galaxy be intelligent? Might it be a thinking and acting on its thoughts? Could any scale of complexity contain intelligence? These are the kinds of questions begun by reading this issue.
1 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle 2 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain 3 motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/boltzmanns‐brain‐and‐low‐entropy.html 4 arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+boltzmann+brain/0/1/0/all/0/1 5 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test 6 arxiv.org/find/astro‐ph/1/abs:+AND+amino+acid/0/1/0/all/0/1
Accepted 30th January 2010
2
Publisher introduction of the first paper:
When we consider the cosmos, matter differs clearly from mind in its perceptibility. Mind changes its relation to us covertly whereas matter tends to stay put in the world made by the senses. Mind requires tools to perceive its form and action, and with tools comes uncertainty. As a professor of physics at Princeton, Richard Gott claims not to be a Boltzmann brain but how does anyone know they are not a fluctuation of the cosmos, an auto‐relational swirl of willfulness willed into being by all that has passed before or after us in these halls? When it comes to the many combinations of mind to manifest on the matter we call Earth, Jesus comes to mind as a popular combination, the founder of the largest group to date on Earth, with an estimated two billion adherents alive, another two billion having passed, and cousins in nearly every way of life. So there are three questions that I ask about Jesus or Jesus consciousness after reading Gott’s paper:
1. Was Jesus a Boltzmann brain, or any similar prophet or spiritual leader, the entropic culmination of Creation, pre‐ordained in a physical as well as interpersonal sense? 2. If religious leaders are or are not Boltzmann Brains, was Abba, the one Jesus prayed to, his Dad a BB, or Yahweh, the Old Testament God? 3. Are any of us Boltzmann brains, sweet spots in the universe?
BOLTZMANN BRAINS—I’D RATHER SEE ONE THAN BE ONE
J. Richard Gott, III Princeton University
ABSTRACT
The standard cosmological, or ‘big bang’ model, is said to be dominated by dark energy. A commonly perceived problem with this theory is that in the future, space time becomes asymptotic1 to an exponentially2 expanding de Sitter space3, filled with Gibbons and Hawking thermal radiation4. Furthermore, from this thermal state, given
1 tendency of a system to behave as one approaches infinity
2 Expanding at a rate which ‐ say doubles per unit time.
3 The closed expanding universe with positive curvature.
4 Due to expansion of universe, light from points beyond a particular distance, is not able to reach an observer. These are the points which are moving at speed of light and they form the cosmological event horizon for that observer. Gibbons and Hawking thermal radiation is the energy radiating from the cosmological event horizon, analogous to that from the horizon of black holes.
3
infinite time there will be produced an infinite number of Boltzmann Brains (BBs)5 per finite co‐moving volume6 today. If BBs outnumber ordinary observers by an infinite factor, why am I not one? This Gibbons & Hawking thermal radiation is observer dependent, which is due to observer‐dependent event horizons7. Different observers moving relative to each other will see different photons, and different Boltzmann Brains. I will argue that the only particles that are real are the particles dredged out of the quantum vacuum state8 by particular real material detectors. (In much the same way, accelerated detectors dredge thermal Unruh radiation9 out of the Minkowski vacuum10 due to their observer‐dependent event horizons.). Thus, I may see a thermal Gibbons & Hawking Boltzmann Brain, but cannot be one. Observer‐independent Boltzmann Brains can be created by quantum tunneling11 events, but the rate at which ordinary observers are being added to the universe by tunneling events to inflating regions12 exceeds the rate for producing BBs by tunneling by an infinite factor. I also argue that Boltzmann Brains do not really pass the Turing test13 for intelligent observers. Thus, the standard flat‐lambda model14 is safe.
INTRODUCTION
The invasion of the Boltzmann Brains has become a perceived problem for the standard cosmological model, which is dominated by Dark Energy. Astronomers have discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating (Riess, et al. 1998, Perlmutter, et al 1999). This can be produced by a cosmological constant15 term as proposed originally by Albert Einstein. Today we would say that Einstein’s cosmological constant term represents a quantum vacuum state of constant energy density and constant negative pressure (a sort of
5 are complex human brain like objects, formed not biologically but through random statistical fluctuation in organization of matter particles.
6 Actual volume of a region in an expanding universe increases with time. A co‐moving volume, refers to relative volume of a region (as compared with say other regions).
7 A surface which light cannot cross due to either gravitation or expansion.
8 The state of space modified by presence of a quantum field – even when no particle of the field is present.
9 An accelerated particle detector, senses the presence of quantum fields, in form of particles, even though real particles may not be present.
10 Minkowski space time is the flat space time in which Einstein formulated his theory of special relativity. Minkowski vacuum is the quantum field theoretic state of its vacuum.
11 Jumping of a system across potential barriers, due to quantum mechanical effects.
12 Rapidly expanding region of space time.
13 This is a test to see if an artificially intelligent system can mimic the abilities of a human brain.
14 Currently accepted most viable cosmological model, in which the expanding universe is flat, and the cosmological constant provides the dark energy required for accelerated expansion.
15 This was a term he inserted to balance his equations, so that the universe was static and eternal, rather than expanding and with a finite past. After discovery of expansion of universe by Hubble, Einstein called it his worst professional mistake. But Cosmological constant provides a way for quantum fields to effect evolution of universe.
4
universal suction). Normally, we would think that a vacuum (empty space containing no particles and no photons) represents a state of zero energy density. But we have learned that empty space can have a non‐zero energy density. We now call this Dark Energy (or sometimes the Λ term following Einstein’s notation). If empty space has a non‐zero energy density, and it is to have no preferred standard of rest16, as Einstein wanted, it must have a negative pressure as well, equal in magnitude to its energy density. This implies that as the universe expands, the energy density of empty space will stay constant, as would its pressure, which is negative and equal to the energy density. As the universe expands, the PdV work17 done by the expansion on each volume element keeps the energy density constant as the volume expands. Since the negative pressure is uniform, it exerts no hydrodynamic forces. In much the same way, you do not notice the air pressure in the room even though its pressure is about 14 pounds per square inch. (It takes pressure differences to create wind.) If the pressure is uniform, then there are no hydrodynamic forces; however, Einstein showed that pressure exerts a gravitational effect. Positive pressure exerts an attractive gravitational effect, while negative pressure produces a gravitational repulsion. Since this negative pressure operates in three directions, (width, breath, and height), its gravitational repulsion is three times as large as the gravitational attraction produced by the energy density of the vacuum,18 and therefore the Dark Energy produces an overall gravitational repulsion. This is what is causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe that we see today. Studies of the cosmic microwave background left over after the big bang by the WMAP19 satellite (Spergel, et al. 2003), indicate that the composition of the universe today is about 4% normal matter (protons, neutrons, and electrons), 0.01% radiation left over from the big bang, (the cosmic microwave background radiation), 24% dark matter, (weakly interacting particles that cluster like galaxies), and 73% Dark Energy. This model is remarkably successful in explaining the fluctuations seen in the cosmic microwave background as well as supernova surveys20, and masses of clusters of galaxies as well as the elements found in the universe.
In the far future this standard cosmological model becomes dominated by Dark Energy, as the radiation and matter in the universe thin out as the universe continues to expand while the Dark Energy remains at the same constant value. When the cosmological model becomes dominated by Dark Energy, its geometry approaches that of an exponentially expanding de Sitter Space21. If the energy density of empty space, or Dark Energy, is 8πΛ,
16 In this frame, cosmic background appears the same in all directions. By contrast in a moving frame, such as that of earth rotating around sun, the cosmic background varies yearly along the direction of motion.
17 In mechanics work done by a force is defined as product of the force, and the distance over which it acts. For a gas in an expandable container, this work becomes gas’ pressure “P” multiplied by the change in volume “dV”.
18 This is the signature which quantum fields leave in space – even when there are no particles.
19 Acronym for Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe – a satellite launched to see how the cosmic microwave background varied with directions.
20 Supernova, or exploding stars are the brightest astronomical objects and therefore best suited for measurements relating distance and redshift. The detection of acceleration of the universe, is result of analysis of data obtained by supernova surveys.
21 The closed expanding universe with positive curvature.
5
then the size of the universe increases by a factor of e (2.718281828…) every time interval of ro = (3/Λ)1/2). (We use units where Newton’s gravitational constant, the speed of light, and the reduced Planck’s constant are all set to 1.) This space expands faster and faster in the future. The de Sitter geometry can be partially covered by Schwarzschild coordinates22 centered on a particular geodesic observer23 at r=0. There is an event horizon at r = ro, which means that objects further away than ro cannot be seen by us. This is because the space between them and us is stretching so fast that light can never cross the ever expanding distance between them and us. It is like we are living within an inside‐out black hole. A galaxy receding rapidly from us, and participating in the expansion of the universe, will go faster and faster away from us until its speed approaches the speed of light. Once it is further than ro away from us we will receive no more photons from it. As far as we are concerned, it could be viewed as if it the planet has fallen into a black hole. The radius ro marks an event horizon for us—we cannot see any events that occur further away from us that that. We call this an event horizon because it is a horizontal plane across which we can no longer make observations. Galaxies accelerate away from us, and once they are at a distance larger than ro, (the value of ro being approximately 16 billion light years), we receive no more photons from them. Hawking (1974) has shown that because of their event horizons, black holes emit thermal radiation, which is now referred to as Hawkings radiation. However, de Sitter Space also has event horizons. As a result of the observer‐dependent event horizon surrounding an observer at r = 0, he will observe Gibbons and Hawking (1978) radiation at a temperature of T = 1/2πro. This represents very low temperature thermal radiation with a wavelength of approximately 16 billion light years. The Hadamard function24 tells us that a material detector located at rest at r = 0, will come into thermal equilibrium25 with this thermal vacuum state and attain an equilibrium temperature of T=(1/2)ro. 22. If it is an atom, its energy levels will become populated with a Boltzmann distribution at that temperature. An observer at the origin will observe isotropic thermal radiation with a temperature of T = (1/2) ro at rest, with respect to himself. From a thermal distribution one expects occasional thermal fluctuations to randomly produce structures as complex as a human brain—Boltzmann Brains (BBs). These are exponentially rare. Various authors have estimated how long one would have to wait on average to see one: Tav ∼ exp(1050) (cf. Linde 2007). Dividing by the volume within the event horizon, (the volume out to r = ro which is 82 ro3 gives the probability (P) per unit fourvolume26 (V4) of producing a Boltzmann Brain: dP/dV4=1/(82ro3Tav) which is finite. Consider a finite, co‐moving volume, containing, say, a billion galaxies, within our expanding universe today, which will harbor by definition a finite number of ordinary intelligent observers like ourselves. In the infinite future, this region will expand by an infinite factor as the Dark Energy comes to dominate and ultimately, it will achieve an infinite four‐volume in the infinite future. Therefore, it
22 The coordinate system used for calculations of the simplest black hole, first discovered by Schwarzschild
23 A geodesic is the path of least resistance – such as that of a river through a mountain. Geodesic observer is an observer moving along a geodesic
24 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_zeta_function#Hadamard_product
25 When the incoming heat, radiation, matter, energy is same as the outgoing.
26 Volume of a 3 dimensional region of space, multipled by a time duration 6
should harbor by the above argument an infinite number of BBs. Furthermore, BBs should outnumber ordinary observers like ourselves by an infinite factor. So why am I not a BB?
A number of authors have proposed different solutions to this problem, as we shall discuss. The Boltzmann Brain problem is so sufficiently serious that it has prompted Hartle and Srednicki (2007) to question whether we are typical. However, all the other authors considering this question have implicitly assumed the Copernican Principle—or the Principle of Mediocrity as Vilenkin has sometimes called it. As laid out by Gott, (1993) this runs as follows: the Copernican Principle states that it is unlikely for your location in the universe to be special among intelligent observers. Why? Because out of all the places for intelligent observers to be, there are, by definition, only a few special places and many more non‐special places, so naturally, one is most likely to be found within a non special place. Gott defines an intelligent observer as one who is self‐conscious, able to reason, able to abstractly create art, etc. Furthermore, we ask questions like “How long will my species last?”, or equally “Where am I in the Universe?” or “Am I an ordinary observer or a Boltzmann Brain?”
It is worth noting that the Copernican Principle has been one of the most successful scientific hypotheses in the history of science. When Hubble discovered that other galaxies were fleeing from us in an isotropic fashion, it could have been because our galaxy was in the center of a finite spherical explosion; however, after Copernicus, we were not likely to believe that. No, if it looked like that to us, it must look that way from every galaxy— our location should not be special. That resulted in the homogeneous, isotropic big bang models which led to Gamow, Herman, and Alpher’s prediction of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which was later discovered by Penzias and Wilson. It was one of the greatest predictions ever to be verified in the history of science. All because of taking very seriously the idea that our location should not be special (cf. Gott 2001 for more discussion). Today, whenever we examine the cosmic microwave background, we assume we are looking from a random location in the model. Indeed, in examining the results from scientific experiments we assume that we are not looking at a particularly “lucky” sample.
Once, in a talk in Cambridge, England, Don Page favored the idea of regarding one’s current conscious perception as chosen randomly from all conscious perceptions. (In that case one then might have to wonder why one was not an ant; there are 1015 of them on Earth, and they outweigh human beings.) I would argue instead that one should regard one’s current intelligent observation as drawn randomly from the intelligent observations made by intelligent observers. ‘Intelligent observers’ imply those able to formulate such questions as, ‘Am I an ordinary observer or a BB? as well as participate in this type of discussion. That is the viewpoint I will take here. My intelligent observations are not special among those made by intelligent observers in the universe.
