Why Magnetic Bubbles May Be Useful as Cheap Dyson Spheres For a Vast Energy Resource And May Have Use Against Global Warming and The CME Issue

There are those who believe that we might one day use the power of hurricanes instead of them  causing devastation to power our machines..

Another possibility is that our future civilization may use the power of the sun, as with the hurricane method using fans as in computer simulations that find it possible to actually collect power with wind turbines while also deflecting the storm from the shore at the same time..  National Geographic this month in an article about the search for life elsewhere says many advanced civilizations  might build a Dyson Sphere, a sphere that would collect enough power in 1 second to meet demand at our current rate for a million years.

  I was always mostly skeptical of a Dyson Sphere due to the huge cost of materials. Reduced machines have been imagined that would  i.e. be on the further side of an advanced world  and there would be mirrors on the side away from the star or suns light and it would reflect to power that super world, us, well sure hope so. Here too the cost of materials would be huge. Consider that even building an orbital elevator would be hugely larger than anything humans have ever built, costing trillions, this for essentially a mere wire to orbit.

 So I've always thought the Dyson sphere idea wouldn't mostly be of worth.

 Even so I believe magnetic bubbles, bubbles powered by magnets that act like a solar sail for spacecraft might be of value to us or advanced civilizations like us, sure hope they do! As the spacecraft with the bubble sail on sail save up, right as it gets further away from the sun it radiates out and this adds more area to propel it so it takes no extra power to move the starcraft and  higher speed even at more distance. I wrote a condensed history about Canada, if all there is is up!

  Here I want to consider using the magnetic bubbles as a Dyson Sphere. I envision using say three magnetic bubbles to start. A major problem as I say about the Dyson Sphere plan as I say has always been about materials, they would take huge amounts, more than all the planets in an advanced world's star system might have available. One reason would be because of the cost of the surface collectors. The other cost of materials would be for the large tensile strength to hold the sphere of the collectors from radiating out against the radiation pressure. I think magnetic bubbles might be a real solution. Each bubble has a  North and South pole so these will attract from a distance as a tube of the North and South connecting the band, the more radiance outward the stronger the connection for the first band of the magnetic bubbles all the way around the sun. And this would solve the problem of strength of materials. The magnetic bubbles would radiate out for a huge collector surface area for the cost and far cheaper than using something like mirrors and far cheaper to deploy than a continuous solid band of collectors. On this site "How Dyson Spheres Work" Click Here or See Link Below Nathan Chandler discusses about how lasers fizzle out power in just a few miles so I think we could use a bridge of tubes of the bubbles to connect up to the bubbles. Another problem as in the site is about centering the sun. The much smaller mass and the spin of the magnetic fields of the bubbles would stabilize it well, and much more binding energy for the cost would make it more stable and thus feasible. As on the link we could add more and more magnetic bubbles paying for the cost as we go. We could build these around the Earth in a small band or nearer than a large band around the sun as a trail method to shield from the sun first since it's been found in studies that the Earth's magnetic field has weakened about 10% in the last 150 years. 

The tensile strength of the band powered by the sun always has to be more than the energy collected.

The light would still reach us if the bubbles are much smaller than the sun. The bubbles could precess around and the light and heat would always reach us. We could dim the bubbles and shield the collector area while the small bands would connect if there were more bubbles like a sphere and we would want continuous heat and light from the sun. Even so the Dyson band would perhaps be useful to reduce global warming in the times ahead. (As I say on my videos about the Maunder Minimum when the sun cooled about 200 years ago I think global warming is mostly caused by damping of Jupiter's field changing the heat of the sun by magnetic resonance. Jupiter has a much stronger magnetic field than the sun. Thus the global change is caused mostly by changes in the sun's radiation, modified as in the sunspot cycle itself by Jupiter's complete 22 year precession of Io the super sulphur satellite that precesses above and below the ecliptic in almost the 11 year period of Jupiter yet with a complete 22 year cycle. So the weather changes may be caused generally by the sun, and modulated not caused merely by dust from our industrial  activities. So by changing the sun's output to us by Dyson Bands, we may have no problem with global warming. Click here or see my cloned link below. Note that if we change the output of heat, we can easily tune the temperature and reverse this or even use it to send more heat and light say to the arctic than the tropics. Other methods would not be reversable or nearly as cheap; we get out power for a relatively small input of our money. )

 The bubbles only mostly collect heat. Magnetic fields only bend light when thay are filled with gas, so I envision collecting part of the solar wind into the bubbles for more power in reach.

 As with the hurricane power idea, collecting power from the CME plasmas that may otherwise wreak havoc on the power grid and internet for years may be used for power for us not against us.

Some have proposed putting a band of iron around Mars because of radioactivity to shield Mars from the cosmic rays and the solar wind, a big problem for Mars colonization. A band of magnetic bubbles might be much cheaper and easier to build and it would also collect more solar power from a larger area than the surface of mars, useful to send down heat to the Mars dwellers.

Finally I want to say in the search for intelligent life elsewhere, this type of Dyson Sphere may be more common, so we might want to look for the signature of a nonoptical Dyson Sphere of this type in our search for ET. This might be cheaper to find than via light telescopes.

 I have to go now, my browser is about to go to the floppy above, I usually am ready for it to go down on Mondays so I'm aware of what it was in 2010!

My Video; Ice ages and The Maunder Minimum, Click Here.. 

Site of Interest, How Dyson Spheres Work, Nathan Chandler. 

How does Consciousness Arise, And Where is Consciousness in The Brain? Perhaps "Neural Intelligence By Coding" NIBC

 Some researchers who have devised Integrative Intelligence Theory "IIT" believe that we will never build a machine with consciousness because we have something about our brain that is special.. others hold that there is no consciousness just neurons and atoms, like the ancient Greeks who believed there were just atoms in the void.