If BBs outnumber ordinary observers by an infinite factor, and I am not special, then I should likely be a BB. (Mind you, most BBs make only one or two observations before expiring; however, if they outnumber ordinary observers by an infinite factor, then expiration does not matter. Their observations would also dominate the total, making my current observation special as well.) Since I am not a BB, something must be wrong. (I would note that the great majority authors considering this problem have been in agreement that, here, the Copernican Principle should be upheld. Furthermore, we should 7
not be among a finite number of ordinary intelligent observers in our co‐moving volume if an infinite number of BBs occur later. In particular, no one considering the problem has argued that the BBs do not count because they do not yet exist. For example: a point that would be irrelevant in the multiverse27 in any case, where many de Sitter phases like the present one have preceded our own.) With the exception of Hartle and Srednicki, the many authors considering this problem have taken the space time view that we should be typical among intelligent observers, wherever or whenever they occur. I will take that point of view here.
One solution to this problem (cf. discussion in Dyson, Kleban & Suskind [2002]) has been proposed by Page (2006). It is the rather dramatic conclusion that the cosmological model must therefore be wrong. The de Sitter phase must not last forever. The de Sitter phase is unstable to the formation of bubble universes of lower vacuum density. Within this infinitely expanding inflationary sea of Dark Energy, an infinite number of bubble universes of lower density vacuum state can form (cf. Gott 1982). The bubble wall accelerates outward with constant acceleration (because the density within the bubble is less than the density outside and the pressure is less negative than outside, so the extra negative pressure from outside pulls the bubble wall outward), giving it the shape of a hyperboloid of one sheet. At late times the bubble wall expands at nearly the speed of light, but the forming bubbles fail to percolate and fill the space if the bubble formation rate per four‐volume is less than a critical value (cf. Gott and Statler 1986). Dark energy we suspect is in the form of an effective cosmological constant, a vacuum energy density of V(φ) sitting at a local minimum giving a lambda term today, where φ is a scalar field28 for example. This may not be the global minimum. In fact, there may be many minima, with values of V that are smaller than the current one. These may be either positive (leading to other de Sitter bubbles29), zero (leading to Minkowski bubbles30 with geometrically flat, zero density vacuum states inside), or negative (leading to bubbles with anti‐de Sitter vacuum31 inside). Conventional wisdom says the negative density anti‐de Sitter bubbles are sterile—since they resemble open cosmologies that although initially expanding, re‐collapse after a short, finite time. If these other lower density vacuums exist, after long enough time the solution will tunnel to one of them and a bubble of lower density vacuum will form. The formation rate of lower density vacuum density bubbles per unit four‐volume32 ro4 is expected to be exponentially small due to the exponentially small barrier penetration probability33. In this situation, the bubbles do not percolate, and the de Sitter phase continues forever, leading to the BB situation. Page proposes that, instead, the bubble formation probability is higher than the critical value for percolation, that is of order 1/ ro4 or greater. It is implied that, as a result, the de Sitter phase will end in about 20 billion years. Page specifies tunneling to nothing, with bubbles of nothing expanding to percolate and end the de Sitter phase in
27 A multitude of simultaneously existing universes.
28 A field whose description a point of space requires only one number (scalar).
29 A closed spherical expanding baby universe emerging or bubbling forth from a black hole in a parent universe.
30 A flat non‐expanding universe, emerging or bubbling forth from a black hole in a parent universe. 31 The quantum state of the vacuum of the open hyperbolic Anti‐de Sitter universe. 32 Volume of a 3 dimensional region of space, multipled by a time duration. 33 Chance that a system can enter a region due to quantum mechanical effects, which would be prohibited in classical mechanics. 8
20 billion years. If the de Sitter phase is not ended by then (if the bubble formation rate is lower) then the bubbles do not percolate and there is no stopping the de Sitter phase from expanding forever and thus, the BB situation arises. To achieve Page’s result, the bubbles would either have to be filled with nothing, or be sterile universes, and the barrier penetration probability would have to be surprisingly small.
Another possibility, perhaps more easily realized would be to simply adopt the cyclic model of Steinhardt & Turok, (2002) a point that has been independently noted by Carlip (2007). In the cyclic model, the current de Sitter phase ends with reheating and the formation of a new big bang cycle after only a finite period of say, a trillion years. That gives a finite, four‐volume for the de Sitter future of our piece of co‐moving volume (containing say, a billion galaxies) and given the exponentially small probability of finding a BB in that finite region, one would not expect on average for any BBs to appear. Therefore, the BB problem is solved. Is the fact that I am not a BB evidence favoring the Steinhardt & Turok model? Alternatively, there may instead be a slow variation of the fundamental constants (Carlip [2007]), or a slow fall off in V(φ) as it rolls down a hill to zero, ending the de Sitter expansion.
Another possible solution to the BB problem (discussed by Linde [2007]) would be to note that new bubble universes are forming all the time in an inflating sea. If you slice space time along a hypersurface34 of fixed proper time35, you will find exponentially more young bubble universes (at the current epoch) filled with ordinary observers, than old ones already in the de Sitter phase filled with BBs. Since the inflationary timescale36 is so short—of order 10‐34 sec, universes that are younger by a time ∆t, are more common by a factor of exp(3∆t/10‐34 sec) than older ones. Since 10‐34 sec << ro, the many newly‐formed, ordinary observers dominate over the few BBs at the current epoch and the BB problem would be solved, since in eternal inflation37 each and every epoch is identical. A problem with this solution, as discussed by Linde, (2002) is the youngness problem. In other words, I should find myself very early in my universe. It would make it likely for me to be the first member of my intelligent species which itself should be formed very early in the history of its universe, since universes in which intelligent species are first forming should vastly outnumber by a factor of exp(3t/10‐34 sec) older ones, where intelligent species were already formed at some time ∆t in the past. I find myself formed some 200,000 years after the formation of my species and some 13.7 billion years after the big bang—so this formulation must be incorrect. Linde argues that instead of counting probabilities, one should count probability fluxes, but it is not clear that this will solve the BB problem.
Measures relying on a single time slice in the multiverse have been criticized by Aguirre, Gratton & Johnson (2006) on the grounds that the results depend on the time slice. If slices of constant and proper time are taken, after a while, one reaches a single, stationary solution38. Contrary to this, if one uses slices of constant Hubble expansion time39, after a
34 Universe at a particular instant of time. 35 Is the time measured while traversing a distance, by a moving clock, It can vary both due to special relativistic effects (speed) , or general relativistic effects (curvature of spacetime). 36 Is the time interval between 10‐36 seconds to 10‐32 seconds. During this phase the universe expands very rapidly (exponentially). 37 A model in which the inflation of universe is non‐ending. 38 A configuration of a system which does not change with time. 9
while, one gets another different stationary solution with different relative probabilities for formation of different types of pocket universes.
Vilenkin instead, proposes that one should compare the rate at which equilibrium de Sitter fluctuations occur multiplied by the number of observers formed by non‐equilibrium processes later. He first compares the rate per unit four‐volume in de Sitter space that BBs are produced as compared with the rate per unit four‐volume that new, inflating universes are formed. Borde and Vilenkin have noted that bubbles of higher density than the de Sitter density can form by tunneling if their initial radii are larger than ro. Such a bubble has a higher vacuum density inside and a more negative pressure inside than outside, and as a result, begins to collapse, but if its initial radius is larger than ro, even as the collapsing bubble wall approaches the speed of light, the wall is not able to complete the collapse because the outside space is expanding so fast, the collapsing bubble reaches an asymptotically fixed, co‐moving size in the outside space and grows to infinite size. Since each such inflating bubble will create a new region of inflation—a new inflating sea— which will expand indefinitely; it will create an infinite number of ordinary pocket universes40 like ours, and an infinite number of ordinary intelligent observers. Aguirre, Gratton, & Johnson (2006) have noted that another process for forming an inflating region is quantum tunneling to a Schwarzschild—de Sitter geometry41 with an inflating region on the other side of an Einstein‐Rosen bridge (the geometry discussed by Farhi, Guven, & Guth [1987] for creating a universe in the lab). The probability for forming this wormhole is exponentially small but the inflating region can expand forever and give rise to an infinite number of pocket universes as well as an infinite number of ordinary observers. The probability of forming a BB in de Sitter space is exponentially small, and the probability of forming a new inflationary region (at the grand unified density42) is also exponentially small, but the inflating region produces an infinite number of ordinary observers by non‐ equilibrium processes later and thus the number of ordinary observers outnumbers the number of BBs by an infinite factor. I am therefore likely to be an ordinary observer. The fact that there is a time delay in forming the ordinary observers, whereas the BB forms at once, is not important, Vilenkin argues. On the other hand, the new inflating region will also create new de Sitter regions in which an infinite number of BBs are also created—and new inflating regions ad infinitum. So if delay is not important then where does one stop? Vilenkin calls a stop by only counting the number of observers created by non‐equilibrium processes later. Thus, the equilibrium fluctuation producing a BB gets a weight of 1, while the tunneling events giving rise to inflation get an infinite weight because it produces an infinite number of ordinary observers by non‐equilibrium processes later. The BBs produced later (in de Sitter phases) by the new inflationary region don’t count because they are not formed by non‐equilibrium processes. Of course, that might give the original BB a weight of 0 instead of 1, because it is not formed from a non‐equilibrium process
39 Is reciprocal of Hubble’s constant (which has units of inverse time).. Hubble’s constant determines how fast a galaxy at a given distance from us will be moving, due to expansion
40 Are relatively small parallel universes, sometimes attached to a parent universe. 41 Is the black hole embedded in the closed deSitter universe with a positive curvature. It is useful in description of primordial black holes, and for quantum effects near black holes.
42 Is density of universe during very early stages of expansion, when the electromagnetic force was united with the strong and weak nuclear forces.
10
either. This prescription seems unfair to the BBs. I am an observer formed by non‐ equilibrium processes, so this seems to unfairly count only observers (like me) formed later by non‐equilibrium processes. If BBs can be formed by equilibrium processes later by the formation of the inflating region, then why shouldn’t they also count?
Inflation also produces a de Sitter geometry and a space time filled with much hotter Gibbons & Hawking thermal radiation, so why are BBs not a problem in the inflationary stage that proceeds our own? The reason is that the e‐folding time is small (10‐34 sec) so the event horizon has a circumferential radius of only ro=10‐24 cm. This is too small to make a causally connected intelligent observer. Bousso & Freivogel (2006) note that BBs are most frequently produced in string landscape vacuua43 where ro=1 m, just large enough to contain a reasonably complex BB. The average time to encounter a BB in such a vacuum is Tav=exp(1045) they argue.
Bousso and Freivogel (2007) have a different approach to the problem. They argue that one should take a more local approach and examine what one eternal observer would observe. Just as the quantum state is defined outside a black hole, they argue the quantum state can just be defined inside the event horizon in de Sitter space. One eternal observer, traveling on a geodesic, sitting at rest at r=0, will see out to the event horizon at r = ro. The proper question is, how many BBs would that eternal observer see, given an infinite amount of time? If the probability for formation of a new inflating bubble per unit four‐ volume is larger than the probability of forming a BB, the eternal observer will typically see the de Sitter phase end, and will pass into the new region before encountering any BBs at all. Earlier, he would have encountered a finite number of ordinary observers, so they would, by his counting, outnumber BBs. The probability of forming a new, inflating bubble and a BB are both exponentially small, and it is not clear which process would win, but this at least offers a hope of solving the BB problem. By focusing on how many BBs are seen, Bousso and Freivogel (2007) have taken an important new tack; a viewpoint I will find valuable in one way as indicated below. However, one may note, that while the space visible to a single eternal observer remains of fixed volume per unit time (a space time cylinder with radius of the event horizon) the actual co‐moving volume beyond this is expanding exponentially with time, so many BBs are hiding beyond the event horizon. The question is why am I an ordinary observer rather than a BB? Not whether I could see a BB, but whether I could be one. As the material particles in our co‐moving volume thin out exponentially, they will only be able to see an infinitesimal fraction of the whole space (within their individual event horizons). Almost all of the BBs would remain hidden behind these event horizons, like birds in a rainforest unseen by birdwatchers. Do they count? Could I, as a random intelligent observer, be a BB alone and unseen in de Sitter space? Remember, the intelligent observer only has to be self‐conscious—and is not required to be seen by others.
UNRUH RADIATION44
Consider this: instead of finding ourselves in a universe dominated by Dark Energy, we found ourselves in an open universe with no Dark Energy. The universe would then
43 Are the different states of vacuum predicted by string theory – and number at mind boggling 10500 ! 44 Is the radiation created by the quantum process of bring out particles from the vacuum by an accelerating detector. 11
expand forever and at late times would approximate a Milne cosmology45 where the distance between distant galaxies would increase linearly with time. At late times the density of galaxies thins out and the geometry approaches that of a flat Minkowski space. This is a space time which has a temperature of T=0 in the infinite future. If this were the cosmology we were living in no one would worry about BBs. With a temperature approaching zero in this space time as time goes to infinity, no one would be worrying about BBs. And yet we can find them if we go looking.
Imagine that in an infinite, flat Minkowski spacetime, Darth Vader is sitting on his death star. The death star is just sitting there‐‐not accelerating‐‐so its world line is straight; a geodesic (x(t) = const. = 1 light year, and y(t) = z(t) = 0). Suppose Princess Leia is prisoner on the death star. She escapes on a rocket which accelerates with 1‐g of acceleration (32 feet per second per second) just as one would experience on Earth. Because of Einstein’s equivalence principle, she experiences gravity just like she would on Earth. Any little experiment she performs in her rocket will give the same results as she would get on the surface of the Earth. She thinks she is living in a static gravitational field just like that on Earth. Now 1‐g of acceleration is 32 feet per second per second, or about 1 light year per year per year.[Are ‘per second’ and ‘per year’ supposed to be repeated twice?] Her world line traces out a hyperbola in space time (x2 – t2 = [1 light year]2). She starts getting up to nearly the speed of light after about 1 year of acceleration then draws closer and closer to it. Suppose Darth Vader doesn’t notice that Princess Leia is gone for an entire year, but then fires a laser at her rocket (along the line x = t). The laser beam goes out at the speed of light, but Leia has a year head start. She goes faster and faster, nearing the speed of light. The laser beam steadily gains on Leia but never catches her as she continues to draw closer to light speed. The laser beam travels in a straight line in a space time diagram, which is asymptotic to her hyperbolic trajectory in space time. If she accelerates forever at 1‐g acceleration, she can stay just out of reach of Darth’s laser beam. Of course, this would take an infinite amount of fuel and so is impractical, but theoretically she could outrun the laser light beam, given a 1 year head start, if she just kept accelerating. Because of her motion, Princess Leia has an observer‐dependent event horizon (along x = t). She cannot receive photons from everywhere in space time. (Light from events with x > t cannot reach her.) For example, events that happen to Darth Vader on the death star that occur 1 year after she has left, she cannot see. Light signals from those events traveling toward her will be sent after the laser beam and will not ever catch up to either it or her. Those light signals are traveling at the same speed as the laser beam; however, the laser beam has a head start. So the light signals from those events will never pass the laser beam, and also will never catch up to her. She will never see those events. To her, it is as if Darth Vader has fallen into a black hole. She has an event horizon, which marks the boundary of the part of space time that she can ever see (x = t). Darth’s laser beam travels along Leia’s event horizon. She can see no events that are on the other side of that event horizon (with x > t). Because of this, Using Hadamard function, Unruh has shown that Leia should see thermal Unruh radiation with a temperature of T=g/2π where g (1 light year per year per year) is her acceleration. This is thermal radiation with a wavelength of approximately 1 light year. There is an observer‐dependent event horizon for Leia (the
45 Is a universe in which objects move away from each other due to an initial explosion – but without the expansion of space, as in the traditional big bang model.
12
light like surface traveling along with Darth Vader’s laser beam). The renormalized stress energy tensor is
Here is the point: If an accelerated observer like Leia along a particular hyperbolic worldline in Minkowski space would have detected a BB, would that BB still exist (and wonder why it was a BB) if that accelerated observer (or atom) did not exist. I would argue that that is not the case. The photons absorbed by an accelerated atom in Minkowski space, which cause one of its electrons to jump from one energy level to another, are dredged out of the Minkowski vacuum state by the accelerated motion of that atom. These are real photons produced by the Unruh process. But in absence of that accelerated atom, the supposed division between Unruh radiation and Rindler vacuum at a given event is observer dependent. The event horizon producing the Unruh radiation is observer dependent. It depends on that accelerated observer (or atom). A different accelerated
46 Is the vacuum state of the Rindler universe which describes space inside a uniformly accelerating elevator. 47 As quantum mechanics only provides probabilities for result of measurement of physical quantities, one talks about expectation value of a quantity. 48 A tensor is generalization of concept of vector and scalars, e.g., a scalar is a tensor of rank zero, while a vector is a tensor of rank 1. Stress‐energy tensor has rank 2 and requires 4x4 numbers for its description. 49Gives probability of a particular energy state, at a particular temperature.
13
observer passing through the same event, whose acceleration was in a different direction and of a different magnitude, would have a different event horizon and would see different Unruh photons. A more highly accelerated observer would see more and hotter Unruh photons.
In special relativity, the relative simultaneity of distant events is observer dependent. The real phenomena, like the timelike or spacelike separation of two events as measured by the metric, are those that are observer independent. So we should not think of all the possible BBs in Minkowski space that could possibly be observed by all possible hypothetical accelerated observers as real. What is real are the Unruh photons that are actually detected by a particular real, accelerated detector made of normal atoms. All observers looking at that detector will see the detection. That is observer independent.
OBSERVERDEPENDENT GIBBONS & HAWKING RADIATION IN DE SITTER SPACE
The renormalized energy momentum tensor in de Sitter space for the Gibbons & Hawking thermal state is proportional to a small cosmological constant (a positive energy density and a negative pressure). For the case of a simple scalar field (cf. Bunch & Davies [1978], Page [1982], Bernard & Filacci [1986], Gott & Li [1998]): its energy density is (1/9602 ro4). The Hadamard function shows that a geodesic detector will be in thermal equilibrium with a thermal bath at a temperature of T = (1/2) ro (Gibbons & Hawking [1977], Birrell & Davies [1982]). With photons and gravitons and other particles included, the absolute magnitude of this cosmological constant would be changed but the renormalized energy momentum due to these fields would still be proportional to a cosmological constant, because a cosmological constant is the only thing that is de Sitter invariant. There can be no preferred state of rest for the renormalized stress energy tensor, because the de Sitter solution has no preferred state of rest. The Gibbons & Hawking thermal state makes a slight correction to the cosmological constant Λ due to a scalar potential (V(φ)) (cf. Gott and Li 1997 for discussion). A geodesic observer stationary at r = 0 will see thermal radiation at a temperature T = 1/2πro at rest with respect to himself. These thermal particles (primarily photons and gravitons of wavelength of order ro) will have a tiny stress energy tensor. The energy density in these photons and gravitons is tiny. Thus, the renormalized stress energy tensor may be broken up into three parts: a cosmological constant, thermal radiation (tiny), and vacuum polarization (also tiny). Together they add up to form an effective cosmological constant eff which is slightly larger than Λ and is de Sitter invariant. All observers agree on this total stress energy tensor which enters the Einstein equations to produce the overall geometry. Our geodesic observer at rest at r = 0 will see thermal radiation that is at rest with respect to him, and a vacuum polarization part that looks like a cosmological constant minus that thermal radiation. Another geodesic observer passing through the same event as our geodesic observer with a velocity v with respect to him will observe thermal radiation at rest with respect to herself and will make a different division of the stress energy tensor into thermal radiation and vacuum polarization parts. Our first observer will see different photons than our second observer. If the original observer were to find a BB, the second observer would not see that same detailed distribution of particles. The two observers see different thermal photons. The thermal photons are observer dependent because each observer has a different observer‐ dependent event horizon (one that surrounds their world line with a cylinder of
14
circumference 2πro). If an observer finds (rarely) a BB in the thermal radiation he sees, it is quite likely to be nearly at rest with respect to him. Finding a BB in that thermal distribution with a high velocity with respect to him would be even less likely, since it would require even more energy to produce (the rest mass‐energy of the BB plus its kinetic energy). Another observer traveling at high velocity with respect to the first will observe a thermal distribution of photons at rest with respect to herself, and not see the same photons seen by the first observer. The BB has a complicated brain whose intricate details depend on incredible good luck in the photons and particles seen with small probability by the first observer in that thermal radiation (there will be a small probability of seeing in that thermal radiation some baryons and ultimately a BB). The second observer flying by at high velocity relative to the first will not see those same thermal radiation particles and will not agree that that a BB is there. The BBs that are seen (rarely) by individual observers are observer dependent and therefore not real. What are real are the photons or particles that are actually detected by the first observer. Any photons he detects, he has dredged out of the quantum vacuum and register on his detector and the second observer will see those changes in his detector.
Suppose the first observer sees a BB waving at him and takes a picture of it. The second observer will not see that BB but will see the photograph of it the first observer has taken. Now consider the first observer. He has seen a BB waving at him. This could be produced by a BB materializing out of that thermal bath and then waving at him, sending photons with that view on their way to him. That would be a relatively rare event as expected. But less rare, would be just those photons materializing out of that photon bath headed toward him with that pattern. They do not have as much energy as the BB and have less information in them than the BB itself would have. The Copernican Principle tells the observer that he is not likely to be special among observers who have seen BBs waving at them. Of all those observers, most have simply seen photons headed toward them that look like a BB. So if you see a BB from a thermal bath, you should conclude that most likely it is just photons coming toward you that look like a BB rather than a BB itself (which would be very much more unlikely). But it is even worse than that. The photons and other particles that are not detected are observer dependent and would not be seen by other observers. So there would not be agreement that they were real.
In the everyday world, when we see a person waving it is most likely because there is a person waving at us, rather than just photons in a lucky configuration headed toward us looking like that. If we pick up a book in the library and read the first half of it and it appears to be Hamlet, then it is quite likely that the second half of the book is the second half of Hamlet. But if we are told that all the books in the library have been typed randomly by monkeys, (which is the analogy with BBs) we would expect that the second half of the book was most likely nonsense. Likewise, in the BB case, extrapolating beyond the information we have actually detected, to more information beyond is not correct. So even if an observer sees a BB. It does not mean that one is there (thinking its own thoughts).
So, Bousso and Freivogel seem to be on the right track in one sense. It is important what is seen by real observers. The only thing that is real is what is detected by real detectors. So, even when a BB is seen, it is only the detected photons that are real and not the BB itself (which is observer dependent).
15
Temperature in de Sitter space should be defined locally by observers and not globally (c.f. Narnhofer, Peter & Thirring [1996]) because the observed temperature depends on the acceleration of the detector. For example, consider an accelerated observer who is stationary at a radius r=constant > 0 relative to a geodesic observer at r=0. Such an observer will see a thermal bath (at rest with respect to himself) with a temperature of T=1/[2πro(1 – r2/ro2)1/2]. Radiation traveling from the location r=r to the location r=0 will redshift by the proper amount according to the variation of the metric expected in a static gravitational field so that arriving at r=0 it will have the proper temperature T=(1/2)ro, . As r → ro, stationary observers at r = const. see T → ∞, and we approach the flat space time situation where a highly accelerated observer has a hyperbolic world line (like Princess Leia) and sees Unruh radiation. Such an accelerated observer will see hotter radiation, and will have a larger chance of seeing a BB. But again, this is observer‐dependent radiation: different observers with different velocities and different accelerations would see different photons. Different observers will see different BBs and they would disagree about whether a BB was present at a particular location. The only things that are real are observer independent‐‐ things that everyone can agree on—such as the photons detected by a particular real observer. An observer can see a BB. Those observations are real even if there is no BB there thinking about it.
[The black hole case is different. Hawking radiation, which appears far from the hole, is observer independent because it arises from an observer‐independent event horizon (the boundary of the past of future null infinity). Everyone outside the black hole agrees on the location of that event horizon. The Hawking photons at large distance from the hole carry energy away from it causing its mass to slowly evaporate. This will occur whether or not those photons are ever detected. Those photons at large distances from the hole are real (observer independent).]
In the case of de Sitter space, the thermal radiation seen by various real observers is observer dependent and the only photons that are real are those actually detected by those real observers—those are observer independent and leave a record. Those observers may (occasionally) see a BB, but the BB is not an intelligent observer thinking about the encounter.
TURING TEST
Are we are violating the Turing test here? Turing proposed that if one had a conversation with an entity [by typing questions], one should regard that entity as an intelligent observer if one could not distinguish it from a human being. This is an external behavioral test. If the computer HAL in 2001 could, by repeated questioning, prove indistinguishable from a human being, Turing would say HAL should be regarded as an intelligent observer—and be subject to the same protections and rights as a human being. Our observer might have an extended conversation with the BB he sees, asking it say, 20 questions, which would be answered appropriately—just as a human would do. There is some tiny chance of finding that. (The answers to his questions, recorded on his computer are observer independent and therefore real.) But what happens if he asks a 21st question? According to the theory of BBs, most BBs last only an instant, before vanishing. They have very short lifetimes. Exponentially rarely, one will find one that can answer 20 questions in a row as a human would do, without vanishing or producing nonsense answers. This is, 16
by definition, a very special long‐lived BB. It is unusual among BBs. You have to be very lucky (or equivalently, wait a very long time) to see one. But BBs that will answer 21 questions in a row are exponentially rarer still, than ones that can answer 20 questions in a row. Or more precisely, getting 21 questions in a row correct from a thermal bath is exponentially rarer than having it answer 20 questions in a row correctly. So, by the Copernican principle, if you are so lucky as to see a BB answering 20 questions in a row satisfactorily, it is quite likely that you will see the BB failing to answer the next question (the 21st) successfully. No matter how many questions are answered successfully, the BB you see is likely to fail to answer the next one successfully (either by vanishing or by answering in nonsense). The BB you see does not pass the Turing test, a test which allows you to continue asking questions.
Indeed, it is how I know I am not a BB. It might be argued, that if BBs outnumber ordinary observers by an infinite factor, that I should be likely to be a BB. In fact, it might be argued that I am in this case, actually a BB. In other words, in this picture, all the perceptions and memories that I have accumulated up to now, should have been exactly accumulated by an infinite number of BBs in a finite co‐moving volume in our universe in the future. Then it could be argued, that for every ordinary me there are an infinite number of BBs that have exactly the same mental processes and memories and experiences that I have had up to this moment. Therefore, if I am not special, I should be one of those infinite number of BBs. So how do I know that this is not true? How do I know that I am an ordinary observer, rather than just a BB with the same experiences up to now? I will wait 10 seconds and see if I am still here. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 …. Yes I am still here. If I were a random BB with all the perceptions I had had up to the point where I said “I will wait 10 seconds and see if I am still here,” which the Copernican Principle would require—as I should not be special among those BBs—then I would not be answering that next question or lasting those 10 extra seconds. BBs do not pass the Turing test for intelligent observers, so if I see one I should not regard it as an intelligent observer.