 Others believe consciousness arises in the brain such as that it's an upwelling of probability brain waves that reaches a consensus and only then does it become conscious. While I think this is too simple for a complete solution as I'll say here, I believe a more accurate use of this idea in combination with GWA General Workspace Availability may be of value  in explaining the special aspect of consciousness about how long term memories are entered into the conscious workspace of short term memory. GWA involves the idea that only when information inters in a general area, of access like the monitor of your PC is it then available for use by the rest of the brain.

 Note that my idea in this post about some structures in the brain and my description of consciousness has all the features of a news reporting method, this is because of the way that computers are simple and they are with finding, storing, and processing information. Even so it seems to me the main extra features other life in evolution hasn't had are about the sideways branching of the neurons of the higher areas. Our neurons are the same as the neurons of a cat we have more of them and so we have more sideways branching of the neurons of higher-level. So we are special, yes cats are special also!

 First here are some of the brain areas essential to the "news reporting" description of basic computation and why I believe it's not the same as higher consciousness.

And They're Off! The "Horsefield" or Hippocampus

The Hippocampus an area of the brain named for the Latin for horsefield (the shoe must go on as they used to say in 1970 BC!)This is a basic area of the brain where new memories are formed and in my belief this is where consciousness starts. Without new memories not as much is possible.

When new memories aren't formed in the hippocampus by no new neurons with laboratory mice they act anxious and this is one reason to believe the hippocampus is a highway valuable to consciousness. As the old saying goes you can't run a mill with water that is past. When a drug is given to mice that restarts the neurogenesis in the hippocampus the signs of anxiety are reduced.

THE LEFT DORSOLATERAL PREFRONTAL CORTEX (LDLPFC)

This is an area above the left eye that lights up on and off and becomes more active in severe depression and it's also believed to be where short-term memory lives in the brain. For reasons you can see on my YouTube videos Encyclopedia Comp Video about some of these ideas I believe that in depression since the brain is more slowed down in general, the LDLPFC is anomalously
fast in severe depression because unlike the long term memory, short term memory is more limited so it's a smaller structure. It's fast in severe depression yet depression tends to be slowed down in general and the cause might be it's like the tail wagging the dog trying to start up the energy of the brain since the rest of the brain is slowed down in depression.

 Since the LDLPFC is a smaller structure we might think of it rather like the spark plug of the brain, a computational engine. I think of it like a librarian in a library with an index who's researching the A to Z index which is relatively simple in order to try to load those documents which are the archival memory in the rest of the brain. To the depressed brain this might seem to be the simplest method of restarting the energy of the brain since it would have lower energy cost to operate and so it would seem to be one of the easiest ways to revive from depression if the brain was depressed as in the uncommon event of this in evolution. (While research shows disease was virtually absent in living evolution our ancient lives were truly poor in economy and
like life today it had both bad and good, not a paradise or more uncomfort than always dying at the end.. Some say life is what happens to us while making other plans. Not if our plans are good enough!) In general in severe depression the brain is slowed down so while the short term memory goes through the a to z even so there the long-term memory would seem to more difficult to load in depression.

 LONG TERM MEMORY

Believe it or not, every neuron has all the memory of the entire brain as was proven in the 1920s with research with mice. When they slice the neuron smaller and smaller the mouse still has all the memory of the round wheel of cheese! Memory is stored in the entire brain..This was the basis of Karl Pribram's famous idea of the 1970s, the holographic mind. Like a hologram each part of the brain has all the entire image of the idea.

THE BOSTON BRUINS, NO THE BOSS NEURONS, I'M SERIOUS!

  You don't want to argue with these although they maybe more like the world's nicest boss, and then after all you are the boss what else!

  These are called the boss neurons and only about 20,000 of them are found in a healthy brain.

 At first I thought, right control these boss neurons, control the brain, be your own boss, yet we read about how taxing the rich won't make enough money to spread all around to most so soaking the rich won't work where the suds won't rub off on most. Research shows there simply aren't enough rich people. The employees do most of the work not the bosses so I originally thought that this couldn't be, so that the boss neurons couldn't be that important. Instead I imagined  that they would go back and forth in cycles like many processes and evolution including evolution itself where you have alternation between the the boss and the employees and cycles rather like business cycles to compute. I was thinking it might somehow be possible to speed up this back and forth evolution to train the brain like for boosting intelligence.

THE CEREBRAL CORTEX

  As above and as has been proven, the cerebral cortex is where the higher levels of consciousness are found. I believe this is about the sideways branching and why I believe in contrast with IIT as above I think we'll be able to build conscious machines.

 Once the memories are recorded by the hippocampus like the live reporter on site and then sent to the news office, the working memory area, there the short term memory is aware, and from the Working Memory the information is sent to the long term memory with the storage process also involving more than the action reaction pairs between the short term and long term memory. Obviously action reaction pairs alone are not conscious. A balancing beam isn't going to win a Nobel prize or write a poem about opthamology. With enough loops of back and forth it might have some aspects of consciousness but without the higher brilliant insight so many of us have, I realize you know so much!

  Consider a math calculator. It has the entry area where you type in it has the short-term area where you read it it has long term memory, some of them even has higher functions like computation or spell wright! Yet it isn't conscious.

  We suspect the cortex has some sort of higher aspect of computation about the long and short term memory as it goes back and forth with the brain waves between them. So this has more to do with the cortex, and I believe this is about the branching of the neurons in the cortex at an angle. Branching gives them just the right frequency to represent what the thought is.

 And the cortex with the more complex sideways branching has three advantages;

 Coding of the memory so it's stored well and presented to the newsroom working memory area in a more recognizable way like by trained memory or comedy methods in its highest form in the a to z. Think of a librarian reading the A-Z index laughing a lot with lots of these more memorable codes.

  This would be one reason we celebrate real learning, amused and amazed by our own brilliance

 Second the sideways branching allows precision of the memory, that is to say by just the right frequency of the image it represents the thing remembered with higher resolution. This is where super feats like a real artist who paints with high resolution, or the savant playing a tune or memorizing math well.



 THE SOURCE in my belief is that by branching sideways, with the advantages coding and precision allow, if these are not yet conscious even while headed that way, I believe the ultimate cause of consciousness is in the same sideways branching of the cortex. The cause is in the higher power leaps the sideways branching allows. Not even refinement of sensation by the back and forth action reaction, not even lots of memory, or even coding may be a match for this.

This quantum leap area of the sideways branching allows summations at higher speed by way of leaps, ways to see what events that seem unalike have in common. In a real sense, as the branching allows the higher levels of memory, like the real memory painter or musician the opposite would seem to be the creative leap, these two sides of the branching would seem to be the action reaction pairs of the cortex. These would be two aspects of the higher consciousness and this wouldn't be coincidence since both would have the one cause, with superior coding, the sideways branching of the neurons of the cortex.


Next I want to discuss the two or three ideas about what consciousness is that are currently being considered as you see in the scientific American article CLICK HERE or see link below. The first idea is what's called GWA General Workspace Availability.  The essence of this idea seems to be that as a way of operation the memory is loaded into a short term memory area and then once it's available like a workspace it's distributed to the other areas of the brain or the computer. Once available the information becomes consciousness so would seem simple if this is all there is to it so a machine like a computer could have consciousness. The rest of GWA involves the back and forth brainwaves, no not sloshing that goes on after the information is loaded to working memory! This seems to be part of GWA a sort of add on that isn't a prediction of it. Actually GWA is about consciousness in general like other life and our life also, and the general goal of my post is to say about higher consciousness, in particular can we make a conscious machine, and how the brain may be so. GWA is also based on the all or nothing neural events. If a stimulus starts and remains unconcious, because the brain wave hasn't "rocked the arena" so it isn't registered in the Working Memory the event remains unconcious. Yet with a conscious event there is more than enough of the brain wave to reach the Working memory area, and it's deja vu, reold my subscription with the old world station!

 This would seem to be the major claim of GWA, and processing by other general methods like the branching wouldn't seem to follow from GWA if consciousness is both more general than Working Memory being found all around us and also something more than Working Memory if higher consciousness is also. Einstein said evidence of deeper truths are all around us if we look.

   So a distinction of my idea from GWA may be about the unconscious brain waves. Rudy Rucker, author of the book "Infinity and The Mind" who asked, how real is a dream you dreamed and forgot, might remember both MRI in our own way. So if my theory, Neural Intelligence By Coding Angle NIBCA is true, even these unconscious waves Rucker may have been unaware of may have influence on our behaviour.

The second major idea now being considered is called Integrated Information Theory, IIT.

  IIT holds that in essence consciousness is something special about us and this would explain why simple structures of the brain like the cerebellum or little brain (which has far more neurons that the rest of the brain yet simple wiring) don't have much influence on behaviour if they are damaged or removed, because they have more simple parallel wiring not special wiring only the higher levels will allow, something not found in other life.

 Two other ideas that are being considered are that consciousness is merely a sort of upwelling of the probability wave of the neural energy and it's more of a consensus of that neural energy so that the one that's more radiant simply overpowers the other and at that point it becomes aware..

 Some also believe that consciousness is just a total illusion and the there is no real ghost in the machine.

CONSIDERATIONS

First want to say that I mostly or completely discount the idea that there is no ghost in the machine and there is no computing at all or consciousness because of information theory and the definition of information and life. To me this seems to be a cheap cop out of this world like saying there is no world, or all the cosmos is 100% up!

 Ideas like Integrated Information Theory IIT the second idea of the SA article seem to me to be much like the idea that we have a special place in the cosmos and that our neurons are special and only adapted to their own use and there will never be any way a machine could ever equal us no matter how humble we think we are...

 Even so much of the history of science has been a story of these ideas about special status being increased, or reduced some say to more general union with the cosmos.

Many have believed that machines could never be unified with our high level of life and so the physical and spiritual part of life could not be the same.

Is mass or energy living or dead?  If you dry a virus and put it in a jar for 20 years it won' t move or change, yet add water and it's alive!  Is it alive or dead?


In truth there is no sharp define in wine, the world is woozy at that moment!

 It's been found that in science machines can do all life can in general. It was formerly believed by many that machines could never do the things that life could do, yet one by one the machines have overpowered these limits and the final disproof that machines are distinct has seemed to be how they couldn't make copies of themselves in older beta but now with higher power printing technology machines in general can achieve all that life can.

  To me the question about how consciousness exists is also about the definition of information and about life. Some who have studied the origin of life hold that it seems improbable that the molecules of life could ever have unified together just by random mass combinations in the early time of life on Earth. The chance was calculated to be trillions to one against that the molecules of life by DNA or RNA could copy. I think this depends on the definition of what the copy machine is made of. If we say that life couldn't have formed the DNA I would think that all copying is based on no more than the method that a copying machine uses. Like the definition of information any machine made of mass and energy can copy just as an old time copying machine some may remember, can copy well.

 This is what we would expect if all mass and energy computes as they say in ideas about the foundation of information. And a vast part of the computation of this was yes about what things change, but also about what stays the same as in Noether's theorem. The simple definition of what stays the same  is much like a chemical bond found in most of the matter of the universe. So I think of copying as in life in DNA as a formation of unions by way of the molecular events. Even a molecule bound with mass is with union and with another molecule that's in essence a basic copy machine. This would be why and how life arose so early in the history of the world.