TUNNELING
There is another way to make Boltzmann Brains in de Sitter space: via quantum tunneling. Across a space like hypersurface, the solution tunnels directly to a new Schwarzschild de Sitter geometry which has a Boltzmann Brain mass sitting in the de Sitter geometry. To calculate the tunneling probability per unit four‐volume one would have to evaluate the Euclidean action50 between the two solutions. The tunneling probability is exponentially small. It can also be estimated by entropy arguments. This is a permanent change in the geometry of space time that remains after the tunneling. The Boltzmann brain may disintegrate after a short time, but the mass making it up will remain afterward. (Making a BB out of the observed thermal radiation in de Sitter space is a fluctuation in the energy in the observed thermal radiation, but this may be in principle offset by a fluctuation lowering the energy level in the vacuum polarization so that the total stress energy is not changed. Even if the total energy does go up, the fluctuation would go back down quickly and in any
50 In mechanics, “action” over a path, is related to how the energy of the system traversing that path changes with time. Principle of least action states that the system follows a trajectory over which its action is minimal. If one makes time coordinate imaginary, one obtains the Euclidean action.
17
case different observers would not see the same detailed BB. As we have noted, such BBs are not observer independent.) The new BB created by tunneling, however, can be observer independent, for its mass changes the geometry of space time, which everyone can agree on. This tunneling event adds one BB to the universe. Since this BB is of order kilograms in mass, the probability of forming one per unit four volume is similar to forming a kilogram mass inflating “universe in a lab” by the Farhi, Guth, & Guven [1987] tunneling mechanism.
The BB tunneling event competes with other tunneling events which can also occur, such as forming an inflating universe via the Farhi, Guth, and Guven mechanism. There is also an exponentially small probability for tunneling directly to a state an inflating state that is at the GUT (Grand Unified Theory) density51. If this region is larger than the event horizon, even though the walls of this region are being pulled inward at the speed of light, it will inflate forever and create an infinite number of ordinary pocket universes like ours. If the inflationary state is not metastable, according to Linde’s (1983) chaotic inflation, it forms an infinite number of pocket universes like ours by just rolling down hill without any other tunneling events. That produces an infinite number of ordinary observers. In favor of chaotic inflation is the fact that so far, the WMAP results (Spergel, et al., 2003) are consistent with a simple V(φ) ∝ φ2 chaotic inflationary potential.
(If the inflationary potential is metastable, the situation is more complicated. A tunneling event is required to form a single bubble universe from the inflating state. So we are not comparing two tunneling events in a de Sitter space dominated by a cosmological constant—which is easy—but rather a tunneling event in an inflating region versus a tunneling event in a de Sitter space dominated by a cosmological constant. Both the inflating region and the de Sitter region dominated by a cosmological constant have infinite four‐volumes. One would then compare tunneling rates per unit four‐volume; both are exponentially small. One tunneling event could produce one observer‐independent solar system; the other tunneling event leading to inflation would produce many. A single bubble universe would be open, expand forever, and produce an infinite number of ordinary observers. But bubbles hit other bubbles; if the bubble in question joins a previously formed bubble cluster, then it will add intelligent observers of its own, but perhaps subtract some that would have formed in other bubble universes had it not formed. On average, of course, intelligent observers are created by this process. A cluster of an infinite number of bubble universes will produce an infinite number of ordinary intelligent observers. The number created per bubble on average is also infinite. In any case, chaotic inflation52 seems to have the edge observationally, so it appears that these complications needn’t be considered.)
We are interested in the rate new ordinary intelligent observers versus observer‐ independent BBs are being added to the universe by various tunneling events. We should do this by multiplying the tunneling probabilities per unit four‐volume in de Sitter space by the change in ordinary intelligent observers (or observer‐independent BBs) added by each
51 Is density of universe during very early stages of expansion, when the electromagnetic force was united with the strong and weak nuclear forces. 52 Describes creation of bubble (baby) universes during inflation in the big bang model of the universe.
18
tunneling event. The tunneling probabilities for producing a BB and for producing an inflating region are both exponentially small, but the inflating region produces an infinite number of ordinary observers as opposed to the one observer‐independent BB. Therefore ordinary intelligent observers are being added to the universe by these tunneling events at a faster rate than observer‐independent BBs. Now this is a new version of Vilenkin’s (2007) argument in full force. The qualms one had about it before were that the inflating region produces eventually an infinite number of thermal BBs also in later de Sitter phases, but now we know those BBs are observer dependent and don’t count as intelligent observers. So the tunneling event forming an inflating region changes the future universe by adding intelligent observers in the form of ordinary observers, but adds no new intelligent observers that are BBs. Future additional tunneling events would be required to produce observer‐independent BBs. Here we are calculating the rate at which ordinary intelligent observers and observer‐independent BBs are being added as a result of changes produced by the two types of tunneling events, so we should consider only the changes that follow from these tunneling events, supposing no future tunneling events were to occur. We then get the rate at which new ordinary intelligent observers and observer‐independent BBs are being added to the universe by those two types of tunneling events. The ratio of the tunneling probabilities is finite. An infinite number of ordinary intelligent observers are added by each inflationary tunneling event versus only one observer‐dependent BB for a BB tunneling event. Thus, the numbers of ordinary intelligent observers being added to the universe as a function of time is infinitely large relative to the number of observer‐dependent BBs added by tunneling events. (Because of this, regardless of whether we regarded observer‐independent BBs formed by tunneling as intelligent observers, I should still not be surprised to be an ordinary intelligent observer.)
Therefore, we should expect ordinary intelligent observers to outnumber observer‐ independent BBs in the universe by a large (infinite) factor. Mind you an observer‐ independent BB, while real (because it is seen by all observers), still does not pass the Turing Test, and may not be regarded as an intelligent observer. However, one may have a rarer tunneling event where, instead of a BB, one makes a huge mass with luckily just the initial conditions to make an entire solar system. In such a solar system (living in de Sitter space), intelligent life and intelligent observers may develop by ordinary evolutionary processes on a habitable planet. These intelligent observers would be able to answer a continuing sequence of questions and would pass the Turing Test and would qualify as intelligent observers. I would be tempted to call them ordinary observers who happened to be born in a solar system that was not born in a standard inflationary big bang, but rather one that suddenly found itself in an empty de Sitter space. I am not born in such a solar system. And if I am not special then most solar systems should originate in standard big bangs rather than quantum tunneling events. Recall that since a quantum tunneling event producing an inflationary region produces an infinite number of universes and solar systems made from standard big bangs, versus only one Boltzmann Solar system made from its tunneling event, the number of big bang solar systems would outnumber Boltzmann solar systems by an infinite factor. I should not be surprised to live in a solar system born in a standard big bang rather than in a quantum tunneling event. Inflation is just very efficient at producing solar systems and intelligent observers, so it wins.
19
If one were to adopt the view of Bousso, R. & Freivogel, then one would have to compare the number of solar systems born in big bangs versus solar systems born via quantum fluctuations in de Sitter space. An eternal observer passing into the tunneling region of the Boltzmann Solar system will see only one Solar system (without further tunneling events), whereas an eternal observer passing into a tunneled inflating region will eventually emerge into some pocket big bang universe. If that universe is similar to ours, eventually he will be able to see approximately 1023 stars and a similar order of solar systems (Gott, et al. 2005). Then the question is whether the two exponentially small tunneling rates differ by that factor or larger. In any case, ultimately, Vilenkin’s treatment seems more persuasive here. One is interested in seeing how many additional solar systems are created by the two tunneling events. That tells the rate at which real new solar systems are being added. Inflation is simply very prolific at producing them. That seems a sufficient explanation for why I live in one produced by inflation rather than one produced in isolation by an individual quantum tunneling event from de Sitter space.
SUMMARY
The Gibbons & Hawking thermal radiation that is seen by geodesic observers in de Sitter space, and from which BBs are supposed to occasionally arise, is observer dependent. Two geodesic observers crossing paths with a relative velocity difference will see different Gibbons & Hawking photons. Each will see a distribution of photons at rest with respect to themselves. They have different observer‐dependent event horizons and see different photons. If one saw a thermal BB, the other would not be expected to observe it as well. Arguably, the only things that are real are the photons actually detected by the real observers. If an observer takes a picture of a BB, which would occur occasionally, the picture would be real and the photons that camera dredged out of the quantum vacuum state would be real—and observer independent—but the BB itself would not. Just because you see a BB in de Sitter space, does not mean that it is thinking about the encounter The BB does not count as an intelligent observer and does not pass the Turing test. It can be distinguished from a human because even if it answers 20 questions successfully in a row, it will likely fail to answer the next question. Real observer‐independent BBs can be created by tunneling events in de Sitter space. These change the geometry of space time and are observer independent. The rate at which new observer‐independent BBs are being added to the universe compared to ordinary intelligent observers can be estimated by comparing the (exponentially small) tunneling rate for creating a single BB to the (exponentially small) tunneling rate to an inflationary state multiplied by the number of ordinary observers thus created. With chaotic inflation, the one tunneling event to an inflationary state leads to an infinite number of ordinary observers (and no new observer‐ independent BBs) with no further tunneling events. So the number of ordinary observers added by just that tunneling event is infinite. Thus the number of ordinary observers outnumbers the number of observer‐independent BBs being added by tunneling. Therefore, the standard cosmological model dominated by Dark Energy which has a de Sitter future, is not inconsistent with the Copernican principle and the fact that I am an ordinary observer. I might see a BB but I could not be a de Sitter thermal BB, and am (infinitely) unlikely to be an observer‐independent BB formed by tunneling rather than an ordinary observer. Even those observer‐independent BBs fail the Turing test, so it could be argued that as an intelligent observer I could not be one of them either. So with apologies
20
to Gelett Burgess (1895), who wrote a similar poem about a Purple Cow, I could sum up the situation as follows:
I’ve never seen a Boltzmann Brain I never hope to see one, But I can tell you anyhow, I’d rather see than be one.
REFERENCES
Aguirre, A., Gratton, S. & Johnson, M. C. (2006), “Hurdles for Recent Measures in Eternal Inflation, arXiv: hep-th/0611221v1 Bernard, D., & Folacci, A., Phys. Rev. D, 34, 2286 (1986) Birrel, N. D., & Davies, P. C. W., Quantum Fields in Curved Space (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982) Bousso, R. & Freivogel, B. (2006), “A paradox in the global description of the multiverse,” arXiv:hep-th/0610132v2 Bunch, T. S., and Davies, P. C. W., Proc. R. Soc. London A, 360, 117 (1978) Burgess, Gelett, “The Purple Cow” (1895) Carlip, S., “Transient Observers and Variable Constants or Repelling the Invasion of the Boltzmann Brains,” arXiv: hep- th/0703115v5 (2007) Dyson, L., Kleban, & Suskind, L., “Disturbing implications of a cosmological constant,” JHEP 10, 011, (2002) Farhi, E., Guth, A. H., & Guven, J., Nucl. Phys. B339, 417 (1990) Garriga, J. & Vilenkin, A., “Recycling universe,” Phys. Rev. D. 57, 2230 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9707292 Gibbons, G. W., & Hawking, S. W., Phys. Lett. 78B, 430 (1978) Gott, J. R. Nature, 295, 304 (1982) Gott, J. R., & Li, L-X., Phys. Rev. D., 58, 3501 (1998), astro-ph/9712344 Hartle, J. B., & Srednicki, M., “Are We Typical?”, arXiv:0704.2630v3 [hep-th], (2007) Linde, A. D., Phys. Lett. 129B, 177 (1983) Linde, A., “Sinks in the Landscape, Boltzmann Brains, and the Cosmological Constant Problem,” (2007) arXiv:hep- th/0611043v3 Narnhofer, H., Peter, I., & Thirring, W., Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 10, 1507 (1996) Page, D., “Thermal stress tensors in static Einstein spaces,” Phys. Rev. D. , 25, 1499 (1982) Page, D, “Is our universe likely to decay within 20 billion years?” (2006) arXiv:hep-th/0610079 Perlmutter, S., et al., Ap.J., 517, 565 (1999) Riess, A.G., et al., Ap.J. , 516, 1009 (1998) Rindler, W., Am. J. Phys., 34, 1174 (1966) Steinhardt, P. J., & Turok, N,, “A Cyclic Model of the Universe,” (2002) arXiv:hep-th/0111030v2 Unruh, W. G., Phys. Rev. D., 14, 870 (1976) Vilenkin, A., “Making predictions in eternally inflating universe,” Phys. Rev. D. 52, 3365, arXiv:gr-qc/9505031 (1995) Vilenkin, A. “Freak observers and the measure of the multiverse,” Journal of High Energy Physics, DOI: 10.1088/1126- 6708/2007/01/092, arXiv:hep-th/0611271v2 (2006)
Accepted January 2010
21
Stairway to Heaven why physicists want a Theory of Everything
Moninder Singh Modgil PhD
Abstract Issue of end purpose or teleology of physics is considered. Interplay between technological progress and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is highlighted. Examples of scientific applications that spans from survival to self‐actualization are given. It is suggested that achieving solutions to fundamental questions about consciousness and the physical universe is the self‐actualization of the collective conscience of humanity. ______
INTRODUCTION
The cross‐fertilization, between research fields ‐ and a resultant emergence of the inter‐ disciplinary and the multi‐disciplinary fields of research, requires a holistic approach to the question of teleology of physics in particular and of science in general. Development of science and technology is a social phenomenon – and requires cooperation among a large number of individuals The fruits of technological progress are fulfilling basic human needs. But is the juggernaut of science being driven by the need of collective conscience53 of humanity, for self actualization? And what would such a self actualization represent ‐ Self realization and Universes’ realization (!?54). Is the collective endeavor of scientists, the application of human intelligence and intuition ‐ directed towards discovering the universal truths ‐ sought since antiquity? Evidently, the applications of science and technology have correspondence with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs55 (see figure 1). One would be tempted to arrange various fields of scientific and technological activity in form of a hierarchy – corresponding to the hierarchy of the human needs they fulfill. However, on the basis of some studies, Wabha and Bridgewell56 have indicated that the needs are non‐hierarchical. The correspondence between human needs and human research therefore suggests that the research fields are also non‐hierarchical.