 It's become apparent to most that asking "if machines can think" a question that's been asked a lot, has had no more meaning than asking if submarines can swim.

  These are reasons that I tend to discount IIT as above so instead of the other two ideas I also replace hopefully IIT with the best of those first two ideas, the first about availability and short-term memory of the consciousness and the other about the welling up idea that creates the burst into consciousness as we know it.

I think both of these ideas have limited value and are components of consciousness even so and so I want to say how I think the brain has consciousness so that the best of both of these ideas might be of value to us.



MY MECHANISM TO EXPLAIN CONSCIOUSNESS using the brain structures I listed at the top of this post;

(Please keep in mind that the following is only a preliminary sort of draft. While it's not yet perfect I can list all the reasons why I think what is real about this is a valid enough method of looking at it to justify further consideration.)

The doorway to consciousness would seem to be above all else first the formation of new memories as in the hippocampus. This is one of the few areas in the brain where new neurons are constantly being created and in problems like depression these neurons are not being created as much.

So as we would expect if consciousness is relatively simple the foundation itself of consciousness may not be so much in the higher levels of the brain as in the base of the brain.

 New memories would form in the hippocampus as a sort of unedited form of creativity that then the rest of the brain may refine by using the short-term memory area of the brain I mentioned above the LDLPFC that has been found to be where short-term memory lives in the brain.

An area where Working memory events are is also going to have huge importance in the idea of what consciousness is and where it lives. I was surprised when I read about how GWA or the upwelling ideas were believed to be a method of computation of consciousness where the theorists were possibly unaware of research that found where the short-term memory is in the brain. This area is like the switchboard idea of operators controlling the brain, when her ear ring jingles-she answers!

  I believe GWA is not a real explanation of consciousness itself although it is in a broad outline the way it may work because certainly in unconsciousness we would say that a Working Memory area would be essential. In evolution when we were fighting the saber-tooth competition if we didn't know right away what to do in a way that was high speed without all of the whole lot of those memories that we have so much more than the rest of the other life in evolution, this would be essential to making it not more of celebration and not a burden about special memos of our unforgettable trip to the beach millions of years ago!

   So I think the hippocampus creates the new memories and then the genius of the Working Memory is that it selects from those memories and refines them sort of like an automatic level control filter use an old audio that removes all the first level of the duds. A lot of the new memories created by the hippocampus will be random and not valuable.

While recent research seems to show the hippocampus may not cause neurogenesis, no doubt consciousness would seem to need a zone where the information goes in and this may be more passive like a pixel sensor, even so this seems essential even if it's more passive.

  So much of short-term memory is just being aware of what's going on as we speak so I think the hippocampus may stream to the other Working Memory area, and consciousness is a constant interaction between the streaming from the hippocampus and also constant activity with the long term memory areas, a blend of short and long term memories, constantly being modulated encoded and enhanced by the sideways neurons of the cortex as above. And there would also be sideways branching e.g. the archival area would have a sort of "further reading" or also "recommended" method, so these memories would also hope to get the Working Memory's attention. Even so unlike with the General Work space Availability idea simply loading the memory to the Working Memory area seems no more a claim of consciousness than loading a bucket of water would be to then pump to a bunch of pipes.


While the GWA idea as I say  above I think does have general merit also, by the buckets and pipes event it's not complete. And the problem with the random upwelling idea (that consciousness is just a radiance upward of brain waves of different types and the one that wins becomes conscious) seems to be lacking also because it's not exact enough.  To me the upwelling idea would be like a fuzzy blob and not much with computation my solution would be, to right send in the boss neurons! Even so I think GWA has merit because it may be part of how the long-term memories are chosen by the Working Memory area.

  So in this idea about consciousness the hippocampus first creates the memories which are then filtered by the Working where you can't store a lot of memories so it sends them to the long-term memory areas of the brain. Here you can see how important the mediation by the boss and higher neurons would be since they take the memory from hippocampus ultimately and store it somewhere so it's not burdening the brain with too much trivia that might otherwise often be doom or gloom as we were in evolution.

  The upwelling idea seems generally of value except the boss neurons are sort of a genius and as each neuron has all the memory in the brain so the boss neurons would do something like sort of be the foundation of trained memory tricks or comedy. By this I mean I believe that consciousness may live in the Working Memory yet also live in the boss neurons and the cortex in a real sense also in the long-term storage areas of the brain. This would be by way of my observation that of course the Boss Neurons can't do all the work of the brain.

  That's why I say there needs to be refinement in both the idea of upwelling and the general work space availability idea.


  My belief is this upwelling and the selection by the Working Memory will take place by way of cycles going back and forth between the long-term memory and the selection of  the Memory to refine and edit them by way of the mediation of the boss neurons and the sideways branching of the higher levels of the brain. Even if so my boss is a genius, so I think the higher level and boss neurons are with sideways branching to add a higher level of power so it has not just a read-only memory but a random access memory.

 The sideways branching could be important both for getting more precision in ideas that one either off or on and also for the higher degrees of freedom that could be more the Hallmark of real consciousness, right send more memos at Christmas!

  A creativity test will have stuff like wines were you see if you can walk the line, well actually no they have marks on the site and you fill them in with your own memos! And the creators of these say there are two things that these ideas have to have to be considered to be the most creative by those inventors;

First the method of winning the creativity trophy has to  be as unusual as possible, second it also has to be something "real". And it solves a problem..

 As they say much serious truth is said in jest, and so too often a measure of creativity may well be the measure of consciousness. So really the only limit for a machine with consciousness in my opinion would be it's ability to have structures stored in its neurons or whatever that are functional like in creativity. If the structure has real use and is an image of something that's real and if it is also original and solves a problem to me this is another definition of consciousness.

  The boss neurons may be geniuses at mediation. By this I mean they might present to the workspace of GWA the sort of mapped out or memory method of summarizing what the long-term memories are about and as I say this genius may because of lots of cycles back and forth between the Workspace and the long-term archive memory structures of the brain. Most people will have the usual Working Memory area yet the real genius will have also ways of summarizing in that A-Z memo of the Working Memory what the essence of the access to each stored memory would be.

Another attribute of higher intelligence may be special branching and coding of our higher neurons and synapses geniuses may have more of, and while as in IIT they are indeed special to us, even so they can be copied by machines, so machines with consciousness are possible.

As I say I'll swear on my video site! Encyclopedia, Comp Video (the name derived from this site without profane words!) In my posts here also about what I call GBN General Behavioral neurology I believe that all of the brain structures are based on a simple and a complex method like that of neurons and so much else we find in computation. For example a transistor is a switch that goes from simple to complex that branches out like entropy in thermodynamics or evolution. By this idea which others have believed, genius is just common sense writ large. Noether's theorem says the more things change the more they stay the same. (This is an idea that has led to the classification of all sets in the foundations of math and much improving the physics of subatomic particles or knowledge of the symmetries by way of what changes and what stays the same. Einstein thought of Emily Noether as the greatest lady mathematician.)

My other blog page about GBN; Click Here

Here's the SA article about the two methods above that might be possible explanations of consciousness GWA and IIT; LINK


For one of my videos about GBN and pain relief click here

 About Field Line Removal and Renormalization, Why no huge Mass of the Higgs'?

  Quanta magazine has an article about the Hierarchy Problem; why is gravity so super weak and the other forces so much like each other in relative strength?

This involves the assumption of the Planck energy where the density is so strong the gravity and other forces become unified. If the Planck energy is assumed, huge gravity inside each quanta around us would implode the Higgs' in at that short radius, giving huge mass to the Higgs' and all the quanta around us.

 Here I think in terms of what I call Field Line Removal. FLR has all the forces unified, an important advantage that just assuming no connection has. People are asking, why have we assumed the Planck energy and the other quanta to be unified?  I would ask though. where is the huge gravity of the quanta around us? Yet the electron has large internal mass and charge by the assumption that renormalization is true. Renomalization was the most well proven  numerical method until the improvements with Gravity and the Nobel priize winning work about pulsars and the gravity waves. 

  And deep scattering experiments show also large internal mass for the electron.

So it's been believed that all the other quanta need a way to renormalize with supersymmetry, and each quanta we see has a partner that also would work the same as renormalization for the electron. 

But these are now totally seen to be unseen with the LHC experiments.

An alternative is as in inflation cosmology, quanta called ghosts with negative energy may have accelerated inflation, yet since this would totally upset quanta around us, the ghosts are believed to have a phase change and somehow not interact with quanta around us at all. Below a certain energy, the Higgs' lose mass and I would say they're external to the quanta.

 (Click Here for The Quantum Magazine website or see link at end of page.)

"In common calculations, first you introduce the quanta, and then the gravity, and let them blend together in hopes of viable renormalization." The newer approach involves a complete separation of gravity and the quanta; they both arrive out of nothing in independence. 

 Yet why do the forces all seem to act in such common ways. E.g. why does gravity have some conservation laws, the electric field all of gravity's conservation laws, and some more of its own and likewise for the strong force?

   Like wheels within wheels it seems like gravity needs another way to not reach the Planck energy inside each quanta so Einstein's idea of the unified field still has some basis. 

In my belief gravity as axiomatic in strength (even so once it forms quanta, the quanta are always sources of gravity, here too I believe they unify. ) This seems like a cause and effect loop, gravity is never without quanta, and vice versa. In this sense, we can't say the strength of gravity is axiomatic, rather only it's combination with the quanta. ) In any event the gravity implodes into the black hole where as a phase change at a certain density, it starts to remove the field lines and reradiate. At this point it converts to electric charges, answering Einstein's question about why the electron has the charge and mass it does..

All the mass around us would be created out of the gravity then radiated out of the jets of the supermassave fields of GRB's, black holes, and other super strong sources of gravity.
It seems that Einstein was both partially wrong and right also about the unified field. This seems like the recent heated debate about black holes and the firewall. Einstein believed in complete continuity for gravity, and the quanta seem to have definite edges. Yet if they are derived from the unified field, how can they be distinct? All around us are these types of paradoxes. Once the Field Lines remove the gravity, they contradict, and "don't know" gravity so well. Even though a direct creator controlling all the world as Carl Sagan says in his book Cosmos, a more indirect creator is still possible.

There isn't a huge outside mass and charge of the electron, because our idea of mass is mostly external. There is large mass inside the electron, but by FLR only some of the force reaches us. If we assume there is huge mass and the Higgs' are also inside the heavy quanta, by the unified field if viable there would be huge mass for each quanta. FLR allows unity of the fields, yet it also makes the forces distinct. This distinction makes it so the electric charge doesn't know the gravity inside, and this is just the conservation law that gravity doesn't have that of electric charge.And no Higgs' inside the electron  wouldn't have mass as much.

  If the gravity waves radiate in and become quanta and gravity is mostly about the Higgs' and there is no Higgs' much inside the quanta as Wilkczc won the Nobel prize for calculating the masses of the fractional charges in QCD with the Higgs' here giving just 1/5th of the mass to them, if there are no Higgs' inside the quanta much, the same might be true in quanta creation in the black hole. Gravity and the Higgs' only implode to the level of the quanta, at this level if more pressure is used, the electric field converts to the strong force, if more than the weak force to what I call superfusiion, a fifth and sixth force also to solve Einstein's singularity woes he was removing from, and so on. Einstein asked, " If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, what's an empty shelf a sign of? Right, a computer!" Thus, about science, at any rate under pressure gravity may convert to electromagnetic fields, these then convert to the strong and weak force, and more pressure yet would convert these presumably to stronger forces yet to power the jets.