Consider a rational left brain perspective on the question in the title. Surely, an attempt to arrive at an answer acceptable to all physicists would be ambitious – to say the least. After all, only a small percentage of physicists are actually looking for a Theory Of Everthing (TOE)57. Can one actually assign an end purpose for physics as a whole – or for physicists as a community? And even if there is one such goal or multiple goals ‐ are not many philosophers, neuroscientists, biologists, (and more), having the same end in their sights? As used by physicists, TOE refers to a putative theory unifying the four fundamental interactions – electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear and gravitational. Would it be
53 Jary, David; Julia Jary (1991). Collins Dictionary of Sociology. Glasgow: Harper Collins. p. 774. 54 The juxtaposition of symbols ! and ? is short hand in chess annotation for an interesting idea or an idea deserving attention. 55 A.H. Maslow, A Theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review 50(4) (1943):370‐96. 56 Wahba, A; Bridgewell, L (1976). "Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (15): 212–240. 57 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything 22
just semantics to argue that a TOE should include consciousness? A right brain perspective on this is presented in conclusion of this article. In sections to follow, examples are given to elucidate that ‐ the research on the ultimate questions, such as consciousness, universe, time,… is intertwined with mundane experimental and theoretical research. Therefore, n this sense, there exists a collective teleology for physics in particular and for science in general.
RESONANCE OF MINDS
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) was first described and measured in 1938 by Rabi et.al58. For further refining this technique, Bloch and Purcell59, shared the Nobel prize for physics in 1952. Paul Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield shared the 2003 Nobel Prize in Medicine for their ‐ discoveries concerning Magnetic Resonance Imaging. This span between physics and medicine is impressive – and has X‐rays as a precedent. But breath taking is the fact that ‐ the quantum mechanical phenomenon of NMR, is now being used for routine and concrete investigations, into brain and consciousness, using the functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI). Brain surgery is an action by a group of individuals (surgeons and nurses) for survival of another individual (the patient). Modern Research on consciousness is another example of a group activity which seeks answer to the ultimate questions about self ‐ asked by Greek philosophers, Indian sages, Buddhist monks, … of yore – and still debated today. It is an example of humanity’s collective need for self actualization. Both these activities rely on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Figure 2 indicates these relationships.
SPECTACULAR SPECTRUM
Hawking60 in the final paragraph of his celebrated book “A Brief History of Time”, has remarked that once we have an ultimate theory, we would have understood the mind of God. This comment by Hawking is in a vein similar to the following remark by Einstein61 – “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details." Now it is indeed the spectra of elements, which is fuelling cosmology. It is the red shift of the spectra of hydrogen, which is providing evidence that galaxies are receding away from each other, ‐ leading to the conclusion of expansion of universe. It was precisely this discovery by Hubble, which lead Einstein to proclaim that introduction of cosmological constant was his biggest professional blunder. Einstein’s intention was a theoretical formulation of a constant and closed universe rather than an expanding universe – which remarkably was predicted by his equations without the cosmological constant. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) discovered in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson62 of Bell labs ‐ is cited as another key evidence in favor of big bang. This radiation is equivalent
58 I.I. Rabi, J.R. Zacharias, S. Millman, P. Kusch (1938). "A New Method of Measuring Nuclear Magnetic Moment". Physical Review 53: 318. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.53.318. 59 Filler, Aaron (2009). "The History, Development and Impact of Computed Imaging in Neurological Diagnosis and Neurosurgery: CT, MRI, and DTI". Nature Precedings. 60 Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books. 61 E. Salaman, "A Talk with Einstein," The Listener 54 (1955): 370‐371 62 Penzias, A.A.; Wilson, R.W. (1965). "A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s". Astrophysical Journal 142: 419–421. 23
to that of a blackbody of temperature 2.7 degrees above absolute zero. History of blackbody spectra starts from the hot metal work of blacksmiths, and culminates in discovery in 1901 of Planck’s formula63 for energy distribution in black body radiation Cosmological abundance of elements hydrogen, helium, and lithium, known from their spectra, constrains models of primordial synthesis of elements in the early universe. It is from spectra indeed that we know about existence of amino acids in space, and other simpler organic molecules.
LORD OF THE RINGS
Newton pioneered optics64 as well as gravitation65. He used a prism to split white light into what he termed as the seven colors – analogous to the 7 notes in music. He would have applauded to see that continued development of – (1) optics into spectroscopy, and (2) gravitation into Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (GTR) ‐ would come together in a synergistic and falsifiable66 fashion to fathom depths of the universe (see figure 3). Newton’s rings67 is a classic experiment for the first year college students in physics. It is one of the first observations of the phenomenon of interference. While Newton believed light to consist of corpuscles, the experiment actually highlights the wave aspect of electromagnetic radiation – from the point of view of quantum mechanics. This phenomenon of interference ‐ at a different scale and setting ‐ is the basis of one of the approaches in detection of gravitational waves68 . The largest such ground‐based interferometers, namely the Laser Interferometer Gravity Observatory (LIGO), has vacuum tubes of 1 meter diameter, running for a total length of 4 kilometers. It is yet another instance of the synergistic modern maturing of Newton’s work in optics and gravitation. As a worthy digression, one can mention the MichelsonMorley experiment69 using an interferometer – for detection of earth’s motion through the ether. Its negative result lent credence to Einstein’s postulate of constancy of velocity of light in all reference frames – which was used to formulate his Special Theory of Relativity (STR) – heralding the new concept of spacetime. However, note that Einstein did not refer to this experiment in his pioneering paper70 on special relativity.
BIND THE MIND
Binding problem of consciousness71 is how our perceptual experience consists of a whole – rather than an array of computational results ‐ of processing by different networks in brain. In a sense search for a Theory of Everything (TOE) is the binding problem of physics. After all, nature is one whole – where as different theories of physics – are
63 Planck, Max. (1901). "On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum". Annalen der Physik, vol. 4, p. 553 ff. 64 Newton, Isaac (1704). Opticks. 65 Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica: the Third edition (1726) with variant readings, assembled and ed. by Alexandre Koyré and I Bernard Cohen with the assistance of Anne Whitman (Cambridge, MA, 1972, Harvard UP) 66 Popper, Karl, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, New York, NY, 1959. 67 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_rings 68 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave 69 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment 70 Einstein, Albert (1905‐06‐30). "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper". Annalen der Physik 17: 891–921. http://www.pro‐physik.de/Phy/pdfs/ger_890_921.pdf. Retrieved 2009‐02‐02 71 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem 24
sometimes mutually contradictory snapshots of nature – and apply in different settings. Following three contrasts stand our – (1) Concept of locality and causality, implied by the experimentally well‐tested special theory of relativity, is at variance with results of quantum mechanical experiments72 which test Bell’s inequalities73 – in the context of the Einstein‐ Podolsky‐Rosen (EPR) paradox74.
(2) Concept of superposition of distinct quantum states of a system, is at variance with macroscopically observed unique state of a system. The wave function of a system gives the mathematical description of its properties. However, prior to observation, the system is in a state which is the superposition of all possibilities.
(3) Experimentally welltested Quantum field theoretical models, which unify the electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear interactions – are yet to incorporate gravitational interaction described by (perhaps the equally) well‐tested general theory of relativity. Several different theories which try to unify all the four interactions are headed under the generic name Quantum Gravity (QG). The leading candidate for QG is the string theory.
Quantum mechanics has been knocking on the doors of consciousness since 1937 when von Neumann75 proposed that “consciousness causes collapse of the wave function”. Among other physicists who expect a role for consciousness within quantum mechanics are ‐ Wigner, Penrose, Stapp – each with their own approach. It can be argued on purely semantic grounds that, the issue of consciousness should be included in a TOE. Figure 4 summarizes these ideas.
COLLECTIVE CONSCIENCE COMPUTES (CCC)
Leading edge physics’ experimental setups showcase human social networking and bonding. As an example, consider the US $ 800 million, Spitzer space telescope76. Behind its heady astrophysical spirit, lies a cocktail of ‐ (1) aerospace (for rocket
72 A. Aspect et al., Experimental Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell's Theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460 (1981) ; A. Aspect et al., Experimental Realization of EinsteinPodolskyRosenBohm Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell's Inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91 (1982). ; A. Aspect et al., Experimental Test of Bell's Inequalities Using TimeVarying Analyzers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982); A. Aspect and P. Grangier, About resonant scattering and other hypothetical effects in the Orsay atomiccascade experiment tests of Bell inequalities: a discussion and some new experimental data, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento 43, 345 (1985). 73 J. S. Bell, On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447 (1966); J. S. Bell, Introduction to the hidden variable question, Proceedings of the International School of Physics 'Enrico Fermi', Course IL, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (1971) 171–81; J. S. Bell, Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality, Journal de Physique, Colloque C2, suppl. au numero 3, Tome 42 (1981) pp C2 41–61 74 A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantummechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47 777 (1935). 75 John von Neumann, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Beyer, R. T., trans., 1932, Princeton Univ. Press. 1996 edition 76 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitzer_Space_Telescope 25
manufacture and orbit maintenance), (2) material science (for detectors), (3) cryogenics (for superfluid helium) – and counting. Now, who would say that the astrophysicists are marching to stars alone?
Another example is the US $ 5 billion Large Hadron Collider (LHC) – the largest machine ever built. Would not the detection of God particle (Higg’s boson), evidence of supersymmetry (SUSY), or extradimensions, ‐ be self actualization for thousands of theoretical and experimental physicists, who have worked collectively for decades on these? Perhaps, as much as the first atomic explosion of the Manhattan project in 1945, was an instance of self actualization for Oppenheimer and his team? Collaborations between government organizations, universities and industry, to develop advanced supercomputers are another example of social networking and bonding leading to advances in science and technology. Chips created by Multi‐National Companies (MNCs) such as AMD, IBM, Intel, are being used to build ever faster, massively parallel supercomputers. Chronologically the fastest supercomputers in recent years are ‐ Blue Gene77 , followed by Roadrunner78, (both with IBM as a partner), followed by the present title holder Jaguar79 (of Cray). Applications of Blue Gene range from ‐ understanding life (molecular biology – fight against diseases and survival), consciousness (simulating brain dynamics by neural networks) and recreation (chess training – e.g, by Topalov80 of Bulgaria for his world chess championship match with reigning world championship India’s V. Anand). These applications are examples of technology spanning across Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. While applications of Roadrunner include the science, financial, automotive and aerospace industries, its primary intended application has been, to test continued usability of nuclear weapons. These are examples of Maslow’s needs of survival (through Mutually Assured Destruction, i.e., ‐ MAD), and esteem (through nuclear empowerment). Figure 5 depicts these ideas. Needless to say that chip design is based upon semiconductor physics – and that quantum computation is around the corner As the android character “Data” in the famous science fiction television series “Star Trek” would say – “Collective Conscience Computes (CCC)”.
CONCLUSION – STAIRS TO STARS !?
Einstein and Newton are known for their theological interests. Another often quoted remark of Einstein81 is – "God does not play dice" which was in context of probabilistic description of physical phenomenon in quantum mechanics That Einstein was looking for a role of God in physics, is also evinced by his remark – “Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.” The first half of this remark was chosen by Abraham Pais as the title of his book on Einstein and his work 82.
Now let’s consider the right brain perspective on the question in the title. Enlarge the definition of physicists to include any seeker of the ultimate truth. Enlarge definition of
77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Gene#cite_note‐21 78 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Roadrunner 79 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cray_XT5 80 http://players.chessdom.com/veselin‐topalov/topalov‐blue‐gene‐p 81 Letter to Max Born (4 December 1926); The BornEinstein Letters (translated by Irene Born) (Walker and Company, New York, 1971). 82 Abraham Pais, "Subtle is the Lord—": The science and the life of Albert Einstein, Oxford University Press, (1982). 26
the Theory of Everything (TOE) to its maximum possible extent – including even consciousness in its gamut. Perhaps the opening lines from lyrics of the breathtaking song “Stairway to heaven”, by the legendary rock band “Led Zeppelin”, best give a right brained ‐ intuitive, poetic, emotional and musical, answer, to the question in the title of this article –
There's a lady who's sure All that glitters is gold And she's buying a stairway to heaven …
The “lady” in these lyrics can be metaphorically interpreted as standing for the enlarged definition of the physicists given above. The “gold” may be interpreted as the supernovae, distant galaxies etc., with their spectra as the “glitter”. The “stairway to heaven” may indeed be regarded as the Theory of Everything (TOE) – with perhaps God waiting at top with arms spread wide open! (see figure 6).
Figure 1 Teleology of physics (and of science in general) may be determined through correspondence between applications of science and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Self actualization can be related with the ongoing research on ultimate questions of consciousness and universe.
27
Figure 2 Applications of Neuroimaging (e.g., Magnetic Resonance Imaging, MRI) span across Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Figure 3 Newton’s work on optics and gravitation developed in a synergetic fashion, in conjunction with Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. It flowered into observationally testable and falsifiable, modern cosmological models of the expanding universe.
28
Figure 4 A theory of everything should explain physics of consciousness, universe, and time, i.e ‐ it should solve the binding problems of consciousness and physics
Figure 5 Applications of world’s fastest supercomputers spans across Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
29
Figure 6 The lyrics of the hit song Stairway to Heaven, by the rock band Led Zeppelin are interpreted metaphorically as follows. The lady of collective conscience of humanity is climbing the stairway of physics, science and technology – in order to reach the heaven of self‐ actualization.