Even so the Higgs may remain external to each quanta no matter the mass. Even while renormalization works, there is no superstrong Planck energy inside the electron or huge mass.  The LHC has found no particles of supersymmetry, this would be because FLR is all that gives mass to the quanta via implosion and reradiance of the gravity, and its derived events.

Gravity and the other forces have different strengths because while gravity could be anything relative to the level of the electric charge mass and charge, once the lines of field are removed, there is much more filled up by the FLR. If the electric field has 70% of the Higgs' removed, there's only 20% more for the strong and weak force to remove and operate in this space.

In this idea renormalization isn't so much subtraction of two infinities, it seems like multiplication away of one by the other. .Supersymmetry isn't needed because all the FLR is done by the forces already there. Even so it would act like renormalization, this is why renormalization has been successful; we see all these tests of supersymmetry passing with flying colors, yet where's the evidence in the LHC? If we assume QM and the Planck energy, even near radius in an empty field would be the Planck energy and huge mass. I believe like Einstein the low energy particle he hoped to resolve the Uncertainty loop (partially around the outside quantum radius, as low energy quantum experiments have shown) is the low energy Higgs' like all the mass around us. in SW Ohio! Beyond this level of the change of phase, the smaller the size, the smaller the mass of the Higgs' like mass around us so the idea of these ghosts could be of value in Quantum Mechanics.
This idea that Einstein was partially right about the low energy Higgs' may also mean that using what I call a Higgs' laser could make quantum cryptography unviable, as Einstein might have agreed. My belief is a finite energy of the quantum bubble holds up the wave function before it collapses. If the low energy Higgs' is lower than this level, the information could be extracted without collapse of the cat! Note that the mass of quanta don't change like a law of cat inertia, unless a mouse zooms by, or cat food is sensed...For this reason, unlike a super complex system of prime number codes the web is based on, the relative simplicity of a quantum system with the Higgs' in orbit may have an important conservation law of number where the Higg's can change radius and be moved in and out by the laser, even so the total number of Higgs' may remain the same, while the unique Higgs' code of each quanta may change (other than the same for entangled quanta), this may defeat quantum cryptography.

For the Quantum Magazine page, about the renormalization of the Higgs' Click Here.. 

What About THE MULTIVERSE?

  "It doesn't Make Predictions or Explain Much.."

I was skeptical of another cosmos! Right from the start!

I'm thinking, like, you know, it seems unusual! The main problem seems to be about connectivity of our cosmos with the other cosmosis, cosmosis is this like an inflammation..Right..

Connectivity... what connects our cosmos with all these others?

Sometimes it may seem e.g. like when I speak of other science, e.g. about overcrowding, it may look like mine is a political idea, but I assure you my goals are completely science based, and comedy based..

Newton said he didn't care as much for the outside world as just his time with math and physics, and I believe reducing the overcrowding peacefully by way of reducing competition for increased resources is far more worthwhile and will have far more influence of value on the world than any level of politics, which seems to be failing often, and like Edison I believe war is a tainted enterprise, and politics seems no more viable than most of our life is life is not living, but living well.

But I'm in favor of what

I know (or most of what I know!) and here I offer evidence against the multiverse.

About connectivity, I'd only heard that Tegmark was the promoter of the Multiverse idea. After I'd read that Hawking, Mercini Haughton, and others were in  promotion and that Feynmann was the original editor, up, up and more! I'm thinking, Feynmann! Cool dude. So there is some science here. Where general science goes I often follow.

.

Einstein believed in something like the Multiverse. In one of his last letters to Von Neumann, he said that time doesn't exist. So far so good, more to the point, Einstein believed that before the collapse of the wave function, all futures are possible. This seems to be the cause of the Multiverse idea.

 My original suspicion about the Multiverse, was, what connects us here in our universe with our twin in the other universe? Actually, the multiverses seem like a sort of vast way of rolling the dice, they aren't really connected, just that any possibility exists somewhere out there. Connection really seems a problem since these machines would seem to need infinite hardware to acheive all possibile events, and this would take infinite mass, and this would have infinite gravity, implosion down to 0. Were're here and not here, reductio ad absurdam, doctors could never hold hostages, who could read the ransom note?

About the collapse of the wave function, George Ellis, a physicist from England has the belief that all the possible events are selected out by the collapse of the wave function, like by gravity, the wave function automatically collapses at enough distance, like 2 yards here in our monocosmos..(while I think this idea has problems, i.e. if it's the "edge of time" going up to the Near Earth Orbit has 0 gravity, so time should stop, and e.g. since some radio waves are miles across, it would stop radio astronomy by collapsing the wave function as the wave passes by a strong source of gravity in the distance, and e.g. this would change the spectra of all the stars in ways not seen by astronomy in the lab here with common spectra. Even so I believe just jostling around the quanta would be enough combined with some gravity to give disproof of Einstein's idea about all futures being possible.)

 If this gives us the selecting out of the time that Einstein was unaware of, the events of the quantum wave before the collapse would need connection by something like electric charge ionization or changes in other quantum numbers to have influence. I believe this zone is special, it's lighter than light, so it may compute much faster than light. This is how Schrodinger's cat seem's both alive and dead. The wave function before collapse is a wave, it's non quantum. In subatomic physics Special Relativity has never been seen to be violated in even one experiment. I think of this as due to a change of phase. Make the field low enough energy, and it converts over to faster than light spin. The wave function collapses instantly, and at all points. SR holds so well because at the quantum level or higher, the plus and minus electric charges Maxwell used to predict the speed of light so well based on the forces between them are indeed now quanta. The quanta are constant, so is the speed of light.

Information theory says that information can never be created or destroyed, but higher information is created and destroyed all the time. The same foam  that was used to make your shelf is recycled to make cheeze pizza. In truth information isn't a quanta since you can't know just where the edge is, and waves themselves, like number in math are slippery and not easy to define in a fundamental whey of cheese!

 Selecting out the more amorphus events like Shrodinger's cat involves making them definite. If they aren't definite before the cat-astrophe they have no external influence..

 Thus unlike Einstein Tegmark and others, I believe the possible futures not only aren't many worlds, they have no influence in the sense of relativity, and they only can collapse to limited allowed states, conserving e.g. electric charge, lepton number, baryon number, and so on. The internal events like the EPR and the collapse of the wave function seem to be disproofs of relativity. The EPR is a weak effect, and this isn't strong enough to influence the heavier quantum events much, this is the only sense I believe in the many worlds. I believe in general  Einstein and Feynmann were both wrong. Relative to the quanta, the many worlds idea would only exist in definite, limited ways.

  Ellis was saying, if the future exists in all ways and times, you go to the future and change it, or go to the past and change it..If time is the wisest of all teachers like wealth, the cosmos seems so labor saving..

Black Hole Dynamics, and The Asymmetry of Mass and Energy

 Here I ask what powers supermassive bodies like black holes and why the jets are observed to be mostly symmetrical, and as I say on the posts that follow, the asymmetry of mass and energy may be why black holes only have 50 % of the mass predicted by the implosion of the ghost particles. Here I want to say more "in light of the shade of supermassive fields" as in the post below also, about Mercini Houghton's idea that black holes can't even exist based on her idea that due to Hawking radiation, all the mass is radiant and no black holes are even possible.

  As I say, much the observational evidence about all the mass being dragged around the centers of galaxies with darkness seen at the source (I've been framed by my luxury sweet optician!) tells us that Mercini Houghton is wrong.

   My video is about the asymmetry of mass and energy (Encyclopedia Comp video) this may be about how e.g. mass is much easier to convert to energy, and e.g. about the electron having more mass but less energy, and the positron has more energy but less mass and mass is heavy while energy is light relates to this.  Einstein makes them equivalent but relativity can't make them equal. In my idea GWD, this is why Dirac's attempt to unify relativity failed because mass and energy in relativity are completely equivalent in quantum mechanics theoretically, yet there is more matter or mass than antimatter, like energy in our world.  If the proton is more with union with the plus charge, this is why there is more mass, mass and energy are asymmetric.

   And as I say here, this would resolve why black holes weigh only about half as much as the ghost particle method of inward radiance of the supermassive fields allow. Another reason Mercini Houghton 's idea may be wrong is about my idea that gravity and inertia are distinct as I say below. Like Mach, Einstein believed gravity and inertia were essentially the same thing, so the speed of inertia may be what LIGO has recently found. Or it could be  a goof of the machine like the OPERA or BICEP2. As I say below gravity being hugely lighter than light, may move much much faster, my hopeful generalization of Maxwell's method as I say on my Physics Synopsis page see link upper left of page. Radiant Hawking reradiation at the event horizon may radiate inward because of gravity's super speed especially even just inside the event horizon where the speed might be faster than light, a speed even ghostly particles may not be able to reach.

  You may have heard of the paradox of the firewall, a zone here where there would be radiance due to the tide of the massive stretch even on the quanta by gravity. I explain this by the same contradiction around us all the time. Quanta are discontinuous, gravity seems smooth, as Einstein believed. The resolution would be by what I have called Field Line Removal. The field inside a black hole is implosive to the point where gravity creates the quanta with enough pressure to start to re radiate out, and there is no gravity or huge gravity of the electron around us here. Yet by renormalization or scattering experiments, the electron has large mass inside. It's a sort of antigravity, to lift us up against the gravity. It would flow in the spaces between the quanta, and gravity has no quantum numbers or shielding. So while all the quanta would be derived from gravity, they don't know it, and like the proverbial creator of gravity set the world in motion, the world is often unaware of what the gravity is about.

 So the fields are unified generally yet there is distinction. If gravity creates the quanta, I would hold that the reverse is possible, it could shred the ghost particles as they fall in the event horizon below a certain level of radius here. First the Hawking radiation might convert the virtual quanta to real, and then with the asymmetry of the mass and energy, the heavy positive charge falls in. Hawking believes that a large black hole can only increase in mass and I agree since this is what gravity tends to do. It has more binding energy than the radiant quanta, or we would fall off the Earth.  The event horizon would yank away the plus charge so it falls in by distinction and it being heavier a bit increases the mass.

 Once this particle falls in enough, I believe it may also be shredded to gravity waves and the firewall is also rapidly shredded with the implosion of the mass into the area of the deep event horizon. All the information isn't lost or destroyed. The higher quantum information is shredded up while the more basic momentum is conserved. Higher information is often lost e.g. a wall can be a shelf and even so its basic atoms are much the same. I believe higher information is not always conserved as in information theory, while we are alive and don't live indefinitely, some forms of life, like cities and businesses are theoretically without death. They live slow and live for ages, while our life is fast and we don't live as long..

  All this like Hawking radiation seems to follow from basic physics. Once the implosion of the field reaches the singularity I disagree with Einstein or Hawking. I agree with T'hooft that the energy isn't destroyed into infinite implosion. To save energy conservation as T'hooft says I invoke faster than light spin of a fifth and sixth force to stand counteract the implosion by the superstrong centrifugal force.

 The dynamics of the jets would use Field Line removal also to unify and polarize considerably. Here the magnetic type NS zones of the superfusion wouldn't be as much quantized much like electric charges, so by the squeezing of the force they move upward in the massive gravity.. Gravity is mostly removed inside the jets, even so some of the gravity is there moving in the opposite way and I believe this would be disproof of Relativity.