Accepted 30th January 2010
30
Editorial introduction to the accompanying Paper by Francisco di Biase "A Holoinformational Model of Consciousness"
R. Adam Crane Email:[email protected]
Francisco' Di Biase's paper is certainly one of the most useful, elegant papers I've read. Full disclosure. I intend to integrate some of his insights into the next evolution of the NQUIET (Neuronal Quantum Information and Energy Transduction) Hypothesis (NQH), Somatics, 2009, Volume XVI Number 1. A PDF of (NQH) can be downloaded at www.mindfitnessfoundation.org. Furthermore, Di Biase is influenced by scientists I resonate with including Bohm, Pribram, Penrose, Hameroff, Peat, Sheldrake, Chalmers, Eccles, Wheeler, Wolfe, Baar et al.
The intent of these comments is to motivate the reader to explore Francisco Di Biase's paper for him/herself. I think this work reflects unfolding paradigm and evolutionary shifts in the sciences of consciousness, and has made me keenly, happily aware of how much there is to learn and how fast the sciences of consciousness are evolving. Di Biase writes his own introduction which should work fine for those who are moderately comfortable with neuroscience and quantum physics. However, Brain & Cosmos (B&C) intends to integrate other players and sport‐science fans in the ongoing enterprise of understanding and enhancing consciousness including non‐physicists like psychologists, social workers, teachers, physicians, neuroscientists and the growing numbers of ordinary human beings who are enthusiastic about understanding the evolution of science ‐ especially the science/art of consciousness ‐ its dangers and opportunities.
The paper speaks for itself. However, I would rather focus on some of the implications of Di Biase's work, which calls for a book and, or other media to be developed bringing these insights and dramatic vision to the general public. I ask some questions and invite answers from our editors and Dr. Di Biase himself.
In his own words Di Biase has structured his paper along the following lines:
"In this holoinformational cosmovision brain and universe are conceived as quantum‐ holographic‐informational systems interconnected by an instantaneous, universal, non‐ local holoinformational flux. This instantaneous holoinformational brain‐cosmos dynamics is based on three pillars of modern science:
1) Holographic neural network processing of brain systems by neuroscientist Karl Pribram 2) Quantum‐holographic theory of the universe by physicist David Bohm 3) Quantum principle of nonlocality by physicist Hiroomi Umezawa
Let's start infinitely small and see where it leads. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) project intends to allow scientists to 'see' what was happening within a tiny fraction of a second of the mother of all singularities we call the Big Bang; as well as prove the existence of the Higgs Boson (HB). The (HB) is a particle predicted by the Standard Model of quantum physics and is believed to give mass to other sub atomic particles. The (HB) has been
31
nicknamed the “God'' particle partly because giving mass to another particle can be thought of as transforming the nonmaterial to material.
Eccles proposed a philosophic construct of mind (a psychon) which he hypothesized interacts with brain dendrons (microsite bundles of nerve fibers). I think this notion can be extended to view the hypothetical psychons as a kind of bridge between the formless (intelligence imbedded in the quantum potential ‐ Big Mind?) and that which has form (individual creative imagery and thought ‐ small mind). Research has confirmed Quantum Brain Dynamics (QBD) in neural microtubules, in synapses and in the molecular organization of the cerebral spinal fluid. I propose in (NQH) that microtubules, especially in the glia, are candidates for the transmission or transduction (harvesting) of information and energy directly from the quantum field(s).
Questions: Could there be a relationship between (HB)'s and psychons? Note both psychons and (HB)'s are believed to exist in spacetime and 'beyond' spacetime dimensions ‐ probably simultaneously. Could they be two facets of the same particle (or wave)? Or could they be forerunners of a new order of entity bridging the unknown and the known, which is about to be discovered by evolving sciences of physics and consciousness? What are the implications of (HB's) and psychons re Bohm's 'Hidden Variables' and d'Espagnat's 'Veiled Realities'.
Di Biases work builds on the shoulders of giants. By skillfully synthesizing and unfolding their work, he has produced a first order creative work in its own right. Integrating the work of Pribram, Bohm, Umezawa, Amoroso, Wolfe and others Di Biase proposes "...a dynamic concept of consciousness seen as a holoinformational flux interconnecting holonomic informational Quantum Brain Dynamics (QBD) with the quantum informational holographic nature of the universe. This self ‐ organizing flux is generated by a holographic mode of neuronal information that can be optimized through practices of meditation, prayer, and other states of consciousness." This notion of (QBD) supports and enriches NQUIET Hypothesis which focuses, so far, more on the holonomic and holographic nature of thought, creative imagery and insight. Arguably, implications include the universe as a kind of mind and an infinitely subtle manifestation of consciousness. If so, then it would seem to some of us that the singularity that gave rise to the big bang had to be produced by some kind of consciousness ‐ or intelligence.
This paper supports the notion also presented in (NQH) that there is a process whereby (at least some small) truth is extracted from greater, deeper truth imbedded in the quantum potential and implied by Bohm's Hidden Variables and the Nobel Laureate, d'Espagnat's Veiled Reality. In this model the quantum potential could be the source of or a transmission medium for these 'truth packets' of information (and energy, psychons?) and may be sensed by 'antenna' (microtubules plus?). From there the information may be transduced (transformed) into holographic (holonomic?) creative imagery including felt or sensed intuitions. Further transduction could then take place into thoughts including what Bohm called 'Felts'. All of this process would be a substantial part of, yet far from, the whole of consciousness especially if we give credence to the growing perspective that separating consciousness into unconsciousness, sub consciousness or supra consciousness may not be as productive as viewing all of the orders of consciousness as necessary parts of a holodynamic process ‐ a seamless whole or continuum. An analogy might be the 32
relationship between the energy and matter that we can 'see' and measure and the mysterious, largely immeasurable, invisible and much more massive dark energy and dark matter.
One of the most radical of Di Biases ideas is the necessity for a new definition of information. He calls for "a more radical view of information for a more radical view of the fundamental nature of consciousness because the classical theory of information is unable to provide the proper connection to non‐local information and consciousness."
Question: One of the most fundamental definitions of matter is as energy traveling in a pattern. Theoretically, thought and creative insight are holonomic, maybe holographic, expressions (manifestations) of energy and information. Therefore, they must at least be an order of light. Light is not considered to be material, yet thought in this model is composed of holographic interference light patterns and therefore, are energy traveling in a pattern. Doesn't this make thought material or at least a material process ‐ potentially further clarifying the power thought has to produce material phenomena and alter reality?
Question: The Standard Model of physics asserts that light (photons) have no mass. If so, how is it that gravity bends light; and photons, as solar wind, can propel space craft and gas clouds?
Di Biase, Umezawa and others point to evidence (non locality) that at least some information is connected timelessly far exceeding the speed of light.
Question: If information is entangled with energy and configured in any kind of a pattern at all, no matter how simple, then do we not have matter (or a material process) traveling much faster than light?
Di Biase's model is pregnant with potential for contributing to my own personal 'Holy Grail' of consciousness research. Namely, how do we take what we know about consciousness now, at this stage of our science/art, and turn our insights into practical, reliable strategies for assisting ordinary human beings who are eager to improve the hour to hour, day to day quality of their own consciousness? By ordinary I do not mean average, common or mediocre, but rather human beings that have a decent heart and mind and strong motivation to enhance their consciousness.
I don't know if Di Biase is heavily experienced in biofeedback; however, I expect it would contribute mightily to his work as I understand it. Some of us involved with B&C are immersed in biofeedback (A technology of self‐knowledge and self‐regulation) and believe neurofeedback (NFB) is one of the least understood, most practical and underutilized breakthroughs in neuroscience. Di Biase's brain mapping comments about harmonious and synchronous EEG recordings being related to enhanced orders of consciousness have reinforced my notion (see NQH) that improved neurofeedback protocols may have the potential for enabling the enhancement of individual consciousness beyond what current NFB protocols are delivering.
33
I asked Dr. Di Biase if he could provide me with some words to help the general public get their arms around his paper and he wrote the following which I edited ever so slightly:
"I would say that my holoinformational model of consciousness leads to seeing our brain‐ mind consciousness as part of a universal cosmic consciousness that is a natural reflection of the quantum‐holographic organization of the cosmos. This has been expressed metaphorically for at least the last 5000 years, for instance: "As above so below" [Alchemy], "The father is inside us" [Christianity], "All that is outside is inside" [Upanishads], "As in the earth so in the heavens" [Christianity], or the beautiful Buddhist metaphor of the Castle of Indra with the gems over it reflecting each other‐ a holographic metaphor 2500 years before quantum‐holography. (I would include Emmanuel Swedenborg's "Correspondences" ‐ Ed). This universal interconnectedness could be beautifully understood as a Cosmic Quantum‐Holographic Consciousness and our consciousness as part of it. This transcends Chalmers 'hard problem', and brings to the field of science all of the transpersonal knowledge that we think of as spiritual, parapsychologic, (mediumistic?), paranormal, etc. (I think the work of both Jung and Freud can be shown to support the sentence above ‐ Ed.)
In this model we can see Science, Philosophy, Arts, Mythology, and Spiritual Traditions all included in a more complete holistic, integral and transdisciplinary new paradigm that is much vaster than the Cartesian‐Newtonian paradigm that has predominated in the last 300 years, since Descartes. (NQH integrates Nobel Laureate Fogel's "tehno‐physio" evolution which also supports Di Biase's model. Ed)
This new world vision is spiritual in the sense that it links us to our source ‐ the universe. The root of the word religion is religio (Latin) which means 'to return to the source'. This way of thinking essentially links us to our planet ecology and to the cosmos, and has embodied in it an Ethics of Reverence for Life, as developed by Nobel Laureate Albert Schweitzer. This kind of thinking is, in my opinion, the best ‐ perhaps the only way to lead our civilization to a Culture of Peace."
"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humankind is to survive." Einstein
One of the goals of the LHC project is to 'break' The Standard Model of Physics and give physicists a look; a glimpse of something deeper and more profound. Many scientists believe we are on the verge of a new physics and virtually all sciences are dramatically evolving. It is reasonable to suggest that the evolution in the sciences is reflecting and driven by evolution in humans. I propose in (NQH) that humanity is in a liminal moment. Something old (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) is dying and something new (Homo?) is being born. I suggest a good name for the new us would be Homo Resurrectio (awakening) Evolutis (profoundly affecting evolution).
If Di Biase's model turns out to be even partially correct then integration of the sciences is well served. Most leading scientists believe that integration of the sciences is of the highest priority if we intend to healthily influence our own evolution and the evolution of the planet as a whole. There are those impressed by what they know and those impressed with what they don't know. I think a new kind of consciousness scientist is emerging to 34
match the evolutionary leap in consciousness itself. Treading carefully, this kind of investigator ardently, even enthusiastically balances his own subjective first person experiences including both induced and spontaneous altered states (ASC's) and classic second and third person 'objective' investigations.
I suggest evolution is birthing scientists who love to measure what can be measured (while discovering new means of measurement); but also love that which has so far been immeasurable. Many of these scientists are in awe of and at peace with the mysteries of the immeasurable and such notions as spirit.
"All means prove but a blunt instrument if they have not behind them a living spirit". Einstein
Homo Sapiens Sapiens can be interpreted as man conscious that he is conscious. And so consciousness seeking to get back to the source of itself is now the perceived ultimate journey of science. Think about it: Consciousness is becoming conscious of itself becoming more conscious. Consciousness is learning about itself via our minds. The relationships and linkages reflects an emergence of consciousness itself unfolding itself now in our time rather than later when the evolutionary leap of Homo Sapiens Sapiens is further along. This immense process invokes a perspective in which, potentially, the long Homo Sapiens Sapiens struggle with its relatively immature (in process of evolving?) thinking function and its vulnerability to dualism is at least beginning to resolve itself. The war between science and religion (both strategies for returning to the source) may be resolving itself as coherent thought realizes it has been unnecessarily tripping itself up by dualistic thought circles.
Di Biase's paper is of an emerging order of scientific treatise which is, I believe, unfolding an order of science and technology which is ultimately a direct expression of living consciousness itself. This science is a natural product of the evolutionary leap humankind and other species are undergoing. This is what material, quantum physical and metaphysical reconciliation looks like as it happens in real time. What a show!
Strictly speaking the LHC is a 'religious' project because it is seeking to get back to the source. For example, scientists are trying to get back to the instant of the big bang and are already within a tiny fraction of a second of it. In addition, the (HB) is considered to be a particle fundamental to the creation of matter. Both the big bang singularity and the (HB) are believed to also exist in a dimension(s) beyond the spacetime continuum.
Many are wondering why the LHC has had so many strange, unpredicted, major breakdowns to date. Because the (HB) is predicted to also exist beyond the time/space continuum some respected scientists are insisting that we must consider the following: The (HB) itself may be sabotaging the LHC preventing or slowing discovery of itself at this moment in 'time'. Incredulously, some of the scientists believe the HB is pulling off this action from somewhere in the 'future'. If true, it would seem the (HB) has or is subject to some kind of consciousness or dynamic intelligence that is not restricted to linear 'time'. It could be that exploiting a 'God Particle' would surely be even in its mildest form a double‐ edged sword.
35
A few of the principles or dynamics discussed in Di Biase's paper that make it an excellent fit for Brain & Cosmos follow:
1. The principle of "as above so below" etc. must lead to many new strategies for learning about consciousness. I would add Swedenborg's 'correspondences' to Di Biase's list. 1b. Di Biase's holoinformation harmonics as confirmed by brain mapping supports old biases and current research I and others are conducting as we hunt for more effective neurofeedback strategies. 2. There is an ancient notion that "all of the body including the brain is within the mind but not all of the mind is within the body". The holonomic entanglement (enfoldment) leads to an expansion of the concept of mind perhaps all the way out to Cosmos. So learning about universe is leading to transformation and evolution of our grasp of mind. This is admittedly not a new idea but a thrilling and practical one nonetheless. 3. Spin, non‐spin and non‐locality in this model conjures visions of an incredibly sophisticated version of 1 and 0 (on/off) as an infinitely more sophisticated version of our limited, non organic contemporary computers. 4. Quotes about consciousness such as "An irreducible aspect of the universe, like space and time and mass", "... I propose that consciousness is non‐local information with a status equal to matter and energy", "... the order of the world, as a structure of things that is basically external to each other, comes as secondary and emerges from the deeper implicate order" suggest almost unlimited opportunity for doing science and developing practical applications from it. For example, (fourth dimensional) communication at velocities of at least twice the speed of light.
I could go on for at least a few more pages but this is already much more than was originally requested. This is an excellent start up paper for Brain and Cosmos. Setting a high standard Di Biase's paper plunges the journal right into fundamental issues of consciousness and astrophysics and their relationships real or imagined ... as well as the mysteries of woman. Ahh, but I digress. Or do I? Reference the Feminine Principle described in Sanskringlish ‐ Kali and her Posse. She invented zero, you know. What would we be without her?
Accepted January 2010
36
A Holoinformational Model of Consciousness
FRANCISCO DI BIASE
Albert Schweitzer University, Switzerland; World Information Distributed University and Académie Européenne D’Informatisation, Belgium; Neurosurgery Dept Clínica Di Biase, Barra do Piraí, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The author propose a quantum‐informational holographic model of brain‐consciousness‐ universe interactions based in the holonomic neural networks of Karl Pribram, in the holographic quantum theory developed by David Bohm, and in the non‐locality property of the quantum field described by Hiroomi Umezawa. I consider this model an extension of the interactive dualism of Sir John Eccles, of an interconnection between brain and spirit by means of quantum microsites named dendrons and psychons. I propose a dynamic concept of consciousness seen as a holoinformational flux interconnecting the holonomic informational quantum brain dynamics, with the quantum informational holographic nature of the universe. This self‐organizing flux is generated by the holographic mode of treatment of neuronal information and can be optimized through practices of deep meditation, prayer, and others states of higher consciousness that underlie the coherence of cerebral waves. In brain mapping studies performed during the occurrence of these harmonic states we can see the spectral array of brain waves highly synchronized and perfectly ordered like a unique harmonic wave, as if all frequencies of all neurons from all cerebral centers played the same symphony. This highly coherent brain state generates the non‐local holographic informational cortical field of consciousness that interconnect the human brain and the holographic cosmos. The comprehension of this holonomic quantum informational nature of brain‐consciousness‐universe interconnectedness allows us to solve the old mind‐matter cartesian hard problem, unifying science, philosophy, and spiritual traditions in a more transdisciplinary, holistic, integrated paradigm. In this new arrangement cosmovision, consciousness and transpersonal phenomena becomes part of Science and of the very holoinformational nature of the Holographic Conscious Multiverse.
Keywords: Consciousness, Quantum‐Holography , Quantum Information, Mind‐body problem
INTRODUCTION
Here I present a quantum‐informational holographic model of brain‐conscious‐universe interaction based on the holonomic neural network model of Karl Pribram [36‐42] and relying on the ontological interpretation of quantum theory developed by David Bohm [710], with extended nonlocal properties of the quantum field as described by Hiroomi Umezawa [43]. I consider this model an extension of the interactive dualism developed by Sir John Eccles [22‐26] and extended by Richard Amororso [1‐5] . Eccles’ idea of an interconnection between brain and spirit by means of quantum microsites named dendrons (bundles of nerve dendrites) that couple to psychons; (Eccles philosophical construct of mind that interacted with or coupled to brain dendrons) has deeply influenced the development of my conception of consciousness [15‐16‐18‐19‐45]. I propose a
37
dynamic concept of consciousness seen as a holoinformational flux interconnecting holonomic informational Quantum Brain Dynamics (QBD) [18‐20], with the quantum informational holographic nature of the universe [21]. This self‐organizing flux is generated by a holographic mode of neuronal information that can be optimized through practices of deep meditation, prayer, and other states of higher consciousness. The quantum potential in Bohm’s ontological interpretation of quantum theory is a guidance principle (called the pilot wave by de Broglie) and was introduced to ‘steer’ evolution of the wave function. of which may effect the coherence of cerebral waves [16‐19].
Brain mapping studies performed during the occurrence of these harmonic states have shown a highly synchronized and perfectly ordered spectral array of brain waves that form unique harmonic waves, as if all frequencies of all neurons from all cerebral centers played the same symphony. This highly coherent brain state generates the nonlocal holographic informational cortical field of consciousness interconnecting the human brain and the holographic cosmos [10]. The comprehension of this holonomic quantum informational nature of brain‐consciousness‐universe interconnectedness allows us to solve the historic mind‐matter Cartesian hard problem [11‐13‐5], unifying science, philosophy, and spiritual traditions in an expanded transdisciplinary, holistic, paradigm. In this new cosmovision, consciousness and transpersonal phenomena becomes parts of science and of the very holoinformational nature of the universe [5].
In this holoinformational cosmovision brain and universe are conceived as quantum‐ holographic‐informational systems interconnected by an instantaneous universal nonlocal holoinformational flux. This instantaneous holoinformational brain‐cosmos dynamics is based on three pillars of modern science:
1) Holographic neural network processing of brain systems by Karl Pribram [36‐42]. 2) Quantum‐holographic theory of the universe by David Bohm [8‐10]. 3) Quantum principle of nonlocality by Hiroomi Umezawa,[44].
For a more comprehensive exposition of my text I am going initially to define the terms nonlocality and holographic.
Nonlocality is a fundamental property of the universe, proved to exist at the quantum and macroscopic level, responsible for instantaneous interactions between all cosmic phenomena ‐ a mathematical consequence of Umezawa’s Quantum Field Theory [43] that unifies the electromagnetic, nuclear and gravitational fields in a subjacent indivisible totality.
Quantum Field Theory explains all subatomic, atomic, microscopic and even macroscopic phenomena, as well as superconductivity and lasers; and is considered the most fundamental physical theory of the universe. Besides being mathematically similar to the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, the quantum field doesn’t exist physically in 3D spacetime giving rise to its peculiar nonlocal property. As a nonlocal phenomenon it influences instantaneously all others regions of spacetime, without necessity of any change of energy.
38
According to classical and relativistic physics, nonlocal phenomena do not exist. This theoretical impossibility generated the famous Einstein‐Bohr controversy and the celebrated Einstein‐Podolski‐Rosen (EPR) Paradox. Einstein and his associates wouldn’t admit that quanta or information could travel faster than light and created a thought experiment to demonstrate that quantum physics was therefore incomplete. But contrary to their initial proposition, the existence of nonlocality has been dramatically and convincingly proven to exist in modern physics experiments. According to Bohr, if an atom simultaneously emits two opposite spin particles, and if we alter the spin of one, even if they are separated by an enormous distance (for instance, one in a lab on Earth and the second on the other side of the galaxy), the spin of the second is instantaneously modified..
In 1982, French physicist Alain Aspect [6], clearly demonstrated the existence of this instantaneous nonlocal action between two photons emitted by one atom. More recently Gisin [27] and coworkers proved the existence of instantaneous nonlocal quantum actions in macroscopic scale. This faster‐than‐light communication unveiled a holistic nonlocal quantum‐informational interaction between all particles in the universe.
Holographic systems are systems that can generate three‐dimensional virtual images. The virtual image or hologram is created when a laser falls upon an object and reflects on a plate and a second laser or rectilinear reflected beam falls on this plate generating a mix of the waves from the two beams. This wave interference pattern stores all the information about the form and volume of the object, and when it is reflected it generates a three‐ dimensional image of the object in space. The relevancy for us is that we can prove mathematically and experimentally that in holographic systems, information about the whole system is distributed in each part of the system. If we break the holographic plate, each part of it will display the entire three‐dimensional image of the object in space, showing us that in holographic systems the whole is in the parts as each part is in the whole.
These holographic transformations form spacetime order from a spectral dimension of frequencies the description of which is dependent on the pioneering mathematical formulations first described by a concept called monads developed by Leibniz. In the Twentieth Century Dennis Gabor described the mathematical principles of holography, winning him a Nobel Prize. The mathematical formulations that describe the harmonic curve resulting from the interference pattern of waves are called Fourier transformations, after the 18th century French mathematician that described it. Gabor applied Fourier transformations to the creation of the hologram showing how Fourier transforms of the interference pattern can be used to rebuild the virtual image of the object by the application of the inverse process. Gabor showed that from a dimension of frequencies objects in spacetime can be rebuilt in a virtual form!!
HOLOGRAPHIC NEURAL NETWORKS FIELDS
Karl Pribram has demonstrated with his holonomic theory of brain dynamics that the cerebral cortex is the site of a holographic information process he calls a multiplex neural hologram that is dependent on local circuits of neurons without long fibers that do not transmit ordinary nervous impulses. “These neurons function in the undulatory(?) mode and are above all responsible by the horizontal layer connections of the neural tissue 39
where holographic interference patterns can be built” [41]. Pribram presents evidences that at the level of conscious experience, information processing in the brain is basically Gabor‐like, rather than binary (as in Shannon’s information measurement theory). He shows that the process takes place in a phase space created by a multiply interconnected web of teledendrons, synapses and dendrites, called synaptodendritic web.
The neural hologram is build by the interaction of the electromagnetic fields of the neurons similarly to the interaction of sound waves in a piano. When a piano is played, the keys strike the strings generating a vibrational standing wave between the two ends of the string, creating an interference pattern (This interference can be destructive or constructive). Nodes of constructive interference, of these sound frequencies, create the harmony or harmonics that are the notes making up the music we listen to. Pribram has demonstrated that a similar process is continuously occurring in the cerebral cortex by means of the interpenetration of the electromagnetic fields of the adjacent cortical neurons, generating a harmonic field. According to Pribram’s model his harmonic electromagnetic field distributed in the cerebral cortex, holographically stores and encodes a huge information field responsible for the emergence of memory and consciousness. As the music is not in the piano but in the resonating field that surrounds it, so our memories and consciousness are not in the brain, but in the holographic information field that surrounds it.
Pribram’s neural wave equation [41] describing holographic neural network processing is similar to the Schrödinger wave equation of quantum theory with the addition of the de Broglie‐Bohm Quantum Potential. This is not coincidental and opens the possibility of holographic interaction between receptive fields in the cortex with the holographic quantum universe described by David Bohm. This new holographic paradigm allows us to rethink the manner in which information processing occurs in the nervous system. In this context, Pribram’s quantum holonomic theory of brain function is one of the most brilliant and revolutionary contribution to neuroscience in the 100 years since the initial studies of Sherington!
INFORMATION
The notion of information implies a certain ambiguity, meaning the bit capacity of a physical system (Shannon), or the semantic content (meaning) conducted by the bits during a communication. In the information theory, the organization, the order expressed by the amount of information in the system (Shannon’s H function) is the information measure that is missing to us, the uncertainty about the system The classical theory of information situated at the level of “bit capacity”, is unable to provide the proper connection to non‐local information and consciousness[14] . So we need a more radical view of information for a more radical view of the fundamental nature of consciousness.
NONLOCAL QUANTUM INFORMATION
40
According to Bohm, De Broglie’s model is a new type of field, which activity is dependent upon the information content that is conducted to the whole experimental field. Adding to its equations a Quantum Potential that satisfies Schrödinger’s equation, that depends on the form but not on the amplitude of the wave function, Bohm developed a model in which this quantum potential, carries “active information” that “guides” the particle along its way. This quantum potential is subtle in its form and does not decay with the distance.
INFORMATION PHYSICS
Developed by Wojciech Zureck [47] and others, propose that the physical entropy would be a combination of two magnitudes that compensate each other:
1‐the observer’s ignorance, measured by Shannon’s statistical entropy
2‐ The disorder degree of the observed system, measured by the algorithmic entropy which is the smallest number of bits needed to register it in the memory.
During the measurement, the observer’s ignorance is reduced, as a result of the increase in bit numbers in its memory, remaining, however constant the sum of these two magnitudes, that is, the physical entropy.
QUANTUM INFORMATIONAL VIEW OF THE UNIVERSE
In this informational view of the universe the observer remains included as part of the system, and the quantum universe changes because the observer’s mind unleashed a transfer of information at a subatomic level. This informational view of the universe shows us the necessity of a Law of Conservation of Information as well as or more fundamental than the law of conservation of energy. Stonier[43] states that: Information is the cosmical organizational principle with a “status” equal to matter and energy. In another paper [18], I defined information as “an intrinsic, irreducible and non‐local, property of the universe, capable of generate order, self‐ organization and complexity” Chalmers [11‐12], also defines consciousness as “an irreducible aspect of the universe, like space and time and mass”.
Based on these implications of the quantum informational view of the universe, I propose that consciousness is non‐local information with a status equal to matter and energy.
THE HOLOGRAPHIC MULTIVERSE
The mathematical formulations that describe the harmonic slope resulting from wave interference are Fourier transformations that Dennis Gabor applied to the development of the hologram, enriching it by the application of the inverse process, a model in which the interference pattern rebuilds the object in a virtual image. In other words, from the spectral dimension of frequency one can reconstruct mathematically and experimentally the object in spacetime dimensions!