 You might wonder of Field Line removal of electrons and the superfusion method needs to be faster than light to outachieve the gravity, and if the FL removal is a sort of antigravity for both, wouldn't this mean the electron also spins at faster than light? It's interesting that Einstein rejected the Kaluza Klein method of higher dimensional spin in his belief about the unified field. It would fit the idea of FL removal if we assume indeed that the electron spins inside at faster than light, my belief is that if mass is spinning energy, if the electron has much internal mass it would also have more spin than relativity allows. Why does the muon weigh?  Relativity says nothing of the cause of rest mass, but the fractional charges of QCD are about a third reduced in electric charge compared to the electron so if they lighten up to go that much higher speed, this is the speed of Chao's experiments. Einstein may have not believed in the Kaluza Klein method for two reasons; it would be based on essentially FL removal and this won't allow a unified field mostly; and if the electron spins at faster than light inside, of course this would disprove relativity.


 As I say on the posts below, two Japanese physicists of the early 90's found that a gyroscope has weight reduced as it spins one way, the other way it weighs the same. This also would be about mass energy asymmetry since it would be also why the black holes have 50% of the mass the ghost particle method would predict.  If mass and energy are not the same then mass and weight are also distinct. So the black hole has about half the weight yet the same mass. Here too, the asymmetry of mass and energy is why the black hole gains mass yet at half the rate. With the Hawking radiation half the mass is imploded, and at the singularity, half the mass has radiance only.

  So far the evidence shows that there are the jets, and to me they seem superluminal since they must out radiate the gravity to remove outside the event horizon at the polar regions of the superstrong gravity. Evidence shows black holes to have a dynamo of electric charge, like a huge Van De Graff machine.

 All this dynamo motion would need some connection between the inside and the outside of the massive body, yet if the escape velocity is c as with LIGO, and gravity is at the speed of light and relativity is the limit, no outward information about the jets or even the gravity if it's only inward would be allowed by the speed of light.

One question Hawking might ask about is if all those particles of one charge mostly fall into the black hole, why it doesn't build up much charge and explode. This would be caused by the fifth and sixth force having more extra negative charge, and the would perhaps combine with the leftover superfusion charges powering the jets. The electromagnetic field favors the negative electric charge the strong force favors the plus charge, the proton, the weak force like electromagnetism favors negative entropy and charge so and the fifth force inside would favor positive charge by the reversal of sign between the layers of field, and the sixth force also might favor the positive entropy.

 The jets are mostly symmetric. As I earlier sought to unify gravity to e.g. other forces before I realized Field Removal would mostly be of value while not absolute as a way to allow Einstein's idea of a unified field (low energy quantum experiments show he was partially right as we would expect with partial FLR methods) I asked why if gravity is much like the other forces and they have an in out N S field we might expect to be on a South Beach diet up in Baffin Island by the N radiation outward with gravity! This seems strong evidence against a unified field. What are we left with, I hold, is with some residual quantum component of gravity, the poles of the supermassive gravity might have some distinction, because Einstein here wasn't all wrong either.

Even so I ask why was he mostly wrong about this? Because gravity isn't mostly a quantum. If gravity creates the other fields and it's a wave then waves are the foundation.  Particles have sides and don't radiate in like a gas. Einstein said it seems impossible to imagine a fundamental particle that could both  emit and absorb waves. So the jets of black holes are symmetrical because gravity is a sphere by the waves around the supermassive zone Einstein was spooked about the infinite implosion.

 If the waves wrap around and there is no beaming for gravity with the supernovas, a roughly equal number of the superfusion particles of both N and S would radiate out with the jets.


  The reason we don't sail away from the Earth's N or S is because gravity waves would be smaller than a neutron so the electromagnetic "thermodynamic" speed of light of Special Relativity would be of value here. A mass of F=ma moves slower if larger, as expected if it had some sort of surface of resistance to the external Higgs' particles, so it moves slower with the same force than the smaller mass. But the particles would have a zone of shielding like gravity if the size of a mass around us and there is no shielding. And as Einstein noted, there seems to be evidence that mass isn't electromagnetic, even with the all powerful speed of light in relativity. So I hope to save this thermodynamic influence for my science afterlife, by the idea that the bubble is the same volume as F=ma but of short enough radius to make it so when you take a + and - to make a heavy charge of mass like a meson or baryon, the mass isn't gone when you combine them to a 0  charge.

See my posts below about how the superfluidity of this field may allow solution to the problem about the Higgs' slowing all motion to stop with friction and other problems this idea of mine Modified La Sage Gravity MLSG.


As I say, the anomalous spectra of the jets tells us of new science unseen by common methods.

 The superfusion particles are the source of cosmic rays and they may be stable only with super massive force of pressure, they radiate out to the common metabolites around us. For some reason the quanta themselves don't fizzle to the level of the gravity waves. Since all forces radiate or gravitate to electromagnetism, evidence for the great influence of "thermodynamic" relativity, the stability of the electron or photon seems to relate to the tendency for the gravity to implode and the balance of the gravity with the quanta with both radiance and inward reradiance seems to me to be a deep impression of symmetry theory.

  The gravity is imbalanced mostly and the quanta are balanced charges, so gravity balances the electromagnetism, answering Einstein's question about why the electron has the charge and mass it does and why it's stable. There must be stability somewhere for us to exist. I believe the anthropic idea is silly since all the constants we are supposed to be so awed by just reaching where we are are always a balance of two opposites, and life would be at any level, all we need is balance for computation. If the constants were changed somewhat, other constants that would also be balanced by the action reaction pairs of energy conservation and Noether's theorem says nothing about the way each pair has it's aspect, merely that they balance in a cosmic center of moderation..