This holographic organization mode is also what Bohm applied to quantum theory to develop his holographic quantum theory of the universe. In Bohm’s universe model, space 41
and time are mixed, “folded” into a dimension of frequencies that is an implicit hidden order without spacetime relations. In this field of frequencies dimensional fluctuations occur, more intense “undulations” like holographic patterns, to build a spacetime dimension[34]. This explicit order is our manifest universe. According to Bohm [8]:
“In the implicate order everything is folded into everything. But it’s important to note here that the whole universe, is in principle enfolded into each part actively through the holomovement, as well as the parts. Now this means that the dynamic activity‐internal and external‐ which is fundamental for what each part is, is based on its enfoldment of all the rest, including the whole universe. But of course, each part may unfold others in different degrees and ways. That is, they are not all enfolded equally in each part. But the basic principle of enfoldment in the whole, is not thereby denied. Therefore, enfoldment is not merely superficial or passive but, I emphasize again, that each part is in a fundamental sense internally related in its basic activities to the whole and to all the other parts. The mechanistic idea of external relation as fundamental, is therefore denied. Of course such relationships are still considered to be real, but of secondary significance. That is, we can get approximations to a mechanistic behavior out of this. That is to say, the order of the world, as a structure of things that is basically external to each other, comes as secondary and emerges from the deeper implicate order”.
TOWARDS A HOLOINFORMATIONAL THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS
Experimental research developed by Pribram and other consciousness researchers like Hameroff [28] and Penrose [29], Jibu and Yassue [32], confirm the existence of a Quantum Brain Dynamics in neural microtubules, in synapses and in the molecular organization of the cerebrospinal fluid. This Quantum Brain Dynamics can generate Bose‐ Einstein condensates and the Fröhlich Effect. Bose‐Einstein condensates consist of atomic particles, or in the case of the Fröhlich Effect biological molecules, that can assume a high level of coherent alignment, functioning as a highly ordered and unified informational state, as seen in lasers and superconductivity. These quantum dynamics show us that the interaction process between dendrons and psychons, described by Eccles, are not limited to the synaptic cleft, as stated by Eccles, but a much wider embodiment throughout the whole brain. . Psychons are presumed to operate on synapses by way of quantum processes.
Pribram [39] demonstrates good evidence that Eccles' dendrons make up receptive fields in cortical sensory units. Dendrons are composed of pre‐synaptic teledendrons, synapses and post‐synaptic dendrites. They compose the fine fiber structure wherein brain processing occurs. As Pribram states[39], “as sensory generated receptive fields they can be mapped in terms of wavelets, or wavelet‐like patterns such as Gabor Elementary Functions. Dennis Gabor (1946) called these units Quanta of Information. The reason for this name is that Gabor used the same mathematics to describe his units as had Heisenberg in describing the units of quantum microphysics. Here they define the unit structure of processes occurring in the material brain”.
Like Pribram , I see this quantum holographic interactions not as a contradiction but as a natural extension of Eccles ideas[22‐23‐26‐35].
42
I expanded my conjecture that the interconnectedness between brain and cosmos is an instantaneous nonlocal connection and to the concept of a holoinformational flux, from which both mind and matter are in‐formed, that resembles Bohm’s holomovement. However, in this new concept, quantum holographic brain dynamic patterns are conceived as an active part of the universal quantum‐holographic informational field, and capable of generating an informational field interconnection that is simultaneously nonlocal (quantumholistic) and local (Newtonian‐mechanistic), i.e., holoinformational. Taking yet in consideration the basic mathematical property of holographic systems in which the information of the whole system is distributed in each part of the system, plus Bohm’s holographic quantum physics data, and the experimental data of the holonomic theory of Pribram, we propose that this universal interconnectedness[33] could permit us to access all the information [18‐20‐21] codified in the wave interference patterns existing in all the universe since its origin. The quantum‐holoinformational nature of the universe interconnects each part, each brain‐consciousness, with all the information stored in the holographic patterns distributed in the whole cosmos, in an indivisible irreducible informational cosmic unity [10‐21‐46‐47].
As a consciousness exercise, analogous to Einstein’s thought experiments, we could compare this universal informational interconnectedness with the following metaphoric quotations from various spiritual traditions: “As above so below” (Alchemy). “All that is outside is inside” (Upanishads). “The father is inside us” (Christianity). “As in the earth so in the heavens” (Christianity). This universal interconnectedness could be perfectly understood as a Cosmic Holographic Consciousness. Consciousness in this conception is the holoinformational non‐local flux that permits the interaction of the Holonomic Informational Quantum Brain Dynamics ‐ that we can consider as Eccles’s extended dendrons ‐ with the quantum‐holographic nature of the universe, which we can view as an extended cosmic psychon. As I have already put Pribram states, that as sensory receptive fields dendrons can be mapped in terms of Gabor’s Elementary Functions or wavelet‐like patterns, and Gabor called these unities Quanta of Information, because he used the same mathematics to describe it as Heisenberg did in describing units of quantum physics. Yet Pribram shows:
They define the unit structure of processes occurring in the material brain. However, Gabor invented his function, not to describe brain processes, but to find the maximum compressibility of a telephone message that could be sent over the Atlantic Cable without destroying its intelligibility. The Gabor function thus describes both a unit of brain processing and a unit of communication. Brain is material, communication is mental. The same mathematical formulation describes both. The elementary structure of processing in Eccles material dendron is identical to the elementary structure of processing of a mental (communication) psychon. There is a structural identity to the dual interactive process [3]. Richard Amoroso, creator of Noetic Field Theory [1‐2‐5], tells us that “Consciousness pervades atoms, is the organizing power deeper than gravitation (unitary field), that frames the universe, causes gravitation, and the flux or élan vital which gives life and is the ‘light of the mind’... this basic holistic framework incorporates the implicate and explicate order described by Bohm” [23‐24]. This noetic definition of consciousness is as radical as our holoinformational consciousness, and I think we are saying the same thing with different approaches.
43
TRANSPERSONAL STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS AS HIGHLY SYNCHRONIZED HARMONIC BRAIN STATE
Through practices of deep meditation, prayer, and others states of higher consciousness that elevates the coherence of cerebral waves, this universal interconnectedness becomes expanded by synchronizing the functioning of the cerebral hemispheres and unleashing a highly coherent brain state that optimizes the holographic treatment of neuronal information. In brain mapping studies this highly synchronized harmonic state shows brain waves highly synchronized and perfectly ordered, in a unique harmonic wave, as if all frequencies of all neurons from all cerebral centers played the same symphony. In my concept this highly harmonic synchronized state generates a nonlocal holographic informational cortical field creating a holoinformational flux of consciousness interconnecting the human mind with the Holographic Cosmic Consciousness. A survey of these electroencephalographic and clinical studies can be found in my Portuguese books [16‐17‐19], and the mathematics of it can be view in a recent paper I published with Richard Amoroso, we presented in Belgium [21].
REFERENCES
1‐Amoroso, R.L (1999) An introduction to noetic field theory: The quantization of mind, The Noetic J 2:1, pp. 28‐37. 2‐Amoroso, R.L, (2000) Consciousness, a radical definition: Substance dualism solves the hard problem, In Amoroso, (ed.), Pribram,K.H., et al., Science and the Primacy of Consciousness, Orinda: Noetic Press. 3‐Amoroso, R.L. (2003) The Fundamental Limit and Origin of Biological Systems, Noetic Journal 4:1; 24‐32. 4‐Amoroso, R.L. (2003b) The physical basis of qualia: … Noetic Journal 4, 212‐230. 5‐Amoroso, R.L. et.al., (ed) (2000) Pribram, K., Grof, S., Sheldrake R., Goswami, A., Di Biase, F., Science and the Primacy of Consciousness, Orinda: Noetic Press. 6‐Aspect, A., et al. (1982) Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460; 1982, Phys. Rev. Lett 49, 91; (1982) Phys. Rev. Lett 49, 1804. 7‐Bohm.D. (1983) Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge, New York 8‐Bohm, D. (1987) Unfolding Meaning, a weekend of dialogue with David Bohm.ARK, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. 9‐Bohm, D., and Peat, F.D. (1987) Science Order, and Creativity, New York:Bantam 10‐Bohm, D., & Hiley, B.J. (1993) The Undivided Universe, London: Routledge. 11‐Chalmers, D.J. (1995a) Facing up to the problem of consciousness, J Consciousness Studies, 2:3, 200‐19. 12‐Chalmers, D.J. (1995b) The puzzle of conscious experience, Scientific American,December. 13‐Chalmers, D.J. (1996) The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory, New York: Oxford Univ. Press. 14‐Clarke C.J.S. (1995) The Nonlocality of Mind, J Consciousness Studies, 2:3, 231‐240 15‐Di Biase, F. (1981) Auto‐organização nos sistemas biológicos, Ciência e Cult., 339: 1155‐1159, Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência. 16‐Di Biase, F. (1995) O Homem Holístico, a Unidade Mente‐Natureza, Rio de Janeiro: Editora Vozes. 17‐Di Biase, F. & Rocha, M.S. (1998) Caminhos da Cura, Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro:Editora Vozes. 18‐Di Biase, F.,& Rocha, M.S. (2000) Information SelfOrganization and Consciousness: … In Amoroso RL et al, (eds.) Science and the Primacy of Consciousness:Intimation of a 21st Century Revolution, Oakland: Noetic Press 19‐Di Biase, F. & Rocha, M.S. (2004) Ciência Espiritualidade e CuraPsicologiaTranspessoal e Ciências Holísticas, Rio : Editora Qualitymark. 20‐Di Biase, F., Amoroso, R.L (eds.) (2005) A Revolução da Consciência. Novas Descobertas sobre a Mente no Século XXI. Editora Vozes, Rio, Brasil. 21‐Di Biase, F.,Amoroso, R.L., Holoinformational Consciousness: An Extension of Interactive Dualism with Antecipatory Parameters. International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, 22, 2008, D.M. Dubois (ed), CHAOS, Liège, Belgium. 22‐ Eccles, J.C. (1952) The Neurophysiological Basis of Mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 23‐Eccles, J.C. (1989) A unitary hypothesis of mind‐brain interaction …, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 240, pp. 433‐451. 24‐Eccles, J.C. (1993) Evolution of Complexity of the Brain with the Emergence of Consciousness, In Pribram, K. (ed.) Rethinking Neural Networks: Quantum Fields and Biological Data, Manwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. 25‐Eccles, J.C. (1994) Evolution du Cerveau et Création de la Conscience, ch. 8.8 Une nouvelle hypothèse sur l’interaction esprit/cerveau à partir de la physique quantique: l’hypothèse des micro‐sites, Flammarion, Paris. 26‐Eccles, J.C. (1998) Do mental events cause neural events analogously to the probability fields ofquantum mechanics? Proc R Soc Lond [Biol] 227:411‐28. 27‐Gisin, N. et al. (1997) Science, vol. 277, pg 481.
44
28‐Hameroff, S. R. (1994) Quantum Coherence In Microtubules: A Neural Basis For Emergent Consciousness?, J of Consciousness Studies, 1, No.1,Summer 29‐Hameroff, S.R., & Penrose R. (1996) Orchestrated Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules…: The 1st Tucson Discussions and Debates, S.R. Hameroff, A.W. Kaszniak, & A.C. Scott, (eds.), Cambridge: MIT Univ. Press. 30‐Jantsch, E. (1984) The Self‐Organizing Universe, New York: Pergamon. 31‐Jibu, M., Yasue, K. (1993) The Basics of Quantum Brain Dynamics, in Pribram, K. (ed.) Rethinking Neural Networks: Quantum Fields & Biological Data, Manwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. 32‐Jibu, M. & Yasue, K. (1995) Quantum Brain Dynamics and Consciousness, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 33‐Laszlo, E. (2003) The Connectivity Hypothesis, N.Y: State Univ. New York Press. 34‐Peat, D. (1987) Synchronicity, the bridge between matter and mind, New York: Bantam. 35‐Popper, K.R. & Eccles, J.C. (1977) The Self and Its Brain, Berlin: SpringerVerlag. 36‐Pribram, K. (1969) The Neurophysiology of Remembering, Scientific American 220, Jan. 37‐Pribram, K. (1977) Languages of the Brain, Monterey, Calif., Wadsworth Publishing. 38‐Pribram, K. (1980) Esprit cerveau et conscience, in Science et Conscience, les deux lectures de l’univers. Stock , Paris. 39‐ Pribram, K.H. (1991) Brain and Perception: Holonomy and Structure in Figural Processing, Hilsdale: Erlbaum. 40‐Pribram, K. (1997a) In Memoriam: Sir John Eccles, The Noetic Journal, Vol. 1, June, pp 2‐5. Noetic Press, Orinda. 41‐Pribram, K. Ed. (1993) Rethinking Neural Networks: Quantum Fields and Biological Data, Hillsdale: LEA 42‐ Pribram, K. (1997b) What is Mind that the Brain May Order It?, The Noetic Journal, Vol.1,p72 43‐Umezawa, H (1993) Advanced Field Theory, New York: AIP Press. 44‐Varela, F.G., Maturana, H.R. & Uribe, R. (1974) Autopoiesis… BioSystems, 5, 187‐196. 45‐Wheeler, J. (1990) Information, Physics, Quantum: …, Wojciech H. & Zurek (eds) Reading: Addison‐Wesley. 46‐Zurek,W.H.,ed. (1990) Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information. Santa Fé Institute Studies in the Science of Complexity, Vol.8, Redwood City: Addison‐Wesley.
Accepted January 2010
EDITORIAL INFORMATION www.brainandcosmos.com
Brain and Cosmos Editors • Moninder Singh Modgil PhD, Editor in Chief • Adam Crane, Senior Philosopher • David A Kaiser MFA • Michael J Bier PhD • Al Collins, PhD • Tom Collura PhD • Nicholas Dogris PhD • Dick Stark MD • Brandall Y Suyenobu PhD • Nicole Metallo, Managing Editor (for this issue only)
Brain and Cosmos addresses principles common to physics, neuroscience, and philosophy. Articles are written for an educated audience, with editorial commentary and other guides. (ISSN 2150-2714)
Published by Kaiser Academy © 2011
45
